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: Sex and TV
Details
Submitted by[?]: Libertad y Justicia
Status[?]: defeated
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: July 2182
Description[?]:
| To reach a common ground between freedom and decency/our children. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The time at which sexually explicit content may be shown on broadcast television (if allowed).
Old value:: Sexually explicit content may be shown all day long.
Current: Sexually explicit content 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 | 00:53:16, February 04, 2006 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | Common decency? Bah! When someone can walk down the street and watch people having sex in public, TV has little "damage" left to do. The least sexually violent societies are the most sexually open. A lack of censorship laws is a crucial part of this. What about common decency as far as violence goes? Where are the laws stopping children from seeing people being disembowelled on TV? |
| Date | 06:17:53, February 04, 2006 CET | From | Baltusian Pantian Alliance | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | The goal here is to create a soceity without uncomfortable feelings about sex becoming more natural about ourselves instead of an uptight insecure society. |
| Date | 05:55:30, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Libertad y Justicia | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | "Common decency? Bah! When someone can walk down the street and watch people having sex in public, TV has little "damage" left to do." Straw man, LLP. We are discussing sex and television, not sex on the streets. Those issues can/will be brought forth in the future. "The least sexually violent societies are the most sexually open. A lack of censorship laws is a crucial part of this." You are right. At the same time, you can go to the opposite extreme. History has proven that when society elevates sex to the point of "anyone, anywhere, anytime" (or stripping value from sex), society becomes a filthy, crazed, opulent, lazy, and immoral. "What about common decency as far as violence goes? Where are the laws stopping children from seeing people being disembowelled on TV?" Once again, straw man. This issue can be discussed elsewhere. "The goal here is to create a soceity without uncomfortable feelings about sex becoming more natural about ourselves instead of an uptight insecure society." I agree. That's why I didn't propose to ban it from TV totally. |
| Date | 09:58:55, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | *Accepts strawman accusations* "History has proven that when society elevates sex to the point of "anyone, anywhere, anytime" (or stripping value from sex), society becomes a filthy, crazed, opulent, lazy, and immoral." Filthy: What basis does this have in reality? Does personal hygiene of a society somehow decline with an sexually open society? Opulent: Isn't an opulent society what we strive for? Crazed: Again, what basis does this have in reality? Do we somehow become mentally imbalanced when we get laid more often? Immoral: Any morality is subjective and has no basis in rationality. Your words are inflammatory nonsense. ---------------------------------------------------- By hiding sex from society, you give it a slightly lessened taboo value. Statistics show that a society who censors its populace will have a higher sexual crime rate than a society who does not. One only has to look at the sharp decline in the rate of sexual violence in Baltusia after we removed censorship again (OOC: RW Denmark is an example of this point). To propose sexual censorship is to de facto endorse sexual assault. Furthermore, what gives you the right to decide what is and isn't common decency? Since when are the Lib Jus the lords and masters of the morality of Baltusia? There is no such thing as a right to not be offended and, quite frankly, any person who is offended by sex, the most natural activity undertaken by people, is an idiot. |
| Date | 17:09:12, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Libertad y Justicia | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | "Filthy: What basis does this have in reality? Does personal hygiene of a society somehow decline with an sexually open society?" If you mean, by STD's...then yes. If you mean by the spread of AIDS...then yes. But that is not what I was driving at. I had more in mind the trash of prostitutes on street corners, sex shops across from schools, etc. That is filthy. All that accompanies this lifestyle is disease, crime, alcoholism, and drugs. "Opulent: Isn't an opulent society what we strive for?" It's not bad to have money. I am, afterall, a Capitalist. But there is a difference between having money and using it in moderation (especially giving back to society), and having money and wasting it on 150,000 square foot homes, orgies, lavish banquets where half the food goes to waste, etc. Open sexuality leads to decadence, which tampers with the moral fiber of an individual. Decandence has always, and will always be, the path to ruin and decline. "Crazed: Again, what basis does this have in reality? Do we somehow become mentally imbalanced when we get laid more often?" People can be sex-crazed, yes. Where will this rampant sexuality lead? Child pornography? Bestiality in public? Massive orgies? Masturbation at work? You tell me where the line ends. "Immoral: Any morality is subjective and has no basis in rationality." Following this logic, nothing is everything and it doesn't matter anyway. The people of this nation have a rich history, one full of old values and morals (even our atheists/agnostics). We need to follow our people. "To propose sexual censorship is to de facto endorse sexual assault." If I were banning it, yes. The only difference between the old law and the new law is the time at which sexual material is shown. Are you saying that, because adults (the majority of people who will watch this) watch it when they are off work, at home, finished with the day, at night...they will become criminals? "Furthermore, what gives you the right to decide what is and isn't common decency? Since when are the Lib Jus the lords and masters of the morality of Baltusia?" I merely represent the people that vote for me. I claim no lordship except the lordship of the people. Since when have the LibLib's denied the people? |
| Date | 18:53:45, February 07, 2006 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | We, the ISP, have made a turnaround. Why? Well, previously we were FOR sexual censorship (In public as wel, for that matter). But now, the country has been liberal for so long on this matter that the harm done is minimal. Also, what channel would ACTUALLY show sexual content all day, and get good ratings? Only pornography channels, and I'd challenge the most devient individual to not get bored through 24 hours of that. Voted down. |
| Date | 03:51:57, February 08, 2006 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Sex and TV |
| Message | That's very true, ISP. "If you mean, by STD's...then yes. If you mean by the spread of AIDS...then yes." But contraceptives and pharmaceuticals are freely available to prevent this very thing. "I had more in mind the trash of prostitutes on street corners, sex shops across from schools, etc. That is filthy." Prostitutes need not be streetwalkers. Kids have to learn about sex so that they can undertake it safely, so where's the harm in exposing them to it? It is all your opinion. "All that accompanies this lifestyle is disease, crime, alcoholism, and drugs." Can you prove that or are you just seeing two things together, like previously prohibited, underground activites of drug use and prostitution, and assigning casuality? "It's not bad to have money. I am, afterall, a Capitalist. But there is a difference between having money and using it in moderation (especially giving back to society), and having money and wasting it on 150,000 square foot homes, orgies, lavish banquets where half the food goes to waste, etc. " Isn't the decison for the holder of capital to decide what he or she does with it? Isn't that the central tenet of capitalism? Taxation is also a central method of preventing this from happening. "Open sexuality leads to decadence, which tampers with the moral fiber of an individual." Unproven and even if it is, so what? "Decandence has always, and will always be, the path to ruin and decline." Again, you are assigning casuality where no link necessarily exists. In Baltusia it is true that decadence (more specifically, kleptocrats) ruined the Acciaris but being bastards, despite the opulence of their surroundings, ruined the Napolis. "People can be sex-crazed, yes. Where will this rampant sexuality lead? Child pornography? Bestiality in public? Massive orgies? Masturbation at work? You tell me where the line ends." Slippery slopes are illogical as there is no evidence that Baltusians will slide further down the slope. There is no indication that the sexuality spectrum will shift in its entirety to the weirder end. *Child pornography is and will always remain illegal. It is an infringement on the special rights a child has. *Bestiality...well, that's up to the property owner. *If you don't like massive orgies, then you should stop associating with them. *Whether masturbation at work occurs is up to the property owner. "Following this logic, nothing is everything and it doesn't matter anyway." On the contrary, you misunderstand. You can be moral but it is subjective and not rational. It therefore has no place within the legislature and law. If you have disagree with where society is heading, pressure society to change, not the government to enforce change. "The people of this nation have a rich history, one full of old values and morals (even our atheists/agnostics)." Does the Tejana Ban ring any bells? "If I were banning it, yes. The only difference between the old law and the new law is the time at which sexual material is shown. Are you saying that, because adults (the majority of people who will watch this) watch it when they are off work, at home, finished with the day, at night...they will become criminals?" You are increasing the taboo surrounding sex, which has been shown to increase the rates of sexual violence. "I merely represent the people that vote for me. I claim no lordship except the lordship of the people. Since when have the LibLib's denied the people?" Democracy is still second to the individual rights bestowed on the individual. If a majority decides that the minority should be shot, is that right? Of course not, as the individual right not to be shot takes priority. This right is just one among many that the individual should have and what you propose violates two: the right for the individual to control his property (i.e. you are suggesting the government coerces TV station owners to change their programming) and the right for the individual to choose his own social destiny, which includes his sexual orientation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 110 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 251 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Particracy players are only allowed to play as one party at a time. Want to swap nations? Inactivate your current party and make a new one! Want to return? Request Moderation to reactivate your party on the forum! |
| Random quote: Time and again, the police prove themselves to be the Class Enemy, an armed mob used to oppress the masses and maintain the wealthy in their privileges. ~Friedrich Pfeiffer, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |