Should state or organisations decide what we watch? - TopTV board

Is the ICASA vs. TopTV Playboy TV matter a principle issue?

  • Yes, it is a matter of principle

    Votes: 63 73.3%
  • No, it's really just about porn

    Votes: 23 26.7%

  • Total voters
    86

Keeper

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
23,588
Oh dear, I heard the school system was bad, but I had no idea it was this bad. Your response implies, at the very least, a massive comprehension failure. Might be some irony recognition issues in the right planar modulator as well.
well at least somebody noticed the irony in wily agreeing with me :eek:

trains do suck though... :D
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,279
Well I beg your pardon, but I don’t think they consulted me or anyone I know, even vaguely. The Apostolic Faith Mission? The Family Policy Institute? The SA Muslims Network? Who are these people and why are they making decisions on my behalf about what I can and cannot see on my television in the privacy of my own home? How dare these people have the temerity to act like an authoritarian censor and determine, from an unqualified position what is appropriate viewing for free adults in a liberal democracy? It makes the debate about the Protection of Information Bill seem positively lowbrow.
http://www.garethcliff.com/blog/?p=222

Looks like Gareth Cliff is weighing in on this too. Nice to see he's on the same page as the rest of us :)
 

Durandal

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
1,232
The options are a bit suggestive, but I think it's about whether the people who are for porn on TV mean it for the sake of the porn (wanting to have it available) or not caring about the actual porn but the idea that the state can decide against it (and other things then).

Does that even make sense?
:wtf: So if we choose both, we're still okay? One means you just want porn (okay, cool). The other means you don't want State (read Religious) interference with regards what you may or may not watch (also cool)? :confused: Bliksem, it's as clear as mud. Someone tell the poll creator to make it a tad clearer next time.
 

Durandal

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
1,232
I would like to see what ICASA say. It might be a perfectly reasonable excuse:

1) To actually protect TopTV, because who in their right might will buy porn package when you can it it on the interweb?
2) To stimulate faster roll-out of broadband, they don't want the number one application be made less attractive with broadcasting competition.
3) The Hotel industry lobbied against that.
4) The CEO of ICASA has a personal grudge against Kleenex.
5) The CEO of ICASA believes the service is too expensive and they will only accept it if there are free broadcast slots for less privileged people.

It might not have anything to do with freedom of speech at all!
Funnily enough I was listening to Highveld on Saturday morning, and comment was made by whatever person replying to the reporter's query, that it had largely been done as they felt it was exploitation of women. But I'll be fascinated to hear the final reason/s. I've no intention of ever getting the channels, but I do hope there's ground for Top TV to ground ICASA into little bits, because their set-up for the channels was certainly far more secure than the Internet can ever be.
 

evilstebunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
19,418
Gareth Cliff put it nicely.

Instead they will wail about the prevalence of sexual imagery and foul pornography all around their precious children. Let us not forget how these children came to be. Their parents ****ed them into existence, using methods not unlike those in the porn films they so loathe.
:wtf: :D
 

Lycanthrope

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
13,279
Funnily enough I was listening to Highveld on Saturday morning, and comment was made by whatever person replying to the reporter's query, that it had largely been done as they felt it was exploitation of women. But I'll be fascinated to hear the final reason/s. I've no intention of ever getting the channels, but I do hope there's ground for Top TV to ground ICASA into little bits, because their set-up for the channels was certainly far more secure than the Internet can ever be.
I hate that line of argument. How is a woman performing sexual acts either solo or with an on-screen partner (male or female), who is being paid more for half-an-hour's work than most people make in a month, out of her own free will, being exploited? If anything, pornography exploits the desires of the person watching, who pays for it; not the people being filmed/photographed in it.

The idea that only women are somehow victims of pornography is a joke. How many men who identify themselves as straight star in gay porn (read: gay for pay)? Surely it can be argued that they are being exploited as well?

There are a number of documentaries about the lives of pornstars. You'll find that many women are in fact quite happy with the profession and choose it willingly, whereas many down-on-their-luck straight guys who participate in gay porn find it more difficult to come to terms with. And even then they say, "It's just a job."

The biggest argument out there that feminists and religious folk have that would actually make sense, is the impact of pornography on society, read: the opinion that holds that the portrayal of people being subjected to degrading or dehumanising sexual treatment results in harm to women and therefore to society.

And to that I argue that the problem isn't with "degrading or dehumanising sexual treatment" but with the PERCEPTION conservative folk have about that kind of sex.

Have you never wanted to spank your significant other, or call them dirty names or enjoy some kind of bizarre fetish with them? People like all kinds of different things and, I can guarantee you, everyone likes something a little "weird." What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

Some people like dirty sex, some couples like "wife-swapping" or threesomes, foursomes or even group sex. This, contrary to popular conservative belief, is often done responsibly and completely consensually. By people with good jobs, wonderful, committed relationships but just like a bit of fun once in a while.

Where is the harm? What is degrading or dehumanising about something people enjoy? Is porn to blame, or would people do this with or without porn? Figure it out for yourselves.

But the arguments against porn remain inherently fear-based instead of rational. And "morality?" If what two (or more) people do is consensual, responsible and harms no-one (except possibly themselves, eh, eh? :p) then what does "morality" have to do with anything? "Morality" is simply the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument.

Gareth Cliff put it nicely.



:wtf: :D
Woohoo! Someone actually read it! Thank you :)
 
Top