Senator pushes for expansion of "V-chip" video censorship technology
By Conrad Quilty-Harper 
posted August 4th 2007 1:01PM
posted August 4th 2007 1:01PM
The Democratic Senator for Arkansas -- Mark Pryor is his name -- wants to expand on the "V-chip" video content blocking program, and create a tracking system that could enable parents to censor content on platforms including TV, DVD, and the internet. A new bill proposed by Senator Pryor calls for the FCC to look into ways of blocking "indecent and objectionable programming, as determined by the parent" on basically all platforms capable of displaying images. As always, the devil is in the details: how exactly the FCC is going to figure out a method for precisely tracking obscenities on a "platform blind" basis remains to be seen, and the issue of classification of content is always sure to cause controversy. What politicos like Pryor always seem to miss is the fact that parental filters are already in place, albeit in messy meatspace form.
well, thats good to know
Profanity is a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute, you are fined one credit John Spartan!
Number 1187262305b Patrick Symes, We find your attitude unacceptable. Report to room 758 for re-enlightening immediately.
Why bother...nobody even uses the V-Chip now, it's just a waste of money. I think they should sell TVs with the option of a V-Chip, so if you want it, you don't have to blow the extra cash.
When Mark Pryor dies, there will be 72 V-chips waiting for him in Heaven.
STOP LYING TO KIDS and let them see what the real world is like.
Maybe it'll cut back on major depression in adolescents when they realize that adults have been feeding them a line of shit since birth to keep them in line.
The best V-chip is a parent that either says "Turn that shit off, it'll give you nightmares" or "...You, DO know the difference between this and reality, right?"
Coddled kids never know how to handle things when it all comes rushing in at adolescence. There's no V-chip for your peers. All the kids with cool parents that let them watch south park will eventually teach your kids the ways of the world. Why not teach them yourself?
ah good old usa and their censorship battle maybe this chip will eventually be used to quash free speech. maybe the cronies will have to make a internet free speech zone to mirror the country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
this is all rather ironic coming from the most brutal, warmongering nation in our world.
How about people just, you know, be a parent.
exactly
I think this is pointless to be honest. I believe by blocking such undesirable content you are in fact making that content taboo to children. Their curiosity will only be peaked and they'll just seek other ways to enjoy the very things that the V-chip is trying to block. I think this would in fact have the exact reverse effect of what they are trying to accomplish with the V-chip.
fuck the senators
The senator is actually trying to further development of the "Eric Cartman V-chip Super Saiyan Phenomenon" in order to form an elite unit to combat terrorism, at home and abroad.
censorship is a load of crap that our government seems to rediscovering. Just a little over one year before the regime, and hopefully all of their conservative BS, is gone.
Um, Josh... did you not read, "the DEMOCRATIC Senator for Arkansas." So I guess Bushie made him do it. lol
Think again moron. Most of this stuff comes from the hillary wing of the democrat party. You libs should already be waking up to what a mess this congress is. They have a far lower rating than Bush!
What I want to know is where in the Constitution it tells government that it should dictate our morality. Not just with this issue, but with abortion, sexual preference, stem cells. As far as I can tell the government shouldn't even be messing around with issues of morality, especially personal decisions.
Politics IS morality. Politics, at its very core, is one group of people telling another group of people what they can and can't do. Take abortion and stem cell research. The question isn't should we allow it. That's a common misunderstanding. The question is, when does a human qualify as such? If fetuses are human, it's clear that abortion and stem cell research is murder. If they aren't human, abortion and stem cell research is no more a crime than getting a tumor removed. I fall into the first group, but at the same time, I understand the second group (and feel sorry for them.) Animal rights is the same basic argument, only the question becomes whether we should extend "human" right to animals. It ultimately comes down to which morality system the government will enforce. Take slavery as a less controversial example. We now (correctly) agree that all humans (out of the womb) should be treated equally under the law. This is a moral choice that we have made. This moral view does, and did, exclude other people's views on morality, namely, that it is permissible for one human to own another. Racism was a large part in it, I agree, but there were black slave owners, so it was not entirely the issue with slavery. As long as a criminal justice system exists, politics and morality will always be intertwined.
As for the original topic, well, big deal. Honestly. No one uses the V-Chip, so why does it even matter whether the law goes through or not? We've always had public decency laws and the FCC has always controlled what can be shown on which channels during what time. This is no change. It just makes the V-Chip slightly less useless.
However, I'm starting to get tired of the whole "It's the parent's fault" routine. Children spend more time at school nowadays than they do with the parents. It's becoming increasingly difficult for any parent to even know what their children are doing, much less enforce household rules on them. Even if there is a stay-at-home parent, the other parent has a normal 9-to-5 job, and both parents are responsible parents. Blaming the parents for kids buying M rated games is like blaming New Orleans for Katrina. Someone at PC Magazine noted that, even if I were a responsible parent and didn't let my kids play Gears of War, how do I know that my children aren't playing Gears of War at one of their friends' houses? The Internet adds a whole new dimension to this problem, since it is easy to find a lot of stuff on the Internet that make Bill Clinton blush, and it's way too easy for kids to circumvent the Internet monitoring software that exists today. Pretty much the only way a parent can be aware of what their children are doing is to homeschool them, and that's a pretty drastic step for the entire family. Half the kids that are homeschooled aren't homeschooled for religious reason, keep in mind.
We need an off switch for Congress. This nanny state nonsense has to stop. If the parents can't do it, does anyone think the government can. What do they want, womb to the tomb, run your life.
"Politics is morality"
No, politics is primarily about power. And as Orwell wrote in 1984, "The purpose of power, is power."
The US constitution lays out the enumerated powers that may be legitimately employed by the federal government. Censorship is not among them in any specific, implied, or indirect form. The first amendment goes further and eliminates speech from suppression of any kind. Taken together, these mean that censorship is illegitimate coercion, more specifically the use of force or the threat of force to ensure compliance with the will of others without the express permission of the body politic.
Of course, we know from long, sad experience that this is the habit of our government. They invert the commerce clause, which says that they can regulate INTERstate commerce, and claim that they can regulate INTRAstate commerce because intrastate commerce "could be" interstate commerce. They repress speech; they interfere with the rights to keep and bear arms; they create ex post facto laws; secret, non-judicial no fly lists and no buy lists; they assume powers not delegated to them; they hold prisoners without representation or speedy trial or even a hearing; they torture and they commit "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping)... and in no case do they obtain the power to pursue any of this via the one legitimate path open to them, that is, amendment of the constitution in accordance with their oaths, but instead, they do it by fiat, which - as far as I am concerned - makes them criminals. High crimes, as the constitution puts it.
As for the remarks about this being a "Democratic" repression... think harder. Democratic, yes, but the democrats are just like the republicans. Doubt it? Well, we elected a democratic congress because we were dead tired of the war in Iraq, the "patriot" act abuses of our liberties, the illegal wiretapping, the scandals... and what did we get? More war on Iraq. More wiretapping. Not even a hint of censure of the president and/or the vice president, much less the impeachments a huge portion of the citizens are looking for.
This isn't a democratic problem. This is a *political* problem. If people have any wits at all (about which I can sincerely say I see little evidence of) they'll elect Ron Paul or someone like him and begin to try to force this country back in line with the principles it was founded upon. If we don't, it'll be pork in, liberties out while we endure same legislation, different day.
I consider myself a patriot. A very depressed and disheartened patriot.
I know I'm late on this one, but I had to say something. Are any of you other commenters parents? I have a one-year-old, and I don't want her seeing a lot of sex, violence, or swearing on TV (though she makes us mad enough to swear at least a hundred times a day...). Right now, she's young enough that I can accomplish my goal easily -- I catch Mister Rogers on my DVR every day, and if she wants to watch TV, I put on an episode or three. Solved. But wait a few years, when she discovers that there's other shows out there to watch -- as her dad, I want to have a hand in choosing what she sees and hears through her formative years, and if the TV can help with that through voluntary (!!!) rating systems, great. I'm not going to tell her she can't watch GI Joe (or whatever the kids have these days -- am I dating myself here?) because it's "violent", but I don't want her seeing Die Hard on TNT or South Park or whatever, especially when she's old enough to understand what the bad words mean. I don't think you need to baby your kids till they're 20, but can't I baby her till she's three or four or five?
Remember, none of these laws *require* parents to use the V-Chip, or even mandate that they default to block "bad" content -- it's a strictly voluntary system for getting information to the consumer, and more information is never a bad thing.