BCT Editorial – 2/20/07

This page was last updated on February 22, 2007.

Nanny state; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 20, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Government regulations are no substitute for good parenting.

“The Associated Press reports a draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity.

“The idea of such a law raises serious First Amendment questions.

“There’s no reason to do that. Think about the underlying assumption behind this measure - the state must step in to do this job because parents have abdicated their responsibilities. If parents were monitoring what their children watched, this proposal wouldn’t be necessary. However, one reason parents can’t monitor what their children are watching is because they’re not viewing these shows with them.

“In 2005, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported 68 percent of American children 8 to 18 years old had televisions in their bedrooms, with 37 percent having cable.

“Another Kaiser survey found that one-third of the children under the age of 6 have televisions in their bedrooms.

“If parents don’t or won’t control what their children watch on television, why should the state?”

[RWC] In general, I agree with this editorial. The reason I’m critiquing it is to expose the illogic of liberalism.

If you’re a liberal, please explain why this situation is different from having the government control where people can smoke? As a reminder, the Times has published at least 11 anti-smoking editorials since March 2005. Paraphrasing the editorial, if individuals don’t or won’t control where they eat, drink, or work, why should the state?