Recently PBS aired two versions of the above captioned documentary to allow its affiliates discretion because of the looming threat of FCC sanctions since the Janet Jackson Bouncing Boob Caper during last year's superbowl.
Is the FCC going too far?
Can the government draw the lines of "decency" in a way that is fair for all?
Where and how should such lines be drawn? By whom?
Must have been because of some graphic scenes of violence? It sure didn't have anything to do with bouncing boobies.
Personally, I think the FCC has much more demanding issues than these. Like.... Just why would you allow AT&T and SBC to merge after Judge Green spent 10 years breaking them up? Good riddance to former FCC Chairman Michael Powell. Thanks for single handedly wrecking the Telecom Act of '96. What a corporate a$$ kisser he was!
If I want to see some talentless twit bounce her jugs around i'll go to a nudie bar.
When these hollyweird types think that its perfectly acceptable to flash CHILDREN on national T.V. for the sake of reviving their failing careers then it's time to pull the plug on them.
If I want to see some talentless twit bounce her jugs around i'll go to a nudie bar.
When these hollyweird types think that its perfectly acceptable to flash CHILDREN on national T.V. for the sake of reviving their failing careers then it's time to pull the plug on them.
I don't disagree with your assessment of Janet Jackson's incredible lack of prudence but it doesn't seem right to punish the networks and the rest of the public by having the FCC enact regulations that might keep non-sex related programming off the air. Like I said, I sincerely believe that the FCC has bigger issues to deal with than JJ's 40 some odd year old boobie.
It's called a "backlash". They pushed the envelope and now they get a paper cut.
Great... You may soon be paying $120.00 per month for a single telephone line and internet access but you can take solace in the fact that the FCC has protected us from a 40 year old boobie on national television.
Once upon a time, there were three little networks and each little network tried to be nice.
Then came cable, and more risque programming. For a while, it seems, the lines remained steadfast; the more risque stuff on cable and the tame stuff on network programming.
Then the lines blurred over time.
PBS reportedly censored the broadcast of A Soldiers Story because of the language used by the combat troops. It allowed its affiliates to decide how to broadcast the show.
I agree that the Jackson Mammary Malfunction caused the current backlash from the FCC...is that an overreaction? There are valid complaints that their rules are muddy and vague.
Large questions remain.
What is "decent?" Where on TV and radio should the supposedly risque stuff be shown and/or heard? What about the internet? What about this message board, which has somehow come to accept "swearing" and the use of crude expressions of late, even though we know younger people join us at times.
Stern has been blasted for his antics. He goes to radio's answer to cable, Sirius Satellite Radion, where supposedly because you pay to tune in, you accept what you hear, or perhaps even "invite" it.
Strange, the reactions of government to the demands of different sectors of the same society.
You may soon be paying $120.00 per month for a single telephone line
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Are you sure the tin foil is grounded?
LOL! My tin foil HAT is grounded with less than 2 ohms to ground, I checked it with my megger just this morning but thanks for asking.
When telecom competition is driven out of the marketplace and the same or near same monopolies are put back in place, rest assured the consumer gets screwed. When the RBOCs (regional bell operating companies) were a monopoly, long distance rates were very high. You may not remember this if you're a genX guy but all of us boomers remember it well. If those monopolies are allowed to form again, do you think the RBOCs will keep rates low out of the goodness of their hearts? But if you'd rather have the FCC spending their time trying to legislate or regulate morality based on some idiot's thinly veiled attempt to ressurect a failig career rather focusing on maintaining an even playing field in the telecommunications marketplace, hey, power to ya.
I'm not suggesting that it's ok for a washed up 40 year old used to be pop star to flash her bewbie at millions of Americans including CHILDREN, I think her pathetic attempt to rekindle her career in that manner is deplorable and shows just how desperate she is. I just think the FCC has bigger challenges to deal with, that's all.
PBS gave the locals the option to broadcast the version of their choice. They did not censor the program but rather offered two levels of viewing standards. That allows the viewer, based on the shows availability, to make their own choice. That is as it should be IMO.
If there was any censoring or thinking for the viewer it was done by the local affiliate, not the government.
Now it appears that a single group has done the overwhelming amount of complaining to the FCC. The question to me is do they represent the general public or their narrow group? Why is the FCC buckling in to one group?
Or have they done that at all? Are they just enforcing the rules that already exist?
Most FCC Complaints Came from One Group
FCC chairman Michael Powell gave some "startling statistics" to U.S. senators recently noting "the number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000." However, according to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, "nearly all indecency complaints in 2003 -- 99.8 percent -- were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group."
"The prominent role played by the PTC has raised concerns among critics of the FCC"™s crackdown on indecency."
These are the actual guidelines. I know this is a long paste but it does answer a lot of the question posted here.
Obscene Broadcasts are Prohibited at all Times
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
ï‚· An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
ï‚· The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
ï‚· The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecent Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. Indecent programming may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
Consistent with a federal statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the Commission adopted a rule pursuant to which broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
Profane Broadcast Restrictions
Profane material is defined as including language that denotes certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.
Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between 6am and 10pm.
First Amendment and Obscenity/Indecency
Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, "the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. The Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. Nonetheless, the FCC has taken numerous enforcement actions against broadcast stations for violations of the restrictions on broadcast indecency.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
FCC, PBS, and A Company Of Soldiers
LOL! My tin foil HAT is grounded with less than 2 ohms to ground, I checked it with my megger just this morning but thanks for asking.
