We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Television Content Regulations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rationalist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2122
Description[?]:
| We feel that there is no need for pornography (either soft or hard) on public television. Pay TV is a different realm entirely, as the consumer is specifically paying for that type of programming, and it would be difficult for children to access it if their parents did not want them too. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding sexually explicit material on broadcast television.
Old value:: Sexually explicit material is allowed, but violent or hard core pornography is banned.
Current: Sexually explicit material is allowed, but violent or hard core pornography is banned.
Proposed: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The time at which sexually explicit content may be shown on broadcast television (if allowed).
Old value:: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Current: Sexually explicit content may only be shown during hours that very few children watch. Nudity may be shown all day long.
Proposed: Sexually explicit content or nudity may only be shown during hours that very few children watch television
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:20:27, October 04, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Television Content Regulations |
| Message | Certainly i will happily support article2. Article 1 is a problem because whilst i agree with you that harcore porn is not necessary on public tv, this proposal would in fact seem to relate to ALL tv stations public or private and that of course is something which i would find very difficult to enact. |
| Date | 10:47:05, October 04, 2005 CET | From | Telemon Lutheran Party | To | Debating the Television Content Regulations |
| Message | Perhaps the RP is suggesting that sexually explicit material would only be viewed on Pay TV on certain channels, such as one or two set aside ones for that sort of thing. Of course if that is in fact wat he is suggesting, I will agree with both of these proposals. If sexually explicit material was only viewed on one or two set channels, I'm sure it would be pay-per-view, ensuring that it is not available to children under the legal age. |
| Date | 17:56:04, October 04, 2005 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Television Content Regulations |
| Message | That was the idea. Content regulations usually don't apply to specialty channels, so long as they would be legal for sale or rental (ie. no explicit rape scenes on Canadian TV) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 132 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 123 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown |