Remember all those cool Joe Camel ads about a decade ago? The public got Joe Camel terminated because his ads were enticing kids to smoke by making smoking look cool and fun.

Even McDonalds was held responsible for injuring a customer with boiling hot coffee.

Now, if we can hold tobacco companies responsible for the death and injury of people and for starting kids smoking, why can't we hold the Sopranos (and, in general, big media companies) responsible for teaching kids how to kill.

Planting the seeds of violence will cause wages (a fitting return) none of us will want to pay.

Ezekiel says, "Make a chain: for the land is full of bloody crimes, and the city is full of violence....Destruction comes: and they shall seek peace, and there shall be none (7:23-25).

Even McDonalds was held responsible for injuring a customer with boiling hot coffee.

Now, if we can hold tobacco companies responsible for the death and injury of people and for starting kids smoking�

It's hard to defend the tobacco companies and I'm not going to try to do that now. But it has crossed my mind that the same principles that were used to demonize them could be used to demonize any business, McDonalds included. They do, after all, market quite heavily to children. They do, after all, teach children some very poor eating habits � habits that can lead to medical problems and early death.

I've never seen the Sopranos and have no desire to. Several years ago I just got plain tired of all the violence in movies and TV. I just couldn't take watching violence for PLEASURE. But I think that the principles that lead to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies are illegal, immoral and erosive to our liberties. I think we're much better off being able to make these decisions for ourselves rather than have ideological watchdogs try to tell us what's best for us in every area of our lives. Life can never be made risk-free. Even God supposedly gives us free will so that we can make our own choices. Should I trust Hillary Clinton and others of her ilk more than God?

Planting the seeds of violence will cause wages (a fitting return) none of us will want to pay.

I agree. That's why I'm for putting out the word, staging protests and boycotts where applicable. I'm for people writing letters to CBS supporting such shows as Touched by an Angel and railing against such shows as The Sopranos. I'm for parents taking charge of their own lives and children and turning off the TV, saying no to the latest blockbuster movie that is swamped with carnage and blood. People actually let their kids watch this stuff for entertainment! It boggles the mind. I'm nearly as upset with this as I am with the awful, awful stuff that the Palestinian (and other Arab children) are taught in schools (they sing cute little songs about how great it would be to grow up and murder Israelis).

Freedoms, once given up, are very hard to get back. Free speech has proven to be quite effective in guarding us against violence and oppression. But it's pretty much an all or nothing proposition. It means putting up with TV shows like The Sopranos, as harmful as they may be, because if we live in a society where that kind of show can be outlawed we are far more susceptible to much more harmful acts.

I agree; censorship is NOT the answer, accountability is.

Interesting topic, and quite relevant in many ways. Here's another example of how there are different views on who's responsible for individual behavior. Some of the lawsuits seem to me to be overstepping in the direction of removing the individual from self-responsibility.

An exception ought to be made with regard to tobacco companies, however. It's clear that they knew of the dangers of smoking but actively suppressed the information. Also, we're talking about a highly addictive drug, here, and that's different from fast foods or video games. As an ex-smoker, I can attest to how difficult it is to quit. Also, I started during the years when the dangers were not properly publicized. Those who've started smoking during the past 30 years have no excuses, however; the risks have been known and publicized for a long time. One can no longer blame the tobacco companies for any consequences which ensue from smoking, nor even from an addiction which takes place. All one has to do is read the side of a pack of cigarettes and the warnings are there, in bold print.

I know of no studies which indicate that fast-foods are as addictive as nicotine, nor that hot coffee ought not to burn if you spill it on yourself in a fast-food joint. But we may be sure that as long as courts are willing to reward those who sue about such silly things, the lawsuits will continue and expand into all sorts of other areas.

I agree; censorship is NOT the answer, accountability is.

Well, I'm just not sure I want to hold the makers of The Sopranos accountable. Accountable for what? No pun intended, but no one is holding a gun to our heads and making us watch it. And if one does find a way to hold the producers of The Sopranos accountable for some copy-cat murder that takes place then what that does is automatically make all of us less accountable for our own actions. Once you go down that road � as we're doing even now � then no one is ever responsible for anything. [BTW, if I said anything to offend anyone it's all my parents' fault!]

However, we do pass laws in this country whose purpose it to protect consumers. That precedent has been set and it can be a good one at times. But those laws all have to do with tangible products � dangerous or defective baby strollers, that sort of thing. What we're now talking about is intangible or psychological products/effects. I just don't think this can ever be resolved satisfactorily in regards to maintaining liberty and free speech. If you've got some ideas on this, Wopik, I'm all ears.

An exception ought to be made with regard to tobacco companies, however. It's clear that they knew of the dangers of smoking but actively suppressed the information. Also, we're talking about a highly addictive drug, here, and that's different from fast foods or video games. As an ex-smoker, I can attest to how difficult it is to quit.

I wrote my post before reading yours, Phil. You mirror my reservations about undermining responsibility for individual behavior. But let me just say that, yes indeed, tobacco products are addictive and harmful. But so in many peoples' eyes are French fries or burgers. I'm not kidding. There are those who would take this idea and run with it. That's why I think it's so important to flesh out the underlying principles lest we create a real danger to our liberties. Look at the campaign right now to demonize SUV's. Granted, it may be more vehicle than some people need but so what? And people also gloss over the fact that many people just need that kind of size and power for hauling, towing and/or driving in the snow.

One can no longer blame the tobacco companies for any consequences which ensue from smoking, nor even from an addiction which takes place.

And yet recently in the news was some man or woman who was trying to sue a fast good company because of his/her obesity. Given enough liberal activist judges and anything is possible as we're starting to see all across this country.

I know of no studies which indicate that fast-foods are as addictive as nicotine, nor that hot coffee ought not to burn if you spill it on yourself in a fast-food joint.

We've talked a lot on this forum about how one's ideology determines how scientific results are interpreted. Give them time. If they want to they will find that fast food is addictive. Remember that old joke about life being a terminal disease? God better have a good lawyer.

I'm not sure there's anything I can add to this topic, but it's one I think about a lot. You've all pretty much said what I think as well. There is indeed personal responsibility for some things, yet there are also corporate responsibilities. It's a fine line, too.

We pretty much don't watch anything on TV except History, Discovery, TLC, A&E..that kind of thing. My kids watch some music video channels, but even at that, if it gets too raunchy, I give em the "look"....and they know it's gone too far, gotta change the channel..lol.

I'm so very tired of the actions of folks being blamed on the circumstance of their life or of society....yet at the same time I can't deny that those things do affect us. On some things it's a bit like I told my youngest the other day. She said that so and so "made her really angry" and I said..nope...you CHOOSE to let it anger you. They may have been rude and crude, but you have a choice how to respond to it and to remember that to return it in kind is to make you JUST as rude and crude. All things are not that simple, of course.

Hot coffee?...um..if it's hot coffee then logic tells you it's gonna burn the snot out of you if you spill it..yes? Fast foods that have the caloric content as well as total fat printed right there where you can read it?..um..lotsa fat means it could very well result in lotsa fat on your body. I mean gee whiz..that kind of thing is common sense...isn't it?

Cigarettes I kind of put in a category like I do some of the testing the military and government did without the testees knowledge...bad medicine..bad consequences. But, as Phil said, on the cigarettes the news has been out for a while so I think that doesn't really apply to the more recent smoking beginners.

So what do we do? I'm not sure, but I think that one thing we HAVE to do is start shutting down some of the easy money for lawyers.

Good topic!

Blessings,
Terri

Good topic!

Good answer.

We've talked a lot on this forum about how one's ideology determines how scientific results are interpreted. Give them time. If they want to they will find that fast food is addictive. Remember that old joke about life being a terminal disease? God better have a good lawyer.

LOL!

Well, God has something even better: karma--or consequences, for those who are skiddish about the Eastern term.

People looking for a fast and easy buck is nothing new, nor is using the court system to get it. I'm sure this happens on the right as well, but in a different way--e.g., interpreting environmental law to allow businesses a little laxity in emissions, etc. I've seen some of this in action first-hand. We hope for common sense to prevail, and I'm optimistic that in the long run, it does . . . but not without some bumps in the road along the way.

[BTW, if I said anything to offend anyone it's all my parents' fault!]

Well, I guess that'll have to do . . .