[Jack_]

In the media (TV, radio, newspapers/magazines etc). Do you agree with it? If so, to what extent should it 'protect' people and what from?

And ultimately, is it, or should it be the responsibility of a broadcaster/organisation to 'protect' its consumers or should it be the responsibility of the individual?

[_Seth]

I think there should be none, and there can be some new sophisticated automatic censoring system option put in place for Sky/Virgin/Freeview users to enable, which would automatically censor swears, and, um, recognise nudity.

That would be perfect.

[Patrick]

I think it's bollocks.

KEEP PORN FREE!

[Patrick]

[Is not sure if this is about ACTA or not]

[lostalex]

censorship is bad mmkay.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Patrick

[Is not sure if this is about ACTA or not]

More about the opinions people have about things like the watershed, OFCOM, censoring of swearing, nudity etc. And then of course potentially 'offensive' content and how free the press/media should be allowed to be.

[CharlieO]

I think it depends entirely. To an extent I think ignorance is bliss.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Jack_

More about the opinions people have about things like the watershed, OFCOM, censoring of swearing, nudity etc. And then of course potentially 'offensive' content and how free the press/media should be allowed to be.

Oh yes, I think that's fine - I mean our laws are much less strict than America which is alright for me.

I just hate one thing though, how it's okay to censor girl's vaginas on TV after watershed - but it's perfectly fine to show a man's dick on full view.

It's like how is that acceptable?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

More about the opinions people have about things like the watershed, OFCOM, censoring of swearing, nudity etc. And then of course potentially 'offensive' content and how free the press/media should be allowed to be.

I definitely think it's right to not allow things not suitable for kids before the watershed. As for potentially offensive content, I don't know, depends what it is really

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I definitely think it's right to not allow things not suitable for kids before the watershed. As for potentially offensive content, I don't know, depends what it is really

An example I guess would be content like Frankie Boyle's. Jokes which sometimes 'offend' people (which is ridiculous if you ask me).

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

An example I guess would be content like Frankie Boyle's. Jokes which sometimes 'offend' people (which is ridiculous if you ask me).

Well, I don't watch Frankie Boyle but I do think it was wrong of him to make a joke about a young childs disability. I do find those jokes distasteful in general but I think a line should be drawn when his target was a particular child, I don't think that should be allowed.

[Shaun]

It should be the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for their child. I'm sorry but every time I hear "you can't expect me to keep an eye on my child all the time!" I'm just hearing "I'm lazy".

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Shaun

It should be the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for their child. I'm sorry but every time I hear "you can't expect me to keep an eye on my child all the time!" I'm just hearing "I'm lazy".

True but I still think a watershed time should be there

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Shaun

It should be the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for their child. I'm sorry but every time I hear "you can't expect me to keep an eye on my child all the time!" I'm just hearing "I'm lazy".

This is how I see it.

If you ask me, most digital/satellite and cable services have parental controls on them, allowing you to block certain channels/types of programmes/age restricted programmes at whatever time you like, so as such, really, there's no need for any type of watershed. You just block the programmes you don't want your child to see, and, well...keep an eye on them, and the problem is solved.

I don't see why adults should be prevented from watching adult content at certain times of the day for no other reason than the supposed 'protection' of children. It's quite patronising also, that after the watershed certain restrictions are still put in place. If you don't like it, don't watch. Quite simple IMO.

[Scarlett.]

I think the way it works on TV is fine right now, it provides a "safe zone" for when parents can let their kids watch TV. Plus mild breakage of censorship is allowed sometimes, like in Coronation Street, you occasionally hear the word "bastard" despite it being 7:30pm.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Shaun

It should be the parents' responsibility to decide what's appropriate for their child. I'm sorry but every time I hear "you can't expect me to keep an eye on my child all the time!" I'm just hearing "I'm lazy".

read the honour killings thread, and maybe you'd change yur tune...sometimes maybe the parents shouldn't be soooo involved... depending on the parents...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Chewy

I think the way it works on TV is fine right now, it provides a "safe zone" for when parents can let their kids watch TV. Plus mild breakage of censorship is allowed sometimes, like in Coronation Street, you occasionally hear the word "bastard" despite it being 7:30pm.

I agree with this. I don't think it's "lazy parenting" to be able to let a 12 year old flick through the channels. You can't expect parents to go through every programme for the entire day and check if they have adult content in them, it's ridiculous tbh

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

In the media (TV, radio, newspapers/magazines etc). Do you agree with it? If so, to what extent should it 'protect' people and what from?

And ultimately, is it, or should it be the responsibility of a broadcaster/organisation to 'protect' its consumers or should it be the responsibility of the individual?

This is normal.


Whats Your Real Beef?

[CharlieO]

I completely agree with the watershed concept. Why do we need swearing anyway?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I agree with this. I don't think it's "lazy parenting" to be able to let a 12 year old flick through the channels. You can't expect parents to go through every programme for the entire day and check if they have adult content in them, it's ridiculous tbh

But you don't have to do that. On most digital, satellite and cable services there are parental control options. You can choose to restrict programmes that carry a certain age restriction, for example all programmes classified as '18' or '15'. As far as I'm aware it works in exactly the same way as film classifications do and pretty much every programme, if not all of them are given a classification, if you choose to block certain classifications then every programme that is ever on that carries that age restriction will not allow you to watch.

As well as that, you can choose to block certain channels completely, certain programmes completely, or some or all channels after certain times of the day, for example after 10pm. It is usually a one-off set up that can be easily adjusted whenever you wish. It doesn't require constant surveillance at all.

Originally Posted by arista

This is normal.


Whats Your Real Beef?

It's a question of whether people agree or disagree with the concept and implementation of it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But you don't have to do that. On most digital, satellite and cable services there are parental control options. You can choose to restrict programmes that carry a certain age restriction, for example all programmes classified as '18' or '15'. As far as I'm aware it works in exactly the same way as film classifications do and pretty much every programme, if not all of them are given a classification, if you choose to block certain classifications then every programme that is ever on that carries that age restriction will not allow you to watch.

As well as that, you can choose to block certain channels completely, certain programmes completely, or some or all channels after certain times of the day, for example after 10pm. It is usually a one-off set up that can be easily adjusted whenever you wish. It doesn't require constant surveillance at all.



It's a question of whether people agree or disagree with the concept and implementation of it.

Oh Ok, I didn't know that, would have absolutely no idea how to do it either But that sounds like a good idea. If that was there (and I managed to figure out how to use it) then I think that'd be a fair compromise.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I completely agree with the watershed concept. Why do we need swearing anyway?

***** only knows

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I completely agree with the watershed concept. Why do we need swearing anyway?

F *ck only knows

[lostalex]

My parents didn't even let me watch The Simpsons when i was a kid. (but my best friend would record it on VHS for me and i'd watch it at his house)

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

My parents didn't even let me watch The Simpsons when i was a kid. (but my best friend would record it on VHS for me and i'd watch it at his house)

Typical.