Re:In other news (Score 0)

As far as I know, the law defines "child" as everyone under 18 years of age everywhere in the U.S. I do know that is the age used by the FCC as well in its regulations or policies. There was an effort quite a few years ago (maybe in the late 80's or early 90's) to lower that age in the FCC regs. and it was shot down after full hearings, etc. I don't feel qualified to give a specific definition of sexual innoncence and was speaking in general terms. The importance of it is up to each and every person to decide for themselves. I can't decide that it is important or how important for anyone. All I can do is what I can to not impose upon that choice that they have. I haven't argued for removing any choices. Anyone that wants indecency or whatever certainly has many avenues available to do so in private, and as I said in response to an earlier comment, I have never been one to argue against people's choices like that for themselves in private, as long as they do not impose on others. What could be more fair? I don't buy a TV to not be able to ever use it. TV and radio are not exclusively just for that minority who do want indecency etc. (speaking of broadcast TV and radio - cable and satellite are different). The argument about turning the channel is a tired, worn out old one. From a practical standpoint, by the time a person can turn the channel, it is too late (as the Supreme Court has already found), and if every channel can have indecency, what channel am I to turn to to avoid it, if I don't want it? Slash dot limits the number of comments one can post, and I am at that limit, so everyone, I probably will not be able to post anymore comments on this issue.