View Full Version : Amazed what they allow on TV now...

03-23-2004, 04:14 PM
just saw braveheart on USA, and they didnt bother to cut much out. still people getting limbs chopped off, blood flying everywhere, etc...

according to a friend, History channel shows history of porn uncut.:rolleyes:

whats the point of R rated movies when you can see them on TV reguardless of rating. dont mean to whine, but it just amazes me...

03-23-2004, 05:38 PM
i hate anti-porn-on-tv people.

03-23-2004, 05:39 PM
You are whatís wrong with our society! Lets cut and censor everything why don't we?! what next? People like you found the infamous Jackson Breast (which no one really saw) as a spring board to start butchering everything that appears on the waves - both radio and TV. If you have a problem with Braveheart and "too" much limbs, turn it off or install a v-chip in order not to watch anything over pg13 - but in the meantime STFU

03-23-2004, 05:56 PM
There is a difference between the jackson boobie and bloody limbs on the braveheart.

One was on broadcast tv, which uses publically owned airwaves and is accessible by anyone.

The other is on a mostly private network and you have to pay for.

But what is shown on TV is a reflection of how pathetic we've gotten as a society.

03-23-2004, 07:18 PM
censor this, censor that....$$$$.

(the above is an example....merely)

03-23-2004, 09:20 PM
wtf guys, you're getting me all wrong. i didnt say i was against anything, so dont assume that i am.

i was just talking about braveheart- its R for violence, etc... therefore, unless your 18, you can't buy it, rent it, go see it, almost anywhere, but you can watch it on TV for free. just doesnt make sense to me. yeah, they did cut the nudity out, but the violence is still there. get this: IM NOT COMPLAINING IM JUST STATING A FACT. axon, i love braveheart, watch it all the time. as a matter of fact, i dont care if its completely uncensored on TV. im just saying its interesting how that is.

as for the porn- same thing. i dont care. it was on at 1:00 in the morning anyway. i was just suprised. suprised doesnt mean angered. it means SUPRISED!!!!!!:rolleyes:

i know what kind of person you guys are talking about, but in no way to i intend to be one of them. the second i post an opinion here, i get $$$$ing crucified

03-23-2004, 09:38 PM
lets not attack porn, i cant take it.

03-24-2004, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by RoD
lets not attack porn, i cant take it.

You cant take porn, or people attacking porn?

03-24-2004, 07:14 AM
I have no problem with violence being shown in the wee hours of the morning. I also have no problem with pr0n being shown on cable channels.

Why? If you have cable, you have the responsibility to filter it for kids, etc. (And sometimes for yourself). Those are privately owned channels that I do not feel should be censored. Granted, maybe some of the major ones (MTV, ESPN) should at least try to keep it somewhat clean because younger kids are more likely to be watching them. But for the most part, it's the parent's responsibility to censor this stuff if they dont' want their kids to see it.

I disagree with Axon on the Janet thing. You could TOTALLY see it and it shouldn't have happened. That is broadcast TV where lots of people saw that and they don't appreciate it. Most likely they're not paying for the privelage to watch that channel, so they should expect some sort of regulation. I'm really surprised it wasn't on delay.

Ok... I'm talking in circles and not making much sense anymore so I'm going to STFU. Censorship sucks. US TV is a lot more censored than a lot of places.

03-24-2004, 07:19 AM
Legally, USA's not under any obligation to censor, since it's a cable channel. They could show everything, including the nudity, without any problems. That's how South Park got away with the episode a few years ago where they said .......... 200 times or whatever.

Janet's hoohoo was on CBS, so that's where the problem was. I was already pretty drunk by halftime; I didn't really see it.

You guys are all missing the point here, though. In American culture, any sort of grotesque violence is totally acceptable, but when you show some woman's tit, people explode in agony, because we all know the human body is a deplorable, awful, dirty thing.

.......... you, religious right.

03-24-2004, 10:13 AM
IMO, the TV, radio, games and whatever cannot be used as a "gap filer" for parenting as it used to! "No 2 hour movie, 4 min song, or video game" should change what parents should instilled in their kids, which at the very lease should be decency and fairness and an understanding that these concepts and morality in general are individually defined.

Cable or local programming, parenting is for parents not government.


03-24-2004, 10:25 AM
>>but when you show some woman's tit, people explode in agony

I totally agree with you cheez....its a freagin tit for crying out loud....what the hell is the big deal? kids all over America see female breast and much more, all over the internet and other cable channels. I was watching the halftime show, and if I was to say anything about it, is that I found their dancing, or rather grinding, worse then the tit that Iíve noticed but really didnít see Ė if you get my point. I saw the next day of course, all over the media who enlarged the picture and digitally enhanced itÖ.then I have really seen it. Think about it Ober, did you really see it during the game?? Or the next day?

I reiterate my main issue with this: the Jackson tit has been used as a launching pad (no pun intended) in order to take away our 1st amendment rights by the government...it makes me sick!

on a related note...and close to my home: http://www.suntimes.com/output/feder/cst-fin-feder23.html
it is an article about a nationally syndicated radio DJ from Chicago, Mancow, suing a guy who has continually reported him to the FCC.

03-24-2004, 10:34 AM
No, I had my full attention on the halftime show and I certainly did see it. You could see the clothing come off, and you could definately tell that her breast kinda "flopped" out of her costume. Look up the video again. And not an enhanced one. You really have to be an idiot to say that you couldn't really see it if you were watching it.

03-24-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Fountain
You cant take porn, or people attacking porn?

the attacking

03-24-2004, 12:15 PM
Next, we can censor "offensive opinions." I know the Bush administration would love to silence its critics. Imagine a television and radio landscape where only a few rehashed opinions are heard--oh, wait a minute: That's already true.

I think I've still made a point, maybe.

03-24-2004, 02:18 PM
i watched this video from ogrish . com where these chechyn rebels shot a russian in the arm, and then procedded to cut his head off. the real question is who cares about television when you have internet? that video sucked, it still haunts me, because i think it was actually real...that site is horrible


Originally posted by Govtcheez

03-25-2004, 02:55 AM
I guess censorship comes in many forms. In Germany ( and probably many parts of europe ) we have the exact opposite: nudity is used widely. Everywhere. To sell anything. I can understand a naked woman in the shower to sell shampoo, but a naked woman standing in front of a fridge selling margarine ? Come one now, I'm male, but I'm not that stupid. And thats on TV any time of the day, every day.
On the other side, on prime time TV, we get cut versions of things like Bad Boys. I mean that's Will Smith with some action scenes, that's nothing you have to cut. But oh, no, don't expose people to that drop of blood over there.

All in all I think censoring gore is better than censoring nudity, but I guess we could both use a little more balance in our censorships ;)

03-25-2004, 05:15 PM
we were discussing the janet jackson thing in class and I was on the side that said it was ridiculous to take it as far as they did. It may be inappropriate, but it's a tit! You sucked on one for the better part of a year! Get over it!