Freaks and Geeks

[Steve]

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> >> Regardless of the name of the show, you agree that Susan
> >> had the right to complain that a program with such 
> >>language was being aired in a video store, right? And that
> >> "It's on television" was hardly an adequate response...
> > 
> > Kemper now:
> > I agree.  
> > No it wasn't adequate, which is what I had said up-thread.
> > It's a black and white statement. The customer is sometimes
> > wrong :) 
> 
> Carol again:
> 
> So we agree that "It's on television" was an inadequate 
> response. I can't tell whether you also agree that Susan had
> a right to complain about those particular obscenities, 
> regardless of the name of the show that was airing. Do we 
> agree there, too?
> 

bboyminn:

I think "It's on television" was an adequate response.  

I also think we are probably dealing with an overly strict
standard for 'profanity'. This was, after all, a prime time 
network television show, it can have had that much profanity 
in it or it would have never made it on the air. 

However, once the customer insisted that she didn't want
her children exposed to that kind of language, especially in
a public family friendly place, the store clerk should have
immediately complied. At bare minimum, he should have turn
the sound down until the customer left or it became clear 
that the characters in the show were no longer using 
objectionable language.

And I think this is what we really have - objectionable
language that by network standards did not rise to the level
of profanity. If it had, they would have censored it before
it ever hit the air. 

However, just because it didn't reach the common standard
of profanity, does not mean it did not meet this person's
standard for 'objectionable'. This person found it 
sufficiently objectionable to approach the clerk and protest. 
That alone is enough for the clerk to show consideration.

We all have to compromise to live in a world filled with
other people. To some extent that means accepting that
objectionable language exists in the world and you can't
insulate yourself from it. But it also mean you show 
consideration for the sensitivities of other people, people
who object to this kind of language in what is being promoted
as a 'family friendly' environment.

This person was perfectly within her rights to object, to 
demand action, and to expect that action to occur.

Steve/bboyminn