Well I have certainly lost count of the number of radio and television programmes to which I have been invited to give my views on how we should regulate content in the public space. I believe that the debate prompt by Mrs Esther Tyson's reaction to the Ramping Shop and the subsequent move by the Broadcasting Commission, to address the airing of certain type of problematic content is a most important one.

Mavado... along with Kartel have reacted to the move by the regulators in the way they know best: musically.

Already two of the leading voices in our current popular culture Vybz Kartel and Mavado have reacted to the move by the regulators in the way they know best: musically.

In A nuh my music Kartel questions the legitimacy of the Commission noting "how yu fi reach inna public office without any election."

Kartel mistakenly believes that an election seems the only route to political legitimacy. Kartel should be reminded that one of the most important parts of our governance structure is our judiciary. It is important for him to recognise that none of our judges are elected and this is perhaps an important reason why the judiciary, might be the most trusted branch of our system of governance. What is more is that the Broadcasting Commission like the judiciary are appointed directly or indirectly by the other elected branches of government.

We have been told of many horrendous examples of judges who have to face elections in the United States are swayed by political rather than legal consideration.

It is important to note that the member of the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts are based on appointment not election. The fact that the members of the Commission are appointed and are insulated from partisan political meddling through provisions for their security of tenure lends itself to greater impartially among the regulators.

It must also be noted that if the objective of protecting our children from harmful entertainment is to be met it cannot be done without the collaboration of other agencies of the state.

This also will, however, have to be done with a proper evaluation of the economic consequences of some of the efforts to regulate the public square. I recall a debate raging in Foreign Policy sometime ago as to whether having children working in "sweat shops" head any social value. One argument put forward by supporters of the sweat shop was similar to Churchill's observation on Democracy it might not be good but it was better than the alternative. I for example believe that children should not be allowed to enter spaces of mature entertainment. Yet how realistic is this notion. It might be easy for me and my middle- class friends to philosophise on this matter but what about the youngster who would starve or become a gunman if he does not peddle cigarette and sometimes even contraband at these events. Is the protection of our children from harmful content a middle- class obsession.

The managers of the media houses are not saying it, but a concern which must now be occupying their minds is how will they survive in the absence of edgy content? As an entrepreneur who runs the weekly audience based television countdown FiWi Choice on TVJ, I am keenly aware of the financial impact of the ban. While I maybe able to absorb the implications of this development in the short run there able to absorb the effects of the new regulatory environment.

This is why there needs to be rigorous debate about the parameters and implications of our decisions of course I believe that a ban on the playing of music on the buses and other forms of public transportation can be effected. 

The commission on Friday moved to ban violent lyrics and also improved restrictions on soca songs which are explicit in their sexual reference whether aurally or visually. The Commission hardly had any choice in the matter since to do otherwise would have opened it to changes of class bias.