Bill is accurate. Just put the pieces together. An impressionable type views online (or TV) that all is well to perform acts on an unsuspecting, vulnerable person as it appears a victimless crime with a comical twist. Problem is, that impressionable type then replicates this to an unsuspecting, vulnerable person out in the real world and wonders why there is a hue and cry. I expect Dante Arthurs viewed pornagraphy and got ideas from this and associated mediums.

Reality TV is in some cases about reflecting reality in the world however in the BB case, is also about creating a reality for impressionable types. Just to be clear, youth are formally considered 'impressionable' types. For this reason, merely exercising individual control & turning BB off is insufficient for the good of the whole community. Removal is the only good action for BB.

Know what's the most infuriating about this event?

It hasn't changed any opinions at all. (Hear me out, I'm going somewhere here)

Without exception, every single call I've heard to have the program axed has come from people who already hated the show and wear their disgust on their sleeve.

Therefore, these are the people who don't watch the program and know the least about it.
I am not condoning what happened in that house, but we all need to take note that the woman in question is. And ultimately, she has forgiven and forgotten. Maybe the public should too.
Simply assuming she is giving in to this peer pressure is an insult to her.

Could it be that she's been living with these people for weeks on end on a 24 hour basis?
Yeah, it's still not right, but those people who actually have some idea of what they're talking about would have seen that she is quite a strong willed young woman.

Just because these twentysomethings are on television doesn't make them perfect. They're young, and still entitled to be reasonably stupid, and those who take more than a casual glance would realise that one or two of them even have some brains.

You don't like it, switch off the TV and the the hell over it. I don't like it either, but there are those in my household who do, and I don't begrudge them for it.

If you're going to ban any television (and I don't think censorship is any answer) start with getting rid of violence before sex. It's much more harmful.

Ultimately, don't knock it till you've tried it, but somehow I don't think the right wingers are going to approach it with an open mind.

When we start imposing censorship ie: On some adolescent prank, then we are on a slippery slope. Any of you seen the schoolies week on the TV news.

Hamlet talks about "sex call adverts during the wiggles" Pleeesse!

Boaz David hates everything that is not to his "religous" thinking! He probably uses the bible as a pillow.

Live and let live, and as what has already been said. If you ain't tried it, don't knock!

Good on you, Bill, for championing decency.
It's pathetic that so many people equate the Ten Network's toxic sludge with "free speech".
I'm all in favour of free speech, if by that one means the free exchange of differing opinions.
There are, however, three important exceptions: (a) incitement to crime or violence, (b) giving defence secrets to one's country's enemies and (c) corrupting public morals.
The "off button" argument just won't do, especially when the more lurid parts of "Big Brother" are re-broadcast, described in intimate detail and discussed ad nauseam.
Have we sunk so low that we don't care about moral standards anymore?

Big Brother is a pornographic TV show which is aimed directly at children. That the producers of this show know full well that their audience is primarily composed of adolescents and young teenagers,is evidensed by the fact that "Big Brother, Uncut" is always released to coincide with the beginning of the school holidays.

Adolescents and teenagers sit glued to television screens watching a sucession of trashy youth melodramas because they are fascinated by the behaviour of young adults. Kids just don't grow up into adults, they need role models to teach them how to behave as adults. Melodramas can be useful in teaching kids how to behave in whatever contrived social situation that the movie producers think up. Most of these melodramas are pretty harmless.

But if we allow out entertainment industries to manufacture sexually explicit TV shows like Big Brother, which teaches children that sexually provocative, mysogynistic and boorish behaviour is fun and hip, then we should not be surprised when young people start acting like the young slobs implicated in Dianne Brimble's death.

If you came home and found a man in your house teaching your children that "turkey slapping" is fun, while trying to sell your kids expensive products, you would grab the rat by the scruff of the neck and march him right out of your house.

But you come home, the TV is on, and you don't think twice about it.

Frankly, I'm appalled, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Everywhere I go now, I see the ankles of chair legs uncovered. This sort of depravity is surely corrupting our youth and leading to the moral decay of our society.

Moving on though, I just don't buy this argument of free choice, speech or expression at all. Look, I'm all for freedom, but freedom doesn't actually mean you're free, it means you have limits, or rather, someone else has limits and like a moral person, you follow that other person's limits. Likewise, I demand that people take responsibility for this moral outrage, even if I won't take responsibility for myself. It's no one's responsibility to take responsibility for himself or herself.

I demand that the government step in and restore some moral decency, just like back in the good old days when everyone understood that a government's job was to tell us what was right, and it was our job to do that, even if we didn't understand why. Like I've already said, freedom has limits, and it's no one's responsibility to take personal responsibility. That's how we got in the mess we're in today: too many people claiming they know what's best for themselves.

While I'm at it, I should mention that I think the youth of today are immoral and impolite and dumbed down (otherwise they'd realise that freedom has limits and it's no one's responsibility but government's to take responsibility). Basically, they'll accept any drivel presented to them.

I think it's quite obvious that this is reasonable. It's for the sake of our children, after all. Well, I don't actually have any children, but I just want to let it be known that I'm morally outraged and worried about the insidious effects of Big Brother on any children that I could hypothetically have, who might, theoretically, watch Big Brother and possibly be adversely affected. After all, as I've quite clearly argued, it's not my responsibility to monitor what they might watch and also, young people don't know what's right or wrong.