OFF: Gigs to be rated?

[M Holmes]

Damon C Capehart writes:

> Just to re-reiterate:
> This is NOT about government telling us what we should consider offensive;
> we know what offends us.  This is about granting us the freedom to decide
> whether or not we want to attend a movie/concert, watch a TV show, whatever,
> based on what a number of us find offensive.

I have no problem with information about possibly offensive content
being posted beforehand *IF* the folks promoting the gig want to do so.
It does allow people to make up their own minds. However, it's
objectionable if the government *forces* gigs to do so whether they want
to or not because it forces up costs. People who are frightened of being
accidentally offended can either simply avoid unrated gigs or seek
reviews before buying tickets. It's unreasonable for them to enlist the
government in an attempt to force these costs onto people who are more
prepared to take their chances.

Also, there's no reason why it has to be a government agency which rates
gigs. The Moral Majority are perfectly capable of publishing their own
ratings as are other interested *private* agencies.

Just to reiterate:

It's privayte behaviour and as far as politicians are concerned, none of
their damn business.

> Read the freakin' post before screaming "censorship".  We ought to have the
> right to know what to expect.

No, you ought to have the right to find out what to expect, not to have
it published at the expense of others.

> Damon

FoFP