Yeah, that's what it's coming to, folks. If having their own news network wasn't enough, now certain people in the government want to control what we see in the movies and on TV. Sure, the FCC has been in charge of TV for years, but really the only thing they've directly governed was "decency" which is governmentspeak for sex. Now, however there is talk that rules will be changed so the FCC can govern violence on TV, too. According to [http://newstandardnews.net/content/ion/index.cfm/bulletin/6313|a February 16, 2007 article] at NewStandardNews.Net, anyway. It seems media companies don't like the idea since:
indecency policies are arbitrary and unconstitutional. Defining excessive violence could be even more complicated, as the Supreme Court decision permitting indecency regulation didn't address violence.
Isn't it funny how "decency" only covers sex but not violence? Why does American culture have such a massive blindspot for violence? Too much sex is bad, but violence is only getting regulated after years of your average cop shows depicting gore and violence so extreme that I'd think it'd be rated R were it to show up in a theatrically released movie.
That said, I do think the amount of sex and violence in our media should be handled without the government's intervention. It's a societal issue, not a legal or governmental one.
Too bad that's not what everyone in government thinks. Check out a cutting from [http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWS/701260363|an article] from WilmingtonStar.Com:
Citing the controversy surrounding the Dakota Fanning film Hounddog, the leader of the state Senate Republicans says he wants the government to review scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.
That system, said state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, would apply only to films seeking the state's lucrative filmmaker incentive, which refunds as much as 15 percent of what productions spend in North Carolina from the state treasury.
"Why should North Carolina taxpayers pay for something they find objectionable?" said Berger, who is having proposed legislation drafted.
Could question! Then perhaps you shouldn't offer the incentives in the first place. Seems pretty un-American to offer incentives to just the film makers whose work you agree with, doesn't it?
Ah, I love throwing the "un-American" accusation back in the face of conservatives. So, limit a person's freedom of speech just because you don't like what they say?
That's no big brother--that's COMMIE-ISM!
Well, it
is big brother because it tries to legislate what is socially acceptable and what isn't.
That's what big brother ultimately is, in my mind. A social construct that is formed around the citizens of a country (or state, city, town, village, or even department inside a company) the limits their behavior through extreme surveillance, social brainwashing and, ultimately, mental and/or physical torture.
We are seeing all of these things happen in our society today. Sure, not all of us are being imprisoned and tortured, but how many of us do you want that to happen to before you do something about it?
This is similar to the criticism one gets when comparing the current administration to Nazis. Sure, the comparison is a lazy choice, but the main reason for that is because it's incredibly appropriate. After all, [http://thepete.com/halliburton-to-build-us-detention-centers/|Halliburton got the contracts to build detention centers almost a year ago], should we wait until history calls them concentration camps before we act?
Big brother is already watching. He just hasn't had the posters put up yet.
Thanks for reading ThePete.Com's Big Brother Week! Please stop by often and always for more news and commentary on big brother's growth and other important news stories probably overlooked by big media.
