“Icasa, hereby, gives notice that it has authorised On Digital Media [operating as TopTV] to broadcast the three adult content channels Playboy TV, Desire TV, and Private Spice within the watershed period,” it said in a statement.” http://www.channel24.co.za
The Film and Publication Board (FBP) welcomed Icasa’s decision.
“As the FPB we are encouraged to see that the Independent Communications Authority of SA [Icasa] considered our representations and placed on TopTV stringent conditions,” CEO Yoliswa Makhasi said.
“These representations were premised on the protection of children from exposure to potentially harmful content and in this case explicit content,” said Makhasi.” http://www.channel24.co.za
Are you Serious!!!
The issue here is not about Top TV really, if it wasn’t them, someone else would try in the future to increase viewership, even DSTV tried it a while ago. The issue here for me is the complete disregard for our kids. Yes porn is available on cellphones, the internet, DVD’s, magazines etc etc. But for me the logic in what I have read is that because it is available why not let it be allowed on this medium. Essentially, what is being said is that, because Children can view it elsewhere, why restrict others from broadcasting it. Here’s a reason, IT IS KILLING OUR KIDS!!!
Can we say that because something is detrimental and available we should rather make it more available? surely the logical focus should be on decreasing the thing that is detrimental not increasing the availability of it.
I heard it said that no connection could be established that pornography has any increased effect on sex crimes or that the viewing of it by children was detrimental to them in their interaction with the opposite sex. That would be fine if it wasn’t completely rubbish. I believe Dr Shaheda Omar from the Teddy Bear clinic was the person who commented just this afternoon that she can definately find connections between sex offenders and pornography, seriously, FPB, TOP TV, ICASA etc, who exactly did you speak to when you formulated such a socially beneficial outcome? I myself have seen first hand the dangers of pornography on children and how they can find themselves lost in the pit of addiction to this counter reality, wishing they could get out, wishing they could take the moment back when they first were exposed. There are also so many comments on this news from people who are in support of the ruling, mostly basing their arguments on some anti-Christian stance. Let it be said, I am Christian, but my reasons for being against this can easily be supported by facts, real life experiences and real cases where the subjects are going through an emotional hell because of their exposure to pornography.
Lets not be naive and think this is a religous issue and that its all the little Christians who, even though they secretly watch porn on the side, are up in arms purely because the Bible speaks of fleeing immorality and making a covenant with their eyes not to look lustfully at woman. The real victims here are children who are growing up in an over sexed world and the very people charged with their protection, the adults, are not mature or self sacrificil enough to put their own desires aside for one second and make decisions that will protect the innocence of a child. I think we need to grow up, and accept our responsibility as men and woman and realise that we need to speak for those without a voice and we need to speak words that protect them even if it means we deny ourselves, religion aside, this was a poor, selfish decision, devoid of any real understanding as to the effects porn has on our children. And even if there are 14 million separate codes, and seperate accounts to access the viewing, lets not forget who controls the technology in homes.
Forget just disallowing TOP TV, lets stop all free access to porn, if you really want it, then pay for it, instead of getting it for free and having the children foot the bill.