House ups fines for indecency on airwaves

[The ClayTaurus]

.

Sad ain't it.

Eh, there's a lot worse stuff to be sad about. Like the fact that TV is now the nanny.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, in your case, the ultimate LACK of freedom.Wait I've heard of this before... free something. Free store? Free bazaar? Free swap meet? Shit. Someone help me out here...And I want to get in my car, close my eyes, and mash the gas pedal. Whomever I run over, through, or into isn't my fault because damnit, the government should post a guy in a snow plow ready to drive 100 feet in front of me clearing the way.

There are family-friendly channels that you are more than welcome to watch. But don't go pissing on us because the lineup on those channels is utterly mind-numbing to watch. You have a right to use of the Public airwaves; not domination of them. You don't like your network choices? Then do the American thing and change the hearts and perceptions of the American public through campaign. Lead boycotts. Raise awareness. Persuade others to your opinion through logical, well-reasoned arguments.

But lets be really honest here: the reason you don't do this and instead go crying for government interference is because you know, deep down, you're in the minority. TV is about making money, and if the majority really was disgusted with all the sex, drugs, and whatever else, the ratings would tank. So you can go on and on about poll numbers and majority this and majority that, but at the end of the day its very simple: TV will reflect what the public wants to see, unless of course you puss out and call your big brother in to finish the fight you know you can't win.

Quit acting like a liberal.

Hello dumbo... why don't you take those big liberal ears of yours and just flap away.

fyi this is a definite conservative issue; it certainly is not a liberal one. It's the liberals and the misguided libertarians who think living in public filth is "freedom".

fyi the harsher penalties for indecency came as a direct result of the huge outrage of the public in response to the Super Bowl incident. The public does care.

fyi pornography has a definite negative effect on society just like other crimes and it is increasingly filtering into our public consciousness to the point that boobs like you begin to think smut is a personal "freedom".

fyi keeping smut out of the public airwaves isn't going to prevent you from viewing your beloved smut, however it would just keep the smut merchants that you so lovingly defend away from our children and decent society.:bat:

 

[jillian]

Hello dumbo... why don't you take those big liberal ears of yours and just flap away.

fyi this is a definite conservative issue; it certainly is not a liberal one. It's the liberals and the misguided libertarians who think living in public filth is "freedom".

fyi the harsher penalties for indecency came as a direct result of the huge outrage of the public in response to the Super Bowl incident. The public does care.

fyi pornography has a definite negative effect on society just like other crimes and it is increasingly filtering into our public consciousness to the point that boobs like you begin to think smut is a personal "freedom".

fyi keeping smut out of the public airwaves isn't going to prevent you from viewing your beloved smut, however it would just keep the smut merchants that you so lovingly defend away from our children and decent society.:bat:

I don't want to get in the middle here, but I think you're mixing together two different things. You're talking about "decency" standards in the same breath that you're discussing pornography. They aren't the same thing. Pornography is pornography and there isn't any on the public airways...only on pay television and everyone is free to have or not have those channels. "Decency" standards are a whole other ball of wax. While I am sure you have nothing but good intentions, I am afraid that I don't want your sensibilities imposed on me. You are free to change the channel if you don't like Howard Stern or Janet Jackson or anyone else. But if the public agreed with you, there would be no market for those things and they would go the way of the Dodo.

Still another issue you seem to be intertiwing with the above is that of inappropriate displays in a public forum which CANNOT be turned off by the captive viewer. In that regard, yes, I expect a different standard of behavior to be enforced.

But each time the pendulum has swung in such a way where we had some entity engaging in cleansing the airways or film or anything else, it has devolved into the absurd.

I can make my own decisions about what I think is appropriate viewing for both myself and my child. And just for the record, the standard is NOT the same and I'm not going to have a standard that's appropriate for a child applied to me.

 

[Mr. P]

Does porn and filth include murder, ScreamingEagle?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't want to get in the middle here, but I think you're mixing together two different things. You're talking about "decency" standards in the same breath that you're discussing pornography. They aren't the same thing. Pornography is pornography and there isn't any on the public airways...only on pay television and everyone is free to have or not have those channels. "Decency" standards are a whole other ball of wax. While I am sure you have nothing but good intentions, I am afraid that I don't want your sensibilities imposed on me. You are free to change the channel if you don't like Howard Stern or Janet Jackson or anyone else. But if the public agreed with you, there would be no market for those things and they would go the way of the Dodo.

Still another issue you seem to be intertiwing with the above is that of inappropriate displays in a public forum which CANNOT be turned off by the captive viewer. In that regard, yes, I expect a different standard of behavior to be enforced.

But each time the pendulum has swung in such a way where we had some entity engaging in cleansing the airways or film or anything else, it has devolved into the absurd.

I can make my own decisions about what I think is appropriate viewing for both myself and my child. And just for the record, the standard is NOT the same and I'm not going to have a standard that's appropriate for a child applied to me.

Indecency is really just a "lesser" form of pornography. A recent case in Michigan brought up some interesting points about indecency and also an approach to prosecution from a state against cable whereas under Fed law you couldn't prosecute cable shows for indecency.

Indecency, generally speaking, is "soft-core" pornography. The material in Michigan involved nudity only -- which would be indecency.

Obscenity is "hard-core" porn -- and is illegal under federal law, unless it can be demonstrated that it has a literary, artistic, philosophical or scientific purpose, which makes for the tougher road in the courts.

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality for Focus on the Family Action, said Michigan's action presents a novel approach, at least.

"There are laws against indecent exposure in just about every community and state," he said. "It does seem to have common sense going for it. If it's against the law to walk naked down Main Street, it would stand to reason that it should be indecent exposure to be naked on TV."

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0039672.cfm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Does porn and filth include murder, ScreamingEagle?

I'm sure murder can be found beneath the "umbrella" of porn -- as in snuff films for example.

 

[acludem]

So I guess then you support banning graphically violent network programs like the various versions of Law and Order and CSI?

Also, I don't believe nudity is pornographic. If it is, then there are a lot of art museums showing thousand year old porn.

acludem

 

[jillian]

Indecency is really just a "lesser" form of pornography. A recent case in Michigan brought up some interesting points about indecency and also an approach to prosecution from a state against cable whereas under Fed law you couldn't prosecute cable shows for indecency.

Nudity is indecency? Does that include Michelangelo's David? Where does it end? Do we do what John Ashcroft did and cover statues?

Last I heard, the FCC was trying to find a way to prosecute cable/satellite stations.

Will be interesting to see what happens to that case when it goes up on appeal because that isn't any definition that I've ever heard before.

You might want to take a look at FCC v Pacifica for the Court's discussion on the issues. (That's the George Carlin, 7 Words You Can't Say On TV case).

 

[acludem]

Cable is private, it is not in the public domain. The FCC has no business regulating cable or satellite providers for content.

acludem

 

[jillian]

Cable is private, it is not in the public domain. The FCC has no business regulating cable or satellite providers for content.

acludem

Were you responding to me? Cause I know that. There were, however, discussions about them trying to regulate cable. Was really apalling.

 

[acludem]

I was agreeing with you, Jillian! I don't get to agree with very many people in here

acludem

 

[jillian]

I was agreeing with you, Jillian! I don't get to agree with very many people in here

acludem

lol... sorry.

Thanks.

On this issue, you actually get a fair sampling of people to agree with. Seems most of us don't want government playing "mommy".

 

[insein]

Hello dumbo... why don't you take those big liberal ears of yours and just flap away.

God you are not a real conservative at all. REAL Conservatives want as little government involvment in our lives as possible. IE no government nanies telling people what to watch in the privacy of their own homes.

fyi this is a definite conservative issue; it certainly is not a liberal one. It's the liberals and the misguided libertarians who think living in public filth is "freedom".

Its not public filth. Its on TV. It can be turned off. Its a private viewing. you control the airwaves. Turn it off and it is gone, 100% of the time.

fyi the harsher penalties for indecency came as a direct result of the huge outrage of the public in response to the Super Bowl incident. The public does care.

No there was less than 2000 people that called the network out of the 250 million people that watch the super bowl to complain. Quick math, 2000/250000 = .008 = .8% of the people watching complained. 99.2% either had no problem, didnt care enough to complain, didnt notice it happen, or just turned off their tvs and were done with it.

fyi pornography has a definite negative effect on society just like other crimes and it is increasingly filtering into our public consciousness to the point that boobs like you begin to think smut is a personal "freedom".

Thats not proven. Freedom to do what you want in privacy is what this country was founded on. Freedom from oppression. As long as you dont bring it into the public and its not harming another individual (ie rape, murder, kidnapping) then people should be able to use their rights in the privacy of their own homes. TV does not infringe upon the public because it can be controlled by the individual (Parental Controls or OFF Button).

fyi keeping smut out of the public airwaves isn't going to prevent you from viewing your beloved smut, however it would just keep the smut merchants that you so lovingly defend away from our children and decent society.:bat:

This doesnt keep them away from the kids. Parents keep them away from the kids. Parents are the first and only line of defense. Government doesnt give 2 shits about your kids. But they will damn sure pretend to care if it means passing a law that gives them more power and/or more money. Wake up SE, your a tool of the government.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hello dumbo... why don't you take those big liberal ears of yours and just flap away.

*yawn*

fyi this is a definite conservative issue; it certainly is not a liberal one. It's the liberals and the misguided libertarians who think living in public filth is "freedom".

You're acting like a liberal because you want government stepping in to win a fight you know you can't without them.

fyi the harsher penalties for indecency came as a direct result of the huge outrage of the public in response to the Super Bowl incident. The public does care.

Ahhh ok gotchya.. So the public wants to see 40 year old tittie, but they just want the network to get fined for it. Kind of S+Mish if you ask me. You do know that incident was the most replayed event on Tivo ever, right? It's amusing how desperately you cling to .5 seconds of half-toplessness. You should consider weening yourself off Janet's breast.

fyi pornography has a definite negative effect on society just like other crimes and it is increasingly filtering into our public consciousness to the point that boobs like you begin to think smut is a personal "freedom".

Regurgitating the same Michael Savage talking point over and over and over doesn't make it more right. Definite negative effect? Do prove.

fyi keeping smut out of the public airwaves isn't going to prevent you from viewing your beloved smut, however it would just keep the smut merchants that you so lovingly defend away from our children and decent society.:bat:

*yawn*

You still have nothing to counter the fact that you're in the minority. It's really quite simple: If the public was as disgusted with all the smut on the public airwaves as you assert, then family-friendly, don't-have-to-explain-nothing-to-my-children-and-can-let-them-grow-up-in-a-vaccum-until-they're-18-and-then-boom-drop-the-hammer-of-adulthood-onto-them programming would dominate prime-time TV. But it doesn't. And the reason is the majority of the public is not disgusted. And therefore TV advertisers make money, and support the shows. I still can't remember the word I'm looking for... free something... free garage sale? Free flea market? Wait that's close... Free flea? Hmmmm... I'll remember it one day...

Now suck it up and deal with the shitty shows you're forced to watch because of the lack of motivation to create something worthwhile due to the microscopic target audience you're a part of. Or move to China. I hear they're big into your kind of "freedom."

 

[GotZoom]

Showing two people humping like bunnies at 7:30 on a Tuesday night is totally unnecessary to the content of the show - that is entirely different.

Look at Bono at the Golden Globes awards that one year: The FCC received hundreds of complaints about the Golden Globes broadcast after Bono said, "This is really, really, f------ brilliant."

The FCC Bono's comment was not indecent or obscene because he did not use the word to describe a sexual act. They said, "The performer used the word ... as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation."

Do I want my kids hearing that? Of course not. But I would rather them hear that than see two people boinking.

The last few years have shown that the government does not need to get into deciding what is appropriate on TV. Consumers have done quite well with that. Protesting TV shows, writing letters, boycotting advertisers.

When I was a kid, Love American Style was on TV. My parents absolutely forbid me from watching that. I had a TV in my room. They told me that they would pop in during that time to see if I was watching it. If they caught me, I would lose TV for a month. It wasn't worth it to me to take a chance.

Parent's control what their kids watch on TV. No one else.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm sure murder can be found beneath the "umbrella" of porn -- as in snuff films for example.

Sure it can be. so can everything if you ask....

I’ll tell ya ScreamingEagle, I’m much more concerned about this than a bare tit or maybe a love scene every so often.

Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000. Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000.


Dr. John Nelson of the American Medical Association (an endorser of National TV-Turnoff Week) said that if 2,888 out of 3,000 studies show that TV violence is a casual factor in real-life mayhem, "it's a public health problem." The American Psychiatric Association addressed this problem in its endorsement of National TV-Turnoff Week, stating, "We have had a long-standing concern with the impact of television on behavior, especially among children."

Porn? Well, one mans porn is another mans shoulder shrug. Someone somewhere will tag everything porn. Where do you stop? The only way to win is NOT watch what YOU consider porn.

You said it shouldn’t be the parents’ responsibility to monitor everything on tv their child may see. I strongly disagree; it is their responsibility not the Governments’. It’s an impossible task for the Government to remove all material that might offend “someone”. No one can do it better than a parent, and that is totally possible.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nudity is indecency? Does that include Michelangelo's David? Where does it end? Do we do what John Ashcroft did and cover statues?

Last I heard, the FCC was trying to find a way to prosecute cable/satellite stations.

Will be interesting to see what happens to that case when it goes up on appeal because that isn't any definition that I've ever heard before.

You might want to take a look at FCC v Pacifica for the Court's discussion on the issues. (That's the George Carlin, 7 Words You Can't Say On TV case).

Yes, the Michigan case is very interesting. It appears to have the potential to give more voice and power back to the states and the people.

Nudity can certainly be indecent, depending on the context. The law makes exceptions for artistic expression as the nudity is in a different context. However, something like walking down the street in the nude is considered indecent - don't you agree? TV shows that display nudity are pretty much in the same ballpark - they certainly aren't "artistic" in nature.

God you are not a real conservative at all. REAL Conservatives want as little government involvment in our lives as possible. IE no government nanies telling people what to watch in the privacy of their own homes.

Its not public filth. Its on TV. It can be turned off. Its a private viewing. you control the airwaves. Turn it off and it is gone, 100% of the time.

No there was less than 2000 people that called the network out of the 250 million people that watch the super bowl to complain. Quick math, 2000/250000 = .008 = .8% of the people watching complained. 99.2% either had no problem, didnt care enough to complain, didnt notice it happen, or just turned off their tvs and were done with it.

Thats not proven. Freedom to do what you want in privacy is what this country was founded on. Freedom from oppression. As long as you dont bring it into the public and its not harming another individual (ie rape, murder, kidnapping) then people should be able to use their rights in the privacy of their own homes. TV does not infringe upon the public because it can be controlled by the individual (Parental Controls or OFF Button).

This doesnt keep them away from the kids. Parents keep them away from the kids. Parents are the first and only line of defense. Government doesnt give 2 shits about your kids. But they will damn sure pretend to care if it means passing a law that gives them more power and/or more money. Wake up SE, your a tool of the government.

I am a real conservative…make no mistake about that. And I agree with you about wanting to have as little government involvement in our lives as possible. However, where you and I seem to part ways is where to draw that line. Tell me, are you also against consumer protection laws as well? Or drug laws? Or marriage laws? Or speeding laws?

IMO when an activity becomes harmful to society then it warrants intervention to prevent destruction of society. I think it is irresponsible to allow negative activity that undermines and destroys us….you do agree that being conservative is also about being responsible, don't you?

You say parents are the first and only line of defense. Does that also mean that parents are also the first and only line of defense against child molestors? Porn and child molestation are closely related and the number of child predators is enormous and in many cases the parent cannot stop the predator.

*yawn*You're acting like a liberal because you want government stepping in to win a fight you know you can't without them.Ahhh ok gotchya.. So the public wants to see 40 year old tittie, but they just want the network to get fined for it. Kind of S+Mish if you ask me. You do know that incident was the most replayed event on Tivo ever, right? It's amusing how desperately you cling to .5 seconds of half-toplessness. You should consider weening yourself off Janet's breast.Regurgitating the same Michael Savage talking point over and over and over doesn't make it more right. Definite negative effect? Do prove.*yawn*

You still have nothing to counter the fact that you're in the minority. It's really quite simple: If the public was as disgusted with all the smut on the public airwaves as you assert, then family-friendly, don't-have-to-explain-nothing-to-my-children-and-can-let-them-grow-up-in-a-vaccum-until-they're-18-and-then-boom-drop-the-hammer-of-adulthood-onto-them programming would dominate prime-time TV. But it doesn't. And the reason is the majority of the public is not disgusted. And therefore TV advertisers make money, and support the shows. I still can't remember the word I'm looking for... free something... free garage sale? Free flea market? Wait that's close... Free flea? Hmmmm... I'll remember it one day...

Now suck it up and deal with the shitty shows you're forced to watch because of the lack of motivation to create something worthwhile due to the microscopic target audience you're a part of. Or move to China. I hear they're big into your kind of "freedom."

Isn't it about time you *yawn* wake up and realize the damage and destruction that pornography is doing to our society?

No, I am not in the minority. Did you even read the stats I posted earlier where it says the majority of Americans do not think the FCC is doing a very good job?

Believe it or not, our country used to be just as down on porn as China. Nobody was suffering from a scarcity of freedom back then. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why this has changed.

Sure it can be. so can everything if you ask....

I’ll tell ya ScreamingEagle, I’m much more concerned about this than a bare tit or maybe a love scene every so often.

Porn? Well, one mans porn is another mans shoulder shrug. Someone somewhere will tag everything porn. Where do you stop? The only way to win is NOT watch what YOU consider porn.

You said it shouldn’t be the parents’ responsibility to monitor everything on tv their child may see. I strongly disagree; it is their responsibility not the Governments’. It’s an impossible task for the Government to remove all material that might offend “someone”. No one can do it better than a parent, and that is totally possible.

I agree with you that violence is another element of concern, especially as shows get more and more gruesome. Some pretty negative stuff.

I did not say that parents should abandon their responsibility. What I was saying is that with the proliferation of porn everywhere it is becoming almost impossible for parents to protect their children, especially teenagers. Once they are hooked porn can become very habit-forming - like a drug - and just as destructive.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Isn't it about time you *yawn* wake up and realize the damage and destruction that pornography is doing to our society?

Why don't you show me? Preferably with something other than your opinion.

No, I am not in the minority. Did you even read the stats I posted earlier where it says the majority of Americans do not think the FCC is doing a very good job?

Yes. You are. If the majority of Americans don't approve, why does the "smut," as you so call it, do so well? Also, saying that the FCC is not doing a good job is not the same as saying "I think there's too much porn on TV"

Believe it or not, our country used to be just as down on porn as China. Nobody was suffering from a scarcity of freedom back then. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why this has changed.

Historical tradition is not a valid argument. Its a cop-out.


Why is it so hard for you to understand that if people didn't want what was on TV actually on TV, it would be taken care of. A sitcom that isn't funny or a drama that has cheesy writing? It's largely ignored, causing advertisers to lose money and withdraw commercials, which causes the network to then lose money, and as a result then forces them to cancel the show. A show that had too much sex or violence, so much so that it makes people uncomfortable, would be subjected to the same process. What is your rebuttal to this logic?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that if people didn't want what was on TV actually on TV, it would be taken care of.

So people should get whatever they want? Should all drugs be legal? People want them. I'm not chiming in either way on the topic, i'm just saying you're getting overzealous and saying stupid stuff. You're welcome in advance, for keeping you on the straight and narrow.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So people should get whatever they want? Should all drugs be legal? People want them. I'm not chiming in either way on the topic, i'm just saying you're getting overzealous and saying stupid stuff. You're welcome in advance, for keeping you on the straight and narrow.

You're oversimplifying and reducing the argument to absolutes. Yet again.