"Family Friendly"

[GeneralLee]

Family friendly doesn't just mean that you have to be aware of potential children reading the messages. Some grown-ups are "family men" or "family women" and don't like to read offensive materials themselves. So then... family friendly means more than "child proof" but what would be generally considered family values (adult and child alike).

 

Right, EXACTLY!

 

 

And, would you not agree that since all of us are different, and see things differently, that this right there, confounds and confuses the issue a great deal between us all?

 

So, where and how do you draw the lines? What and who's examples do we use? Yours? Mine? Others? How about using;

 

The Moral Majority? The Fundmental Christians? The highly conservative Rebublicans? The Krishnites? The devout Mormons? The aethiests? The Democrats? The Jehovah witnessess? The agnostics....

 

Your point of view on this?

 

I could go on and on.....

 

Thus the meaning of this thread.

 

 

[S0V13T]

I'm not exactelly sure how censorship, and family values all that is like in the states, or from where ever you (You, meaning any individual that reads these words).

 

In my life experience, my parents were both very very open about sex with me and my brothers. Both about the willingness to teach us the facts about it, how to stay safe, AND they were also very open (And down right hilarious) with jokes, and lewd commentery / behaviour, you know, general "bar room" kind of talking. That kind of stuff was fine in my household growing up, as long as it was a) Funny and b) Respectful.

 

It is my opinion men and women can talk about sexual things, and throw in the odd friendly put down, and it shouldn't put others in "Red Alert".

 

On to swearing now, same general idea as the inuendo sex talk, really.I don;t see a problem with peppering speech with the odd curse word, as long as it's relevent, and not over used.

 

Penn and Teller on their programme "Bull$shit" brought up an interesting point about this kind of thing, when they did an episode dedicated to swearing, something along the lines of "Americans have the right to read, write and say whatever they want, but at the same time they are under the impression that they also have the right to NEVER be offended, by what someone else says."

 

Well the freedom of speech is a great thing, but you just can't have it both ways. Either people are free to express themselves in whatever way, using whatever words they want, or they are not. The whole concept of Family Values, and keeping things Family Friendly is a force working for the "or they are not" side.

 

 

[gjnave]

Bottom line: This forum is run by moderators and is ran for a purpose (whatever that may be). For the forum to succeed in it's purpose the moderators must decide how many people they need for it to be successful. Then they can base a decision about moderating the forum on how it will effect the numbers. So, if they want to allow any type of discussion then perhaps they will lose some people; but perhaps it doesn't matter to their success plan. But then again, maybe they need a larger number of people to participate in the community and so must concede some standards. It's basically the law of economics... striking a balance. Same as any business.

 

So in short... niteShdw... what's important to you and how are you best going to acheive it?

 

I can't speak for NiteShdw - just for myself. It's not a numbers game. I'm interested in a group that interacts successfully, where science, science fiction, futurism, and sci fi TV/movies can be intelligently discussed. Quality, not quantity.

[GorunNova]

Excuse me... economics make me nauseous... -_-' I totally agree, though.

 

OOh... my poor stomach...

[gjnave]

Well the freedom of speech is a great thing, but you just can't have it both ways. Either people are free to express themselves in whatever way, using whatever words they want, or they are not. The whole concept of Family Values, and keeping things Family Friendly is a force working for the "or they are not" side.

 

You cannot deny that you have the freedom of speech. Right now you can say whatever you want about anyone and anything and not get arrested (which is not true in some countries in the world). However, the issue is not about freedom of speech, but the right to walk into a public arena and say anything you want. Two different concepts. One, is your right as an individual to think whatever you want and express that. The second is your right to then place that in an arena where anyone and everyone can (and most likely will) run across it. In short, you have the right of speech, but not the right of venue.

 

For example, no one has a God given right to speak on TV. It's a privilege given by the government and the people who own the stations. If this was not so, then everybody in the world should be able to sue claiming their right to speak on TV (however the stations say who they will broadcast and who they wont). If a tv station wants to allow someone to speak something controversial or not then that's their call. And inevitably they make a business decision based on what their customers want to hear. They aren't saying that someone can't think or say what they want to... just not on their station.

 

This forum is the same way. What's important to the person who owns it? And he can make any decision he want's without disrupting freedom of speech: no-ones going to jail.

 

As for family values, i think that all they are talking about is, not making people think the way the do, but that some stuff does not belong in the public arena where anyone can see it. Let it be in it's own area where people who want to can see it, and those who don't, can avoid it.

[GorunNova]

For example, no one has a God given right to speak on TV. It's a privilege given by the government and the people who own the stations.

 

And that is why US network news is as useless as a nerfâ„¢ hammer. The networks use their ability to dispense venue to mute any news that could affect 1) subsidiary companies of the network company, 2) companies to which the network is subsidiary, 3) the political party that gives the network tax cuts, 4) companies that could decide to sue the network even groundlessly, 5) the companies that advertise on the network's mediums, and 6) the network itself.

 

i.e. Network news is nerfed bad, and with the mergers etc. of network stations and their parent/child companies, it's nerfed -really- bad, and often in other mediums than TV. (i.e. -papers-)

 

Edit: Anyways... to get back on topic, I agree with ya. You may be free to speak, but you only are free to transmit speech if the moderators let you... and these moderators are obviously very interested in free speech, and that is why they ask us these things ^^

[gjnave]

For example, no one has a God given right to speak on TV. It's a privilege given by the government and the people who own the stations.

 

And that is why US network news is as useless as a nerfâ„¢ hammer. The networks use their ability to dispense venue to mute any news that could affect 1) subsidiary companies of the network company, 2) companies to which the network is subsidiary, 3) the political party that gives the network tax cuts, 4) companies that could decide to sue the network even groundlessly, 5) the companies that advertise on the network's mediums, and 6) the network itself.

 

i.e. Network news is nerfed bad, and with the mergers etc. of network stations and their parent/child companies, it's nerfed -really- bad, and often in other mediums than TV. (i.e. -papers-)

 

sure... but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with them using their position of influence poorly.

[GorunNova]

Actually, it demonstrates how conventional freedom of speech is an out of date concept, and must be updated. Mere speech doesn't go anywhere anymore... so people are de-facto incapable of free 'speech', as in free expression. Expression is completely controlled, and therefore the only 'speech' heard is by those that control the mediums of communication. Free speech is useless if you can't be heard... and that is the problem.

 

Anyways... The "Family Friendly" issue here isn't a matter of blocking speech... but filtering certain parts of speech that can easily be expressed in less obnoxious or crude ways to protect young 'uns sensitive ears. ^^ 'Freedom of Speech' isn't damaged by this... you're free to choose a more acceptable format, but the content, for the most part, isn't going to be bothered. You can just as easily discuss something without swears or crude stuff as you can with them.

 

Edit: The only freedom of speech blocked here is the freedom to talk about the guy / girl you just boinked last night in graphic detail, and other such things that most people wouldn't really want to hear about anyways ^^'

[gjnave]

I can't believe that expression is controlled... is someone controlling you right now? The problem is that not everyone can get to all the people all the time. But that's not an inherent right. At any rate, the world we live in allows for us to vote and be heard that way... maybe not the best, but the best we got. There is no place in the world (or way in the world) that every person alive can speak to all the people... that's why we elect representatives (at least in this country).

Lastly, you stated "Free speech is uselss if you can't be heard" however, the idea of freedom of speech is not about being heard, but about not getting arrested when you are.

 

However,... I agree with your analysis of the family friendly topic. :D

[vyper]

I'll take door number three Monty. I've met some pretty f*cked up families in my time.

[elderbear]

I'm against any concept of official family friendly guidelines for the forum, and limiting what people do and say based on that.

 

We have foul language editors active. Content should allow for adult discussion. It's the Net. It's up to adults to police their children, not me to police myself. I'm not going to openly and actively discuss things, with intent, that children perhaps shouldn't see, but the fact that I couldn't, if I wanted to, is a limiting concept.

 

Hey, isn't this a funny/ironic one!?!? The forum where users are constantly complaining about Bush's limits on freedom is going to limit it!!!!!

 

Must. Not. Laugh. Maniacally!!!!!!!!!!

 

This doesn't represent any new limits - simply a discussion of what the ones we have mean to us - GeneralLee had suggested to me that there was probably a wide diversity of opinions. Neither of us wanted to be limited to the lowest common denominator - or have this become a place where anything that might offend "somebody" was censored.

 

Hence a discussion. (As well as one on how to say "F.U.C.K." on the board.)

[GorunNova]

Federated Union of Chicken Keepers? O.o... what do THEY have to do with this discussion?

[elderbear]

For example, no one has a God given right to speak on TV. It's a privilege given by the government and the people who own the stations.

 

And that is why US network news is as useless as a nerfâ„¢ hammer. The networks use their ability to dispense venue to mute any news that could affect 1) subsidiary companies of the network company, 2) companies to which the network is subsidiary, 3) the political party that gives the network tax cuts, 4) companies that could decide to sue the network even groundlessly, 5) the companies that advertise on the network's mediums, and 6) the network itself.

 

i.e. Network news is nerfed bad, and with the mergers etc. of network stations and their parent/child companies, it's nerfed -really- bad, and often in other mediums than TV. (i.e. -papers-)

 

sure... but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with them using their position of influence poorly.

 

Get the parts and open a pirate UHF TV station. See how long it is until the Federales come bashing your door in and confiscating your equipment. The people's airwaves have been federalized and sold off to the highest bidder.

 

This is roughly the equivalent of saying "Yes, we have free speech, but only the town crier can speak in the town square" a hundred or so years ago.

 

EDIT: Speech on the airwaves has been considered "interstate commerce" and controlled by the government by giving special rights to certain corporate interests allowing them to control access to the airwaves.

 

The VENUE that was BY RIGHT mine has been given to ANOTHER so that the OTHER can MAKE MONEY exercising freedom of EXPRESSION while denying me MY USE OF THAT SAME VENUE. That really makes me feel like a fly in the urinal.

[gjnave]

elderbear: how are you going to have airwaves where over 5 billion people are allowed to use the same airwaves... whenever the want... however they want? And who's going to settle disputes between 1000 people who want to speak on a particular station at an exact time (not to mention be "fair") --- what if they want to speak on YOUR station?

 

Edit: -- there is no 100% philosphical fairness of venue

[gjnave]

That really makes me feel like a fly in the urinal.

 

yes... but it doesn't mean you dont have freedom of speech

[coolcat13]

freedom of speech is an illusion . look at the last US election where two of the third party candidates were put in jail for disrupting a debate that they were not allowed to attend .The powers that be are in charge and we are but humbled slaves

[gjnave]

freedom of speech is an illusion . look at the last US election where two of the third party candidates were put in jail for disrupting a debate that they were not allowed to attend .The powers that be are in charge and we are but humbled slaves

 

You know what... i think that Im going to go downtown, find a venue, enter it without invitation or payment, and demand to speak. If they arrest me it will prove that I have no freedom of speech.

AND THEN... when the oppressive system arrests me and takes me to court... im going to stand up, out of turn of course, and began to tell the judge what i think. And if he threatens to slaps me with contempt of court, it will be further proof that I have no real freedom.

Lastly, when i finally get out of court, Im going to take my car BACK downtown, park it in the middle of the road (blocking all traffic of course), stand on it, and began to speak. I'll probably get arrested again however, which once again will be trampling my freedom of speech.

 

Bottom line: people dont want freedom of speech. They want a society with no rules. Which isn't society, it's chaos.

 

EDIT: If I came off as rude forgive me. At any rate I forgot... i come here for the Star Trek

[str82u]

C'mon, you know when people areout of hand. Family friendly is fine, but we are adults and if I make reference to a winky, I shouldn't think that a bag is going to be pulled over my head and concrete flippers fitted for swimming.

 

Wow, that was a lot for that sentence...

 

All I'm saying is that anarchy is not good, but the implied democracy has worked so far,; and yes, this is Nite's board and if we are all responsible then what's to fear. Besides, I haven't the time to type too many curse words.

 

Although I do think mods should be in place to pay attention to a situation where some kid may come in and let some crap rip, but since we are private???then it's not an issue is it?

 

And I haven't invited anyone? Hell, I don't want people at my house much, but here is my sanctuary.

[Guest c4evap]

Although I do think mods should be in place to pay attention to a situation where some kid may come in and let some crap rip' date=' but since we are private???then it's not an issue is it? [/quote']

 

Well...we are private now so that should rule out kiddies reading the posts...

 

Anyway, I'm more concerned with "personal attacks". We're all familar with those I'm sure... ;)

 

c4 B)

[str82u]

I'm against any concept of official family friendly guidelines for the forum, and limiting what people do and say based on that.

 

We have foul language editors active. Content should allow for adult discussion. It's the Net. It's up to adults to police their children, not me to police myself. I'm not going to openly and actively discuss things, with intent, that children perhaps shouldn't see, but the fact that I couldn't, if I wanted to, is a limiting concept.

 

And This Too