Imagine a corporation existed whose sole function was to output chemicals into the environment, and they received their money from smaller companies who saw some profit to be made in any consequences of the chemical impact on the environment, as well as received tax breaks and other incentives from the government because the government also periodically needed the company’s services to release other chemicals into the environment. There is controversy about the chemicals that they are releasing into nature – a handful of people, including the company, claim the chemicals are harmless, that they are already present in the environment and therefore ‘natural’, or that the chemicals are actually beneficial to the environment.
Most of the public is unaware of what the company is releasing, but a few organizations who seek to preserve nature and the environment decide to publicly oppose what the company is doing.
Most of us would probably be on board with the opposition, demanding that these chemicals not be released, or that they be released elsewhere (where the impact on the environment would be minimal) instead.
Today I saw a news story talking about this very situation, but instead of a chemical that is damaging to the environment, its product that is menacing the public’s health is information, or more specifically, a “controversial” episode of a television show that already promotes promiscuity and contra-morals.
FREE SPEECH or an ATTACK ON MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION?
I’m not against “free speech” or the entertainment industry, but with each of our freedoms there come certain restrictions (whether legislated or not) and responsibilities. My right to own a firearm does not give me the right to stand in my front yard and threaten passers-by, nor does it give me the right to discharge it within the city limits “just for fun”. The right to assemble is actually the right to peaceably assemble, and our right to free speech does not give us the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater to “punk” its patrons.
Some of the inherent restrictions on our rights are addressed by a pretty simple concept: Your right stops at the point where it would infringe on another person’s right. Even the exercise of our “unalienable rights” is governed by this principle. My right to the “pursuit of happiness” and my right to “free speech” do not grant me the sum right of standing in a crowded playground and screaming profanity at the children playing there. To do so would infringe on the rights of the children or even more significantly the rights of their parents to raise and protect them according to their wishes.
I have no more right to expose children to a verbal assault or display pornography to them than I would to feed them poison or beat them with a stick. Psychological injury is often harder to heal than physical injury.
TARGET OF BIG BUSINESS
Are corporations immune to the laws that individuals have to abide by? Public consensus says they are not (or should not be).
The CW Network is a broadcaster with affiliates around the country. A “Broadcaster” sends out a signal to a broad range of recipients. Radio is a type of broadcasting. Television you can pick up on your TV without plugging into a cable or satellite line is also broadcast. Broadcast television is popular because it is “free”, requiring no special subscription to receive its signals. CW is unique in that it does not broadcast sporting events and that, according to its Wikipedia entry:
“Like both UPN and The WB, The CW targets its programming to younger audiences.”
With younger audiences in mind, it is not surprising that it has a Saturday cartoon offering to children, or that teenage-draws like The Vampire Diaries are its evening fare, but it is interesting that with children being its target audience, CW has chosen to air an episode of Gossip Girl in which a character participates in a perverse sexual act as part of the plot.
CW has been suffering from low ratings since 2008, and most TV networks launch some sort of “controversy” or scheme to lure in new viewers when faced with growing unpopularity. Vampire Diaries, currently its highest rated show, drew much criticism when it came out because of its pretty obvious attempt to ride the bandwagon of “vampire shows” that was recently revived with Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series.
Past shows on other networks have chosen to tackle social problems like rape or racism, or have helped drive to the mainstream perversions like homosexuality and gay marriage. “Cop and Doc Shows” like CSI, Law & Order, ER, House, and even the X-files have sometimes dealt with “underground” perversions and subcultures, but generally those issues are watered down or ‘beat around the bush’. Unlike CW or its Gossip Girl show, however, these shows did not target children and young adults, nor was any specific perverse act the focal point of an episode.
A REAL ‘FAIRNESS DOCTRINE’
I believe that all controversial subject matter should be restricted to pay-TV (cable and satellite) and kept out of public schools and libraries. “Liberals” have been pretty successful at bulldozing religious imagery from schools and public places, at viciously fighting environmental polluters, at placing restrictions on religious broadcasting, anti-abortion signs, and religious proselytizing, and in pretending to defend individual rights by “protecting them” against coming into contact with any “offensive” material (like religion). I believe that fairness ought to be employed, and broadcast television, which lacks the “parental locks” and forewarning of pay-TV ought to be restricted from transmitting its messages of filth and unsound doctrines into unprotected homes.
KIDS ≠ ADULTS
If an adult wants to access this kind of information, that is their choice. An adult has the ability to discern and has more developed self-control. That’s why we let adults vote, work, join the armed forces, live away from their parents, own firearms, hunt, sign contracts, drive cars, and (I suppose) drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes.
A wise society would not subject children to adult material. It is foolish to take away from a child’s educational development to have them worship presidents, discuss sexual abnormalities (which are usually taught as “acceptable”), or to bring to their attention fringe elements of social life like gay marriage. Kids need to be protected from these things while they focus their studies on essential knowledge: READING, MATH, ANALYTICAL THINKING, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, THE ARTS. Parents should have full control over their children’s moral development, and no public office or program should infringe on the parental right to educate their child according to their personal traditions and beliefs in areas of religion, human sexuality, and all other moral points.
The media, while still a partially “private” enterprise should also respect these boundaries. Delving into perversion in order to drive ratings is irresponsible. Most adults have the sense to ignore or shut out these poison ideas. All children and some adults are victimized by these ideas, finding new entrapping addictions, new impure thoughts to cloud their minds and drive them to spiritual ruin. The low points of human nature are not things to be glorified and praised as “natural”. The more we uphold filth and protect evil, the more our society creeps and slides toward its collapse. Those who stand by and refuse to act and those who support the impregnation of society with immorality, manipulation and indoctrination of little children, and the abuses that come from these things will have to answer for these actions to their Creator at their judgment, and will at that time see the consequences of their actions, to the damnation or struggle of every soul who fell as a result.
Keep in mind none of this should be a surprise. CW doesn’t care about God or religion. Their promotional material for the episode in question uses a common abbreviation “OMFG” which means “Oh My F—ing G–!” – a disgusting disrespect for our Maker.
If you want to voice your concerns about this episode or television in general, here are some useful links:
- CW’s Website. Find your local affiliate and ask them not to air the episode.
- Contact CW directly. Let them know you will not longer watch their network or any of its affiliates.
- Contact the FCC. It is legal for CW to air its show, but if you don’t think it should be, voice a complaint (and maybe CC your congressman!)
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”
(Isaiah 5: 20-23)