ALot of parents dont watch what there children are watching there is alot of money out for stuff like the V chip which is found in most tv's cable boxes and I belive is a addon for Satilight. The problem is parents are to lazy to spend the 10 min to program it. So i think this is kind of good. But the same thing could be aclomplished for 1/2 the price buy just spending mone money for prime time adds on educating parents on the V chip / similar programs.
I should think it would be up to the parents to monitor what thier children are watching. I am no lover of censorship, but there are certainly programs out there that I won't let my 6 year old daughter watch....and I believe I am right in keeping her from those programs.
She, at her age, doesn't need to see exssesive (SP?) violence or sex on TV, or in the movies for that matter.
This is just my opinion, but I think she would be better off without it.
I see those as valid opinions, wumingsden. In general, I agree that children, today, learn too much violence on tv. However, the important question for this thread is:
Who is going to make the decision about what kids may not watch:
(1) a monopolistic government, thus thwarting the free market or
(2) the individuals concerned, within the free market?
If we (the collective) give government the responsibility and power to decide what people can watch, then we are putting ourselves into an anti-choice trap. Once we’re in a trap, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to get out.
When a monopoly is given such power, it could be used to censor everything that doesn’t fit the government agenda, while forcing every station to carry government propaganda. This scenario is not far-fetched; it’s been done often and is being done in many countries. (Whether our countries do that is difficult for us to know for sure. It’s hard to trust stations that are already licensed and controlled by government.)
It would seem that the technology available to oversee what one’s children can watch could be used effectively to prevent most major problems, at least while they are young.
~~~~~~~~~~
But let’s look it this in yet another way.
When it comes to children (or anybody) wanting to watch things that are provocative, exciting, weird, different, non-politically-correct, illegal, violent, etc., they will likely watch (or do) what they want one way or another. Guidance can be given and unwise choices made difficult, but when people get determined, there is little chance of stopping them.
Consider the scenario (based on real life, by the way) where a group of children (mostly boys) is raised by pacifist parents who don’t let them play “guns”, “cowboys & indians”, “cops & robbers”, “war games”, or anything else based on violence. The kids feel deprived because they are “missing out” on a lot of fun that their friends enjoy. So, whenever the pacifist parents aren’t looking, any stick becomes a “gun” -- and “cowboys & indians”, “cops & robbers”, and “war games” become their secret favorite pursuit. These kids concentrate more on violence than their counterparts who are raised being allowed to watch westerns, cop shows, professional wrestling, horror flicks, and war movies until they are sick of them.
It is true that what one thinks about shapes his or her character. But, sometimes it is what is forbidden that one thinks about the most.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, the bottom line is that nobody has all the answers as to what will or won’t work in raising children correctly. There are a lot of theories, and there have been a lot of studies, but there are a lot of children, each with a different personality and different ways of responding to stimuli.
It is understandable that parents would like to give some of the responsibility to an almighty and all-knowing power. But, God doesn’t provide broadcasting regulation and government is prone to political persuasion, corruption, over-reaction, and letting the (feeble-minded) majority (or the politicians they elect) decide everything. Most likely, the government solution (regulations) will be wrong for more people than it is right for.
The friend of mine that was murdered was a female.
In my opinion TV influences violence but only to a certain degree. There are obviously other factors like the basic up-bringing/the environment that they were brought up in. This is of course usually the parents fault. Or the characteristics of the specified individual where blame can only be on themselves.
However, its stupid to blame just one factor - in my friends case there was a number. She was a 15 year old and like what all other teens like. She went to the local fair with a group of friends and on the way back at night she was shot at numerous times and was hit once. This was late at night, too late in my opinion. However much it hurts me to say it her mother and father were also to blame. She simply shouldn't have been allowed to stay out at midnight especially in the area where she was.
I think like the watershed here in the UK should be strict. Currently the watershed restricts swearing, sex, and violence (and probably other things - I currently cannot think straight) until 9pm. However, this is usually bypassed without any consequences. In the night-time shows (like soaps) before the 9pm watershed there's usually some kind of restriction bypassed. It is the Governements fault for not being enpowering enough. Parents can also be blamed for now watching what there children are doing.
- - - I'll edit this posts a little later.
Well, some people probably have illegal cable, whereas you can't obtain illegal health insurance. Just my little crazy theory.
I'll let my kids watch violent programming at around 10, as long as they can understand and comprehend that it is very wrong to do it in real life. I'm not talking about things like the I shouldn't be alive or Sometimes they just come back again, which seems to be very graphic, but more like, say Star Trek, MXC, Doctor Who and some parts Monty Python's Flying Circus(I don't like the nudity of some of the episodes, so I only watch sketches I approve with them).
I find the news to have more disturbing pictures(Al Zarqawi's body) than in many fictional shows.
The other day I decided to see whether anything good was on. This was around 4pm. I came across an advert for some new car (forgot which make) and it showed an helicopter chasing after the car trying to blow it up by shooting guns at it. My point is is that there is no need for an advert to show this, it just increases the thinking that guns and any other kind of violence is "cool" 
