Censorship is not only detrimental because it is politically charged and tends to undermine civil liberties, but also because it privileges the interests of a few over the interests of the many. Frank Rich wrote an article in the NYT this past Sunday (The Great Indecency Hoax) in response to the Monday Night Football "issue" which stated that "A spokesman for ABC Sports told The Philadelphia Inquirer that he hadn't received a single phone call or e-mail in the immediate aftermath of the broadcast". Moreover, when TV stations aired the clip ALL MORNING, no one complained then either! Certain organizations or pressure groups advocating censorship (the ones noted here were the FCC and the American Family Association) seem to get a lot of air play simply because they're loud or newsworthy, not because they're right. In other words, censorship can be political, because it isn't invoked simply for the kids; it is imposing values on people, and undermining our Constitutional rights. Not cool. On the other hand, does that mean when the majority thinks something should be censored, civil liberties such as freedom of speech should be sacrificed? My personal philosophy is, if you don't like it, don't watch it. But if one were to assume that the FCC does have a political agenda, in what way should we decide when to invoke censorship and when to back off?