Absolutely agreed. The FCC doesn't even "legally" have a right to do it anyway, except that no government official or president is willing to shut them down, since its too damn convenient to let them keep the defacto right they have gained, so they can silence the next naughty word, exposed body part or pet scape goat of our social problems, regardless of who is in office.

Their original mandate went like this: "Since TV only have a small number of channels, when compared to the huge number of news papers, magazines and radio stations, and one cannot simply pick which programs and channels you want to watch, some standard of behaviour and conduct should be imposed, so as to not cause undue stress to the fools (excuse me, viewers) who might be offended by some of the content.", more or less.

We now have the complete reverse. More people own TVs than radios, there are so many fracking channels that you have to sell kidneys to get them all (partly because the producers don't want to have to tell half of them, "No one wants to watch you, sorry!", instead of selling you 20 channels, of which you watch 2), radio stations are few and mostly all stink, and in most places where you used to be able to find 10 news papers from around the country/world, you are lucky if you can find three or four. Those being the Wall Street Journal, the paper from the nearest big city(ies) and the local one, that in my case is so cheap they can't find people who know how to a) research, b) proof read or c) spell properly.

And both sides have basically different views on "why" to censor. The right tend to censor things they insist will somehow undermine a magically utopia they are striving for (never mind that you can't find two of them from different states that could honestly say they share the same identical vision). The vocal part of the left want to silence people that tell other people that their opinions are BS. Neither side is open to debate, because one side will shut down debate from those with different opinions as, "Not worth listening too" (I know, I have seen it happen. Complete deletion of posts, removal of accounts, etc., all so that the people on the board can keep repeating the same BS to each other. And no, it doesn't matter if you even mention their belief system, just go to one, like an ID proponents site and post the sentence, "Evolution isn't a random process." If they let it go through automatically, then five minutes later it will be gone. If its one where they review the post first, it will never make it on the board. And that is true whether you are talking about evolution, global warming or fracking diaper changing. If your view contradicts the local kook, you are banned *instantly*.

The leftist sites.. Some probably do the same. Most will just laugh at you or try to shout you down. Very few of the most vocal ones are willing to debate you. And **we**, the ones that consider ourself to be real liberal, think they suck as much as the right wingers. But, the right wing response is damn near universal. The left wing response, depends entirely on if you are dealing with some dipshit that thinks "intellectual" equates to reading the latest rubbish from Depok Chopra and believing it makes any fracking sense. Roughly the same sort you get running the, "nuke them when they have a different opinion", sort on the right, but with a different set of silly heroes and a different imaginary utopia they are tunnel visioned on.

And.. I never once mentioned religion in this po.. Oh hell....