Supporting Smut?

Post by **_Brad** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:03 am

Like my last question, this sprouted from a job opportunity. I was presented with an opportunity with a (maybe it's the) dish TV provider. My first thought was that they sell mostly valueless entertainment. That's no reason to fault them, however; there's good mixed with the bad.
My second thought is that they probably pimp smut. So I check their offering, and of course, "adult" programming is part of it. I immediately dropped them from consideration and felt all warm and fuzzy.

But then I thought about it a bit more. I have cable TV (only because it came with high speed Internet), cable pimps the same smut; so I'm supporting smut. OK, have the TV removed (I don't have any need for it) and just leave the high speed Internet. Problem solved. Wait - I'm still supporting them.
I don't need high speed Internet, but it does save me time and it's cheaper than simple dial up (since I don't have any need for a land line).

So I back up a minute - maybe I'm just over thinking this matter. If I worked for the provider, I'm supporting the entire offering (including the smut). If I'm merely a subscriber, and don't have anything to do with the smut portion (basic cable includes no smut), than my hands are clean.

Or are they?

Post by **_djeaton** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:58 am

Should you get rid of your phone too because of all the profit made on 900 numbers? And let's not forget satellite radio with people like Howard Stern on it. The way I see it, I'm responsible for my actions and mine alone. I'm not contributing to the smut on the web by having internet access. It would be there regardless. I'm not contributing to dial-a-porn by having a phone. If I worked in accounting for a Blockbuster, I'm not contributing to the movies that they have that I object to. Nor do I consider myself profiting from those movies. My "profit" is from my labor and my "support" is not in that area. So would I work for a cable company or dish company? Yes. Would I work in their content selection or channel selection area? Probably not. But me working for them in some other area supports the smut channels just as much as me buying a box of soap or can of coke that may have been advertised on one of their other channels.
D.

Post by **_TK** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:56 pm

i agree, D. i dont think it is possible to track every possible "unsavory" thing that somehow be interconnected with where we spend (or earn) our money. for example, i work for an insurance company. i have no idea, nor do i think i could figure out, everything they invest their money in.

TK

Post by **_Brad** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:04 pm

djeaton wrote:Should you get rid of your phone too because of all the profit made on 900 numbers? And let's not forget satellite radio with people like Howard Stern on it... I'm not contributing to the smut on the web by having internet access. It would be there regardless... If I worked in accounting for a Blockbuster, I'm not contributing to the movies that they have that I object to. Nor do I consider myself profiting from those movies. My "profit" is from my labor and my "support" is not in that area. So would I work for a cable company or dish company? Yes. Would I work in their content selection or channel selection area? Probably not. But me working for them in some other area supports the smut channels just as much as me buying a box of soap or can of coke that may have been advertised on one of their other channels.
D.

I would not be critical of others for working for cable/dish, but your arguments don't seem convincing to me. Having Internet access is totally different thing - the "Internet" isn't controlled by the company that provides me access to the network. Neither does the phone company provide dial-a-porn, they just provide access to the medium.

Your example of working for Blockbuster is different though, I think. You would be paid from revenues including those from objectionable movies.

The example of working for a company in some other area than that which deals with objectionable content does make some sense, but then, where in the world would one draw the line? I would have worked on a scheduling system. Is that related to objectionable content? Yes. Does it meet your criteria? Who knows?

Your working for the company would have a whole lot greater connection to smut than buying a product that was advertised with the smut w/o seeing said advertisement. I don't see any link there at all.

Post by **_Sean** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:09 pm

Doesn't the government misuse our money as well? But we are still to pay taxes.

In general, I'd say the points brought up should be a matter of conscience. As long as you are paying for services that you use rightly, as you think God would approve, then I don't see the problem. When Jesus said render unto Caesar, did He mean that they were then supporting all the evil things Caesar did with that money? I don't think were stuck in a no win situation. I don't think we are judged on what an organization does with our money.

Post by **_djeaton** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:38 pm

Brad wrote:I would not be critical of others for working for cable/dish, but your arguments don't seem convincing to me. Having Internet access is totally different thing - the "Internet" isn't controlled by the company that provides me access to the network. Neither does the phone company provide dial-a-porn, they just provide access to the medium.

The question was one of support. If I send $50 a month to a phone company that also makes money off of 900 numbers, am I supporting smut? I don't think so. The people calling those numbers are. If I send $150 a month to a cable company for cable and internet access, I'm contributing to a "pool" of profit that also includes money made from porn sites and porn channels, but I'm not contributing to that income stream by watching the Discovery Channel.

If I am in the scheduling department for the cable company and work at filling overnight hours with infomercials, am I supporting smut? I don't think so. If I worked for the Playboy Channel, that would be a different matter. The company's main purpose is to produce and profit from smut. A cable company though is a conduit for network TV, cable TV, internet, phone, movies on demand, and anything else that can be put in a digital format. Working for a company that provides a conduit like that is a totally different thing from "supporting smut" by producing it on one end of the conduit or purchasing it on the other. If your "scheduling" job is in any form of selection of programming for adult channels, I'd turn it down as well. If you, on the other hand, were providing the online channel guide of available programming, then you aren't producing smut, purchasing smut, or, in my mind, profiting from smut. Your level of "support" is no more contributing to the porn industry than the local paper printing the TV schedule is in the porn industry for doing so.
D.

Post by **_Paidion** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:57 pm

Doesn't the government misuse our money as well? But we are still to pay taxes.

This is an important point, Sean.

I knew an owner of a health food store in Winnipeg, who refused to pay taxes because the government was giving grants to groups which supported abortion.

He actually set up a shelter of protest on the grounds of the provincial Parliament Building, and remained there for weeks, sleeping in the structure he had set up.

He was determined not to support the killing of pre-born persons for the convenience of their parents.

Yet Jesus said that taxes were to be paid. And the Roman government doubtless used much of their taxes for immoral purposes.