Closed Captioning Filtered?
6 07 2009All..
Quote will explain
"the term `advanced blocking technologies’ means technologies that can improve or enhance the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communication. "
See Sec. 2 (b)(3) which includes closed captioning.
Frankly, I think this is a good idea. It seems nothing is sacred anymore on TV. Just last night I was clicking thru diffeent channels, and ran into one that really floored me. I don’t think I’m being old fashioned; too explicit. I’m not talking about the cleaves of breasts or bulking groins.
Your thoughts, folks?
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
Ed,
I respect your personal comfort within the TV viewing free from any presence of verbal profanities and dehumanization of human beings, ex.
sexual exploitness.
I strongly believe that nobody have the right to decide what others
watch any entertainment or information programmings. I oppose any kind of filter or censorship practice to weed out the so-called human indecency.
I still oppose parental filter control for the Internet and cable television access.
My af mother always blasted me for watching President Reagan’s speeches during my younger days. If she had such an option at that time. My mother surely will screen me out from watching Reagan stuff on TV.
Was that really fair to anyone including kids?
RLM
Ed –
Thanks for picking up on this. Fascinating how accessibility technologies are used for other purposes; I think a big reason in support of captioning web-based video content is to make them more searchable.
Having said that, I think that government legislating what consists of moral television content is typically more problematic than resulting in our best interests. One example is Congress cutting funding for DoED captioning shows because one program had to do with homosexuality.
One thing I’ve noticed, is that shows sometimes have “bleeped” words in its captioning altho I clearly see the actors mouthing the words. Since I cant actually hear whether the audio portion is also “bleeped” out, I’m wondering if the captioning company is doing something different based on some standard. Anyone know?
T’care Ed!
-Jeff Rosen
A couple of comments:
This law was signed by Pres. Bush in December 2008 and it asked the FCC to come up with a report on how indecency may be filtered for content delivered through various means including TV, internet, radio, etc. This law mentioned closed captioning as an option to do the filtering. In any case, the report is due 9 months after passage, so it’s due in September, I believe. The FCC had an inquiry asking for comment, and this closed in May. If the FCC proposes closed captioning as a way to filter these materials, then it is very much conceivable that closed captioning will be required for all materials online (I assume commercial websites only); and this may be a way for the deaf community to achieve captioning on the Internet by piggybacking on this effort to get this indirect benefit.
Now, this is for RLM: who are you to decide how others are to parent their own children? If this capability is available as an option, then you certainly don’t have to use it for yourself. I don’t believe that all indecent stuff would be filtered out automatically as the parents have to ‘turn on’ this filter.
As long as the control of the blocking technologies on MY video equipment is in my hands, I have no objections. But I don’t want the government doing the blocking of videos or captions. And as a parent, I have the right to control the videos and captions my child sees. If he’s old enough to buy his own video, pay for the connections, and maintain the equipment, then he’s old enough to decide what he wants to watch and trust that my parenting skills over the years have instilled appropriate behaviors and decision making skills. But if I’m paying for my child’s video equipment, then I maintain the right to monitor and control what my child sees.
awww… why do it so half hearted? Just get some experts from China to come and show you how to do it properly. (USA would be a much better place if this had been in operation and “Reagan” had been filtered out! – OK, just kidding!)
There are limits to just about everything and parents raising their children also has its limits! There is a court case going on now where the parents – racist white power people – inked their slogans on their young kids and sent them off to school! Very likely the kids will end up in foster care and be better off for it.
But for all that I would be happy if the result was better access for us Deafies – good for us, bad for the world but we need a lot more good and the world can survive with a bit more bad!
Since I watch television with the captions on, even though I’m hearing, I can tell you this:
I’ve seen television shows with the audio “bleeped” out but not the captions.
I’ve seen television shows with the audio retained but the captions “bleeped” out.
I’ve seen television shows with the audio and the captions of swear words and the like.
I’ve seen television shows with both the audio and the captions of swear words and the like “bleeped” out.
Seems like there’s no consistency – even if I try to take time of day or night into consideration, if that’s a factor, or cable versus network television.
As for the issue at hand, as Lawrence wrote, “As long as the control of the blocking technologies on MY video equipment is in my hands, I have no objections. But I don’t want the government doing the blocking of videos or captions.”
Henry,
Funny, but you hit the heart of the matter albeit bit cynical. Myself, I do not restrict what children watch (overseeing their shoulders for example), but I DO talk with kids; talk I do lot of. Morale, etc. Repeatedly. I do ask them what they watch and then discuss them. I do occassionally pop in and if immaterial, we talk about it. The purpose of it? Why? What for? etc.
Even so, I do think parents should retain the right to restrict if they can’t talk to kids, etc.
I don’t think there should be any censorship of the closed captioning at all by parents or by the government. If a parent is not comfortable with the language of TV show the parent should block the entire show which is easy on most of today’s TVs and Cable Boxes. Closed captioning should relfect EXACTLY what is being said and heard on the TV. If the word is said it should be captioned as such. If the word is bleeped out it should be captioned as such. If the parent feels that the language is not appropriate then the entire show should be blocked and the Captioning should remain untouched and unfiltered. Hearing people cannot turn on a voice filter for their hearing kids so why should we be able to do that with captioning?
Deaf kids with hearing parents are born with a built in disadvantage. Kids learn loads by simply hearing the conversations of their adult peers and picking up bits and pieces of information. This is why it is so important to expose a deaf child to as many things as possible when they are young. You basically want to overcome this built in disadvantage. I would hate for my child to miss out on even more things because the word “breast” was filtered out on a cooking show that was showing how to cook a chicken or that he beleived that our former Vice Presidents name was “Bleep” Cheney.
Another issue I have with real time closed captioners is that they do alot of on the spot censorship. I can remember one time in a live broadcast of a baseball game the sports announcer said something that was innappropriate. My hearing friends were aghast and it never showed up on the captioning so I was left out of the loop. Instead of making my own decision about whether it was appropriate or not the closed captioner decided to make that decision for me. Thank you Mr. closed captioning person but I think I can think for myself.
This is in response to Jeff’s question about bleeped out words. Jeff, As Ed’s oldest daughter, I am very used to watching the close captioning even though I can hear the words. I would say that the majority of the time when the words are bleeped out in captioning, they have also been bleeped out to anyone who is listening. Sometimes they actually say “bleep”, but most of the time, the word is just left out. It is like they just recorded nothing over the word. Hope this helps.
Steffani
Hey Ed and others,
I am really delighted to see many fruitful discussion on the aspects of censorship when come to the closed captioning of various television and Internet programmings for deaf viewers.
Many of you surely have good points about the possibility of excluding specific words like “breast” or “Dick”- very common male name for the 1950s.
Very popular children book stories like “Dick and Jane”.
Same thing with “gay” which could be misinterpreted as something inapproriate. That’s what happened to many public libraries across the country by filtering out any wordings with “gay”.
What about the Ole Gay Day from the 1890s? That was very common word use during the 19th century which meant “happy time”.
Not many people realize that the Holy Bible usually have been mostly censored reading materials in the history of humankind over centuries, especially the Communist countries.
The Bible have full of sadistic, unmoral and sexual stories. Should we filter out the bBLE?
rlm
In response to CNW,
Parents in general, would be better off by being reasonably involved with their own children’s entertainment and educational viewings than dictating what their offsprings suppose to watch, etc.
Too many parents like “helicopter parents” usually go overboard with their children’s outlook of the world by inserting the narrow ideological leanings, instead of broadening their children’s minds with unfiltered viewings to see what the real world is all about.
Here is the classic censorship case involved the “Driver and Road” magazine at one of the school library. The librarian doesn’t like what she read about the editorial piece criticized the new manadatory federal law on speed limits. The school library decided to cancel the magazine subscription based on that editoral column.
The “Driver and Road’ magazine editor responsed _”I thought that the school have the responsibility to prepare their own students for the real world, not shield them”. How true!
Another recent case involved two lez (lesbain) parents let their only adopted son watched anything. Their son’s favorite pastime is to listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio programs and became the staunch Republican himself. Guess what?? The lez parents get their real benefit for letting their son turn Republican which the son became actively involved in the GOP political structure and speak out in feverent support for gay marriage. The son determined to make sure the GOP see the real benefit for gay marriage as way of benefitting the society at large for stable relationship and civil rights issue.
If the parents do filtering out their children which will be very harmful in the long run for the comphrensive understanding of how the world works.
My deaf mother and hearing brother always accused me of being the Reagan Republican. In truth, I was neither the Republican or Democrat myself. I just wanted to view the Reagan speech on television to see his own speaking style, not being indoctrinated by Reagan or anyone else.
Thank God for my parents’ parenting style for allowing me read pornographic magazines at very young age which I love to read their editoral pieces from Hustler to Penthouse to Playboy. That doesn’t turn me into a sex fanatic at all. I knew what the difference between fanasty and reality.
OK. Ed, you pass. A+. If I had teen kids at this point I hope I would respond like you say you do. Back when I had them (one is close to now having her own teen!) the internet was just beginning! But we had our own similar temptations then!
(Yeah, I was being purposedly cynical – often gets the response I want!)
Henry,
You’re a good friend of mine. I will need to slap your hands, however. I have this strict policy not to bad mouth to specific persons. [slap slap] I deleted the bad mouthing part. Please refrain from that in the future.
Ed
Ed,
I would not mind if Henry badmouthed me in his latest comment log.
That’s what I always advocate the no-hold censorship practice for truer
freedom of the speech.
I always love hearing others diss or criticize or badmouth or put me down.
I have a real thick skin!
RLM
Awww, wasn’t really bad mounthing – just trying to have some fun! Baiting was more what I was doing!
But, yeah, baiting can be tricky and be missconstrued.
No problem! Will try to behave!
Posted at just about same time as RLM – glad he took it the way it was meant!
No problemo, Henry!