JG is not going to allow any sexually oriented material. MF was for it as long as it was no more hardcore than the Playboy kind of stuff, but not having it was part of the deal for JG to come in. I am for it, but I am not making the decisions. Our deal with Ethostream included that material. We have no deal with them anymore.
Cable and Sat both carry sexually explicit material for those who are willing to pay the extra. it hasn't hurt their business. Netflix, Blockbuster and others have done the same, and it hasn't hurt their business.
I recent somone questioning my morals because I am for it. Who appointed that someone as guardian of the morals? In my book, it is inmoral to appoint oneself as guardian of the morals. I find the religious stuff offensive, yet I neither believe in government controls thereof, nor do I believe imposing my own values on the bottom line of a company.
There is absolutely no prove that carrying it would hurt the bottom line. I actually believe, basid on prior experience, that it will help the bottom line. No carrying it because one is squimish about it is, indeed unethical, since it is the stockholders money; not the management. If somone truely believed that it would hurt the bottom line that would be acceptable, but no one here does.
BH was carrying some marginal stuff, and took it of, it is my understanding because the religious content providers objected. They don't object when cable and satellite do it. They only push when they think they can get away with it because the player is weak. Why don't all those ministries on cable and sat tell these companies not to carry their content until they drop Playboy channel? Ah, I know. Because they collect a lot of money from prozelytizing on TV. They actually have no morals when it interferes with their pocketbook.
I would bet that in the end we will carry sexually explicit material because in the end the only God is the Almighty dollar.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
