Oh I do agree that it could be a foot in the door. Its just really unclear how far that sort of censorship will go on the internet in the future, by any country.
Do you know specifically what current regulation would prevent sexually suggestive or ass-rape jokes from being done by you if they applied them to the net. Traditional regulation of such things usually involves what time they are shown, and certain fixed limits on specific sexual images/scenes. Here in the UK we have some ludicrously outmoded broadcast laws that limit hardcore porn. But they dont stop all sorts of programing that talks in a sexually explicit way, or quite a lot of dark humor that is in very 'bad taste'. So Im very keen to explore these issues, and what sort of censorship we have at the moment, whether most of the stuff we'd ever dream of doing has only traditionally been censored by editorial power, not regulation. My opinion is that, from what Ive seen, neither of your shows breaks laws, if it wasnt possible to show such stuff on TV in the past then it would be due to editorial or commercial barriers to entry. Meanwhile, things that 99% of people would surely want legislated against, such as for example underage sex videos, are Im quite sure already regulated and illegal. I bet laws against advertising unapproved medical apparatus & other quackery practises are also already covered no matter what medium the advertising is done through? So in relatively liberal societies what sort of censorship do we actually think is a possible outcome of regulation down the road? For me, things like Video On Demand destroy the simple model that results in outrage about Janet Jacksons nipple at the superbowl - its a ll about context, and on demand there is no sense that 'indecent stuff' is being broadcast to 'vunerable youngsters'. Here in the UK the satellite movie channels have just abandoned the idea of a watershed, and now adult films can be shown at any time of the day, a new PIN system is supposed to stop kids from seeing these things that they shouldnt. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Casey McKinnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I created a Facebook group called Canadians for New Media Freedom here: > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2319008732 > > In all honesty, I don't care about trying to highlight Canadian > "voices"... I believe you'll find your audience if people like you, so > why force Canadian content on Canadians? > > I'm just worried about the implications of a regulated new media... no > more ass-rape gags on GALACTICAST and no more sexually suggestive > topics on KITKAST. We couldn't have made the content we've made if we > were regulated by the CRTC. > > How are we to be sure that this isn't the CRTC's way of cramming their > foot in our door? Once they're able to regulate us, they can broaden > their jurisdiction upon us. > > Casey > > --- > http://galacticast.com/ > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > I'm hoping to move to Canada next year, so this makes my buttocks > > tighten even more. > > > > I don't see how they could regulate it in the same way, but time to > > organize and make your/our voices heard right now, I guess. > > > > Rupert > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > > > On 14 Apr 2007, at 21:30, Casey McKinnon wrote: > > > > In Canada, the CRTC is the equivalent to the FCC (in the US), so this > > is TERRIBLE NEWS: > > > > http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/04/13/crtc-review.html > > > > The CRTC are the creators of a crappy thing called CanCon (Canadian > > Content) which forces broadcasters to play a large percentage of > > Canadian Content, therefore making our television SUCK. > > > > Keep the Internet free!!! > > Casey > > > > --- > > http://galacticast.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
