Elder Ensey's article about tv advertizing

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This seems ironic to me....

Because he is labeling?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Because he is labeling?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

PO,

Don't know where MP got his info, or maybe that was before the advancement of technology, but according to the FCC's website this is what they say:


About the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.


But the FCC does not regulate the internet that I know of..

WOW, they told me something different. That just amazes me.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

WOW, they told me something different. That just amazes me.

As it stands, the FCC will regulate a wireless router, but not the internet itself, from what i can determine on their sites. While all satelite, tv, cable, etc is regualted by them.

A remote control car is regulated by them, but not the internet...

The FCC doesn't even litigate child porn on the internet...it is something like the child endangerment act and regulated by local, state, and federal LAW enforcement...not the FCC.

This is one reason I don't understand the "have internet, broadcast internet, but TV is too bad a place to use" arguement....it is laughable! The internet is by far worse than TV ever could be, because TV is regulated and the internet is not...at this time.

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

WOW, they told me something different. That just amazes me.

I do know also that the regulations by the FCC are different for each medum they are over. For instance, Howard Stern has more leaway on Satelite radio than he does on TV...

Also premium channels like HBO can air nudity but the channels (not just big 4) that are on basic cable have to blur any nudity...Stern was on "E" and the FCC would not allow unblurred nudity...

But there is NO limit on the internet that I know of execpt the child stuff...which is regulated by law enforcement.

[triumphant1]

Search it out and see if you find anything different...

Bottom line remains the same...the "no tv but you can do internet" arguement makes no sense....

[tv1a]

Had to eat a lot of mushrooms to come up with this argument. You want fake worship? Attend any district campmeeting, you'll see 80% showboating with or without video present.

The debate is well beyond smokescreens. Try a substantial point.

Video would be intrusive if the camera is in someone's face....

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

My problem is this with videoing or televising or webcasting services I fear it could interfer with the worship and the preaching like it does in the court room. Anyone remember the OJ trial? I have been to services where this is done and to me it seems there is some attention given to the camera? It seems to be an intrusion?
Then to watch folks being blessed and their worship and response to the Spirit it seems like sitting up a camera in someone's bedroom? Worship though public is private and to sit back on screen and watch this most intimate moment between the worshipper and their God seems intrusive to me. I know I know someone may ask about tapes and cds but they are audio you can't see them or know who is being touched. The majority of preachers I have heard disregards to audio taping and just preaches but from my limited experience they seem conscious of the camera.