However, on the original website there is a warning. YouTube does NOT have that warning. It may say ‘unsuitable for some users’ but doesn’t tell WHY. If it had said ‘violence’ or ‘not reccomened for children’ then this problem woudln’t keep popping up as much.

Back to business. I DO NOT agree to BANNING! Banning takes away rights, and if you think about it, if ‘Happy Tree Friends” is banned, what next? The thing with banning is one thing: IT GROWS OUT OF CONTROL! Soon shows such as “Tom And Jerry” could be banned, and aything with even a hint of ‘offensive’ materials could also be banned.

However, I would RATHER a child watch “HTF” over some desensitizing slap stick cartoon like “Bugs Bunny”. Cartoons like that are MORE likey to corrupt children due to the LACK of realism and consequence of bloodshed and pain upon getting one’s head crushed via piano or anvil. A child would look at that, and see no bloodshed, think ‘that looks fun! Why wouldn’t it be funny in real life?’ and then end up hurting someone, all because it appeared ‘funny’. I do know this for a fact. I was one of those children in which those very cartoons influenced to behave in a violent mannar. My father even knows of someone who has suffered the same thing from these ‘chikdrens shows’.

To properly out this into scale, take the news. That involves real living people in actual suffering and death, even worse, rape. Yet the parents watch the news all the time even whether the children are in the room or not. “Tom And Jerry”: lack of realistic consequences,=makes harming people and animals seem funny. “Happy Tree Friends”: screams, pain, blood, gore, character death=realistic events, but not too real. News, and other medias of the sort: rape (including child rape) abuse, starvation, murders, robberies, theft, graphic blooied movies and photos of real people and sometimes animals hurt, bleeding and dying.

What about history classes, making the students read on and on about war, racism, and all of the horrible things real poeple did, books and movies that show graphic pictures, go into detail about how some mother watched her children died slowly and while suffering, only to learn about it again and again. What about porn? Take your pick, you tell me which is better. There are owrse things than “Happy Tree Friends”!

All in all, Ellison should really be taking her frustration out on the real world medias, depicting images of actual people getting slaughtered, and not some gore cartoon. She is also forgetting free speech. Though, she is assurting her own freedom by expressing how she feels, the people have a right to watch what they wan to watch, hence, freedom of speech, AND freedom of PRESS! If this freedom of press gets weaker due to someone banning something they didn’t like, what’s next to be taken away from the poeple?

I love the ones they dont show anymore . Also I have to say any parent letting their 6 year old kid surf the web unsupervised is fortunate the kid just found a kind of funny violent cartoon.

A post modern Tom and Jerry it may be, but I didn’t even ever enjoy Tom and Jerry. Killing cute, unsuspecting animals in violent ways is a cheap laugh that doesn’t interest me and I can have no respect for, never mind the fact that I won’t let my son watch it.

Oh, and to say that “This chick and people like her are the problem with America” is kinda silly. I’d say that people who fall for HTF’s cheap gags and make it a success are what’s wrong with America…

I am a staunch defender of the rights of cartoonists and freedom of speech, but she isn’t advocating to get rid of the cartoon. She is more interested in questioning specific advertisers for advertising in controversial, non-child friendly places, which I think is a good way to protest something. At the end she wonders why the camp didn’t supervise net activity where one of her sons first saw htf. Good question. And does anyone know if the htf website is filtered or not on some filter programs?

She also obviously did her homework instead of reacting to htf like a crazed right-winger christian who simply demands things be banned without one shred of evidence or research into what they are attacking.

I don’t agree with her thinking htf is less worthwhile than tom and jerry. It’s more visceral and graphic but the level of violence is the same. The supposed morals in tom and jerry don’t actually exist as much as she’d like to think, either. She’s no expert on cartoons, that’s for sure.

It is a heckuva lot harder for parents to stop kids from seeing questionable things today than when I was a kid. But frankly if I had a child that young, the internet wouldn’t work unless I was at the computer. Simple control like this is all that is necessary and I think that was a huge mistake on her part regardless of the difficulty involved in keeping kids from the net. I certainly wouldn’t want a 6 year old seeing htf and I too would be mad if some dumb kids campground was being irresponsible enough to have unsupervised internet access that caused this.

No, she can’t go anywhere with it. I think she is probably smart enough to know that too. That’s why she is questioning adveritsers, not the cartoon. So she doesn’t like it, big deal. Very understandable. She doesn’t seem very interested in protesting the show even though she says she would like to, hypothetically. But she’s smart enough to know it wouldn’t work.

If a show does something offensive, like makes fun of black people, you go to the advertisers of the show and tell them you aren’t happy. When advertisers get enough hate mail they pull out and the show loses money. And why should an insurance company be advertising on a violent cartoon show for adults? I can understand Sony Playstation advertising there but not Kaiser Permanente or Toyota. She raises a good question. Third party bulk ad buying? Whatever. Irresponsible and asking for a lawsuit is what that is. Big reputable companies need to get on the ball.

But what she is saying is a good idea: talk to other parents about the issue of shock art being so readily accessible to kids. I believe in freedom of expression but I can understand having shock art like htf just being available to just anyone as kind of unsettling. I love that it’s there and that I can see it but people like her do have valid points about accessibility. Make a ruckus, get it in front of the public’s eye, then maybe these issues can be resolved and people can be more responsible.

Who really gives a shit what your child stumbles upon on the web – I mean, I could see if it was hard core porn her son was eyeing, but it’s a damn funny cartoon that just so happens to have alot of blood and guts.

why does she give a shit about the advertiser’s reputation? Is she trying to get a job? – buttering them up perhaps?

It’s all wank. She’ll never go anywhere with this.

Peronaly, I think it speaks volumes about her as a mother. She’s failing misserably in her fundemental duty to control her children. Letting her 6 year old to roam the internet freely is surely unforgivalbe – anybody know how to contact the approprirate state authoraties. Her child could have been exposed to content var more likely to soil her childs mind.

Anyhows HTF aren’t so different to lillo and Stich in the Simpsons are they.