NationStates Jolt Archive

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1155&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041012%2F2301786745.htm&sc=1155&flok=NW_5-L5

The FCC is going a bit over board. Now its like you can be fined just for talking about sex. Now you cant air anything without it being censored by religious wackos.

Well, the examples they give are slightly more than "talking about sex," but I think you're right that the FCC is going overboard. It's hard for me to get too worked up over it though--anything Fox calls a "reality show" is bound to be so craptacular that you've got to be brain-dead to watch it.

If FOX should be fined for anything it should be fined for showing those stupid shows. Honestly, who are these few people that decide what is indecent? They can fine FOX for "whip cream licking" and a guy being spanked, but I've seen worse over on other channels.

It was 159 people that complained about the show out of how many? Maybe up in the hundred thousands? If Americans do not like something, don't pay attention to it... just like you do homeless people. LOL

I'm telling you--Fox has ventured into WB or even UPN territory with some of this crap.

Of course, they've also given us the Simpsons and new episodes of the Family Guy, so I can't be completely disgusted with them, but their "reality" shows are the worst dreck out there.

I'm telling you--Fox has ventured into WB or even UPN territory with some of this crap.

Of course, they've also given us the Simpsons and new episodes of the Family Guy, so I can't be completely disgusted with them, but their "reality" shows are the worst dreck out there.

All reality shows are the dumbest thing ever and I really can't see the appeal. When "Survivor" first aired I honestly didn't see the appeal. I could understand if people were into it though. Then though after multiple Big Brothers, Fear Factor, The Bachelor, Big Obnoxious Fiance... I tell you it makes me want to bash peoples heads in who watch this crap. Soap operas offer more appeal then this trash and that's saying something.

maybe people should get over getting all hysterical over every tiny bit that dares to point out that all people are sexual beings and, in this example, rather focus on the fact that FOX is blatantly lying the American people in the face and blindly supporting right-wing propaganda of a man who is the sheer symbol of anti-democracy... that kind of thing will be the one thing that'll harm your kids and society and values and whatever, not somebody who happened to show a little more flesh than you'd like it.

maybe people should get over getting all hysterical over every tiny bit that dares to point out that all people are sexual beings and, in this example, rather focus on the fact that FOX is blatantly lying the American people in the face and blindly supporting right-wing propaganda of a man who is the sheer symbol of anti-democracy... that kind of thing will be the one thing that'll harm your kids and society and values and whatever, not somebody who happened to show a little more flesh than you'd like it.


Great you just turned a discussion on an fcc fine for something completely un related into a political debate… wow how amazing

Im just waiting for someone else to point to cnn as liberal

Then someone else to re point back at fox citing “Facts” … and then someone else to point at cnn again

BAH way to turn a decent discussion about something non political into another fight

Jerk

Oh, NOW something is being done about the crap FOX shows. It's about time. I'm surprised the FCC let FOX get away with thisw crap for as long as they have.

Well, if CBS is fined for the super bowl mess, FOX shold be fined for this too. At least the FCC show consistency in this.

Now, if only they could fine FOX NEWS for their biased facts and blatant lies...

What happened at the Super Bowl was really a cheap stunt that FOX certainly shouldn't need to suffer for. If there was a mistake then a quick fine, move on and let's not have an obsession of what's on TV. A quick flash of a breast isn't really the same as what you can see on an episode of NYPD Blue anyway. Censorship and delayed broadcasting show lack of trust don't you think?

not like we haven't seen worse. ah, but since it's fox, i like the idea that they get fined. for whatever reason ;)

i'm amazed at how someone can call the fining of a tv station, which is just the pre-step of censure, non-political.

so streching that point, let me change sides for just a second and defend FOX : it is absolutely unfit for a nation like the USA, you know, all the free speech and no religion imposed on anybody and stuff, to have this kind of fining and censure happen. you can't tell me these tings ahve been labeled immoral by people because of them generally being a threat to "decent people" or children or whatever, but these decisions are 100% religiously motivated, and that pretty openly. i do know that religion plays a big rle in the USA, and that's a private matter for anyone to decide for himself, but could xou please keep religion out of the public decision on when to fine a TV station?!

p.s. you might say cesnoring is a "lack of trust", or you might as well put it a little sharper and say that is is the same a s just saying "you are all little children and can't judge for yourself and the mummy state needs to tell you what you can see ad waht you can't"

CBS was only fined $500,000.

i'm amazed at how someone can call the fining of a tv station, which is just the pre-step of censure, non-political.

so streching that point, let me change sides for just a second and defend FOX : it is absolutely unfit for a nation like the USA, you know, all the free speech and no religion imposed on anybody and stuff, to have this kind of fining and censure happen. you can't tell me these tings ahve been labeled immoral by people because of them generally being a threat to "decent people" or children or whatever, but these decisions are 100% religiously motivated, and that pretty openly. i do know that religion plays a big rle in the USA, and that's a private matter for anyone to decide for himself, but could xou please keep religion out of the public decision on when to fine a TV station?!

p.s. you might say cesnoring is a "lack of trust", or you might as well put it a little sharper and say that is is the same a s just saying "you are all little children and can't judge for yourself and the mummy state needs to tell you what you can see ad waht you can't"


Im sure it is political but this started out as a pretty decent freedom of speech argument rather then a “Fox is right wing and lies”

Specially considering the fine was not a direct result of anything to do with a political debate and such.

But yeah in light of past fines and such … sheesh 1.2 mil

Also the fact that the fcc has really been pissing me off lately … censorship for any reason makes me mad.

Any parent can sensor what their child does or does not see by simply paying ATTENTION and turning it off if they object.
Just because you want it easier to parent does not mean no one else should be able to see it either.

Maybe incentive for cable/tv companies to make a “censored” package or a family package where only thing on is family programming … that’s fine … if you know what you are getting into … and companies voluntarily only show certain material it would be fine… they would be fulfilling a marketing niche

Sorry more of a rant against censorship rather then this specific case

CBS was only fined $500,000.
Wich was the maximum allowed by the current law.

Wich was the maximum allowed by the current law.
"The fine is the most ever for a television broadcaster. The previous record of $550,000 was levied against CBS last month for the Super Bowl halftime show last February that included a racy duet in which singer Janet Jackson's breast was briefly exposed. " (the netscape link)

so statutory maximum for a single fine is 550 k

In this case the fcc is actually suing each of the STATIONS that aired the show 7 k a piece

Getting around that inconviniant 550 k maximum

To be honest, I have more sympathy for CBS than Fox over this. I mean - the Superbowl was a live show where the broadcasters clearly did not intend to show anything inapropriate and where it was the participants going outside the bounds of the expected script that caused ti to happened. In Fox's case, this was a show edited for content and then aired in a timeslot where the rules definitely prohibit it.


Although, to be fair, without nipplegate there is no way that the FCC would have levied such a huge fine for something so trivial, so I don't imagine that Fox expected such a harsh penalty when it was broadcast in April '03.



But it does continue to prove one point: The US is still rediculously uptight about the most basic, normal human sex drives. 159 people were so offended as to take the time to complain, but aparently not so offended as to simply change the channel to something they prefered. These are the sorts ofpeople who probably don't give each other a kiss in front of the kids for fear of scarring them, when in fact they are simply raising kids who will be completely clueless as to what a warm, loving relationship looks like.


159 people need to get a life.

To be honest, I have more sympathy for CBS than Fox over this. I mean - the Superbowl was a live show where the broadcasters clearly did not intend to show anything inapropriate and where it was the participants going outside the bounds of the expected script that caused ti to happened. In Fox's case, this was a show edited for content and then aired in a timeslot where the rules definitely prohibit it.


Although, to be fair, without nipplegate there is no way that the FCC would have levied such a huge fine for something so trivial, so I don't imagine that Fox expected such a harsh penalty when it was broadcast in April '03.



But it does continue to prove one point: The US is still rediculously uptight about the most basic, normal human sex drives. 159 people were so offended as to take the time to complain, but aparently not so offended as to simply change the channel to something they prefered. These are the sorts ofpeople who probably don't give each other a kiss in front of the kids for fear of scarring them, when in fact they are simply raising kids who will be completely clueless as to what a warm, loving relationship looks like.


159 people need to get a life.

Hear hear!

I mean seriously when are we going to get out of this religious backwoods mentality and relies just because we wish something true (that people were non sexual) does not make it so.

And no amount of law is going to change what people are … just can change the acts not the drives (to an extent)

I think the FCC may have acted properly in the CBS fine. After all it was a family oriented show and parents had no fair warning of what was coming.

The Fox fine on the other hand I'm not so sure of. I didn't see the shows in question, but most reality shows do have a warning at the start of the program to let parents know what kind of content to expect. If this was the case then fining is inappropriate.

I think the government in general is working to strip us of many rights we used to take for granted. The citizens of the U.S.A. need to wake up and pay attention to what is happening with all our rights and act on November 2nd. Censorship of some innane T.V. show is small change compared to what is coming if we just roll over and let government happen to us.

"Land of the free" eh?

I think the FCC may have acted properly in the CBS fine. After all it was a family oriented show and parents had no fair warning of what was coming.


True, but on the other hand neither did the broadcaster.

Let's face it - up until then would YOU have suggested that it would be safer if sporting events would be broadcast in tape-delay for fear of indecent exposure?

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1155&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041012%2F2301786745.htm&sc=1155&flok=NW_5-L5

The FCC is going a bit over board. Now its like you can be fined just for talking about sex. Now you cant air anything without it being censored by religious wackos.

Did you even READ the link that YOU posted? This is not about talking about sex, this is about showing graphic footage of strippers. FOX stations are broadcast stations, which means that they can be picked up by anybody, not just cable subscribers.

i'm amazed at how someone can call the fining of a tv station, which is just the pre-step of censure, non-political.

so streching that point, let me change sides for just a second and defend FOX : it is absolutely unfit for a nation like the USA, you know, all the free speech and no religion imposed on anybody and stuff, to have this kind of fining and censure happen. you can't tell me these tings ahve been labeled immoral by people because of them generally being a threat to "decent people" or children or whatever, but these decisions are 100% religiously motivated, and that pretty openly. i do know that religion plays a big rle in the USA, and that's a private matter for anyone to decide for himself, but could xou please keep religion out of the public decision on when to fine a TV station?!

p.s. you might say cesnoring is a "lack of trust", or you might as well put it a little sharper and say that is is the same a s just saying "you are all little children and can't judge for yourself and the mummy state needs to tell you what you can see ad waht you can't"

So you're saying that only religious folks want to keep their kids from seeing sleazy sexual objectification on broadcast stations before 10 pm? That's a pretty good argument for religious revival. If that kind of attitude keeps me from having to see fat chicks walking around in tube tops, I'm all for it.

P.S.: if the FCC is making broadcasters insert delays in live shows, I haven't heard of it. I have heard of the broadcasters themselves doing this, and if they don't trust the sleazoids like Jackson and Timberlake who would play a prank and get them fined, that is their right. Trust? Why should we trust anyone, much less a brainless oversexualized rock star?

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1155&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041012%2F2301786745.htm&sc=1155&flok=NW_5-L5

The FCC is going a bit over board. Now its like you can be fined just for talking about sex. Now you cant air anything without it being censored by religious wackos.
you mean you can't be fined for just talking about sex?

Did you even READ the link that YOU posted? This is not about talking about sex, this is about showing graphic footage of strippers. FOX stations are broadcast stations, which means that they can be picked up by anybody, not just cable subscribers.
fox was going overboard, it was more s&m situations than "sexual", and that was the problem. here's an idea america. people can walk around naked on tv all they want, long as they dont tie each other up and spank them!

there is a difference between nudity and sexuality, too bad america doesnt get this like they dont get EVERYTHING ELSE, so all of the repressed shows get around nudity by showing clothed bondage

fox was going overboard, it was more s&m situations than "sexual", and that was the problem. here's an idea america. people can walk around naked on tv all they want, long as they dont tie each other up and spank them!

there is a difference between nudity and sexuality, too bad america doesnt get this like they dont get EVERYTHING ELSE, so all of the repressed shows get around nudity by showing clothed bondage

Oh I am all for nude bdsm on tv... on NON-broadcast stations and/or AFTER 10 pm. But from the sound of the posters here, it would be an unacceptable censorship for your local tv broadcast tower to be forbidden to show "The Enema Bandit Returns" at 3 pm when the kids are waiting for mom and dad to get home.

P.S.: all the repressed shows on tv are showing clothed bondage? :D Which ones? I want to know!

Oh I am all for nude bdsm on tv... on NON-broadcast stations and/or AFTER 10 pm. But from the sound of the posters here, it would be an unacceptable censorship for your local tv broadcast tower to be forbidden to show "The Enema Bandit Returns" at 3 pm when the kids are waiting for mom and dad to get home.

P.S.: all the repressed shows on tv are showing clothed bondage? :D Which ones? I want to know!


Few solutions to that ... my proposed family network
or the simple solution

Vchip :-P

Few solutions to that ... my proposed family network
or the simple solution

Vchip :-P

Fine. Everyone with an old tv, and kids, should throw out their tv and get a new one. Then, as long as a normally acceptable station doesn't surprise them with pixelated nude strippers spanking a pixelated nude man on all fours and a leash at 8 p.m., their kids will be safe. Great idea.

Also simple solution ... un plug the idiot box

Also simple solution ... un plug the idiot box

...because kids don't understand electricity.

Only solution is to have no tv. That way, if you also forbid your kids from having friends and visiting at their houses, your kids will be safe. Unless there is an emergency alert, then you will all be clueless as the poison gas from the overturned train cars comes rolling in.

Hey! Here's an idea! How about a law against explicit sex on broadcast tv channels before 10 pm?

Oh, wait...

...because kids don't understand electricity.

Only solution is to have no tv. That way, if you also forbid your kids from having friends and visiting at their houses, your kids will be safe. Unless there is an emergency alert, then you will all be clueless as the poison gas from the overturned train cars comes rolling in.

Hey! Here's an idea! How about a law against explicit sex on broadcast tv channels before 10 pm?

Oh, wait...

Hmmmm understand electricity … how bout a locking outlet … 7 dollars last time I looked … hooked up easily like a standard outlet … can even do the fancy double throw portion)

Also make a locking switch for those advanced users (just like hooking up a wall switch to an outlet) those are 3 bucks

But ohhh no the poor or the un electrical savy parents. (note most renters rules alow the locking cover plate mod)

Hmmmm understand electricity … how bout a locking outlet … 7 dollars last time I looked … hooked up easily like a standard outlet … can even do the fancy double throw portion)

Also make a locking switch for those advanced users (just like hooking up a wall switch to an outlet) those are 3 bucks

But ohhh no the poor or the un electrical savy parents. (note most renters rules alow the locking cover plate mod)

Oh great! $3-7 times every outlet in the house, and now the kids can't plug in anything without parental permission.

Guess what? Not all parents who object to their kids being able to watch pixelated nude bdsm at 8 pm are the kind of parents who want to have to treat their kids like prisoners, pets, toddlers or mental patients in order to keep that from happening.

You want to watch porn during prime time or earlier?

V. C. R.

Or D. V. D.

Or P. P. V.

Hell, if you really want to watch FOX's sleazy soft-core porno "reality" show crap, tape it if it comes on too late, and watch it with the kids over breakfast.

CBS was only fined $500,000.
And they did worse.

Roflmao. They didn't show any penisses or vaginas or whatnot. You should see what we get to see here in Germany on TV. And I thought our TV stations are being over-regulated hahahaha... laaaaand of the freeeeee ... my ass... again roflmao.

Did you even READ the link that YOU posted? This is not about talking about sex, this is about showing graphic footage of strippers. FOX stations are broadcast stations, which means that they can be picked up by anybody, not just cable subscribers.
Are you insane?
They didn't show graphic footage of strippers, the privates were digitally covered over. A common procedure at all networks.
Hardly a reason to fine them. Further, all realities shows have warnings at the beginning stating there may be offensive content. So the fine is clearly a violation of free speech laws.

Are you insane?
Yes. So?
They didn't show graphic footage of strippers, the privates were digitally covered over. A common procedure at all networks.
Hardly a reason to fine them. Further, all realities shows have warnings at the beginning stating there may be offensive content. So the fine is clearly a violation of free speech laws.

Oh, their privates were digitally covered over, and there were (presumeably) warnings! Well that makes it just fine and dandy, huh?

It is not a violation of any laws. The broadcast was a violation of broadcast decency laws. I doubt you are a Republican, so maybe you should look into the concept of nuanced non-black-and-white situations. If you think that the law protects all forms of expression, why don't you play a porno tape for the neighbourhood kids and see how fast the law puts you in prison?

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1155&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041012%2F2301786745.htm&sc=1155&flok=NW_5-L5

The FCC is going a bit over board. Now its like you can be fined just for talking about sex. Now you cant air anything without it being censored by religious wackos.

I laughed at this early bit: the material [...] was indecent and patently offensive, intended to "pander to and titillate the audience.''If it was indecent (as per whatever indecency laws you have that side of the Pond) then fair enough, but how can it be considered "offensive" if the intention was to "pander to" the audience... If it was intended to offend the audience, then Ok, else charge them with "incency and patent pandering" (or sensationalism, whatever living down to the common denominator might be termed as) instead.

(Yeah, that's probably mired in the legal definition of "offensive" or somesuch, but to my eyes that was so contradictory.)

1. This is not about Fox political bias.

2. This is an attempt by religious wackos and lazy parents to strip us of our God given rights.

3. The article said that the FCC is cracking down on all references to sex and nudity. Clearly a violation of the US Constitution Amendment 1:
"Congress shall pass no laws respecting or abridging free of religion, speech, the press..."
Clearly the FCC fine violates all three rights that are protected by the first, and is hence, a violation of the US Constitution.

4. Didn't sound like S&D to me. The FCC stated that the station was fined cause there was alluded nudity and the complainants didn't like what the cast was doing.

5. The job of a parent is to be parent. A parent only has the right to censor what their own children see, not what everyone else sees. Other wise America would be a religious dictatorship.

6. If the FCC can do this, then worse will definately come. If you surrender one right, then the government will take away all of your rights. That is why we must support and defend the rights of all, even those who we disagree with. Cause if we allow the government to censor FOX just cause we don't agree with FOX politically, you can be certain that the government will be coming after you or me next.

7. Hopefully FOX will appeal and if this goes to the Supreme Court (unlikely), I think the SC will overturn the fine.

8. There is no right to not be offended.

1.2million what? Viewers? Braincells? Fiction novels?

Oh great! $3-7 times every outlet in the house, and now the kids can't plug in anything without parental permission.

Guess what? Not all parents who object to their kids being able to watch pixelated nude bdsm at 8 pm are the kind of parents who want to have to treat their kids like prisoners, pets, toddlers or mental patients in order to keep that from happening.

You want to watch porn during prime time or earlier?

V. C. R.

Or D. V. D.

Or P. P. V.

Hell, if you really want to watch FOX's sleazy soft-core porno "reality" show crap, tape it if it comes on too late, and watch it with the kids over breakfast.

I don’t care about porn I don’t think that there should be censorship based on what time of the day it is.


(and if you want to be technical you could do a circuit breaker lock … only two or three of them)

Besides I hate to be the old school parent’s jobs thing but it is

If they object to content they can either
1 watch what their children are watching
2 most digital cable and satellite subscribers can block programming
3 have a tv that censors content
4 turn off or unplug or switch tv power

If you cant control your kids watching tv you should try harder or get rid of thus said tv or put it in a locked room or something

Seriously

Have society do your parenting work for you

Yes. So?


Oh, their privates were digitally covered over, and there were (presumeably) warnings! Well that makes it just fine and dandy, huh?

It is not a violation of any laws. The broadcast was a violation of broadcast decency laws. I doubt you are a Republican, so maybe you should look into the concept of nuanced non-black-and-white situations. If you think that the law protects all forms of expression, why don't you play a porno tape for the neighbourhood kids and see how fast the law puts you in prison?
The decency laws are based on fanatical interpretations of the Bible. They were imposed by the same people who forced "under God" into the pledge and then had to have the US Supreme Court tell them they could not force children to pray at public events. Look at the context in which the laws were passed. They were clearly put in place to force religion on people.
159 people have no right what ever to censor what the other 290 million of us watch.

And as for your first paragraph, it is fine as long the privates are covered up and there is a warning. If you are parent, then may I suggest that you might want to do your own job, ie. carry your own weight, instead forcing the rest of us to do for you.
In MHO, parents who rely on society to raise their kids, are not fit to be parents.

True, but on the other hand neither did the broadcaster.

Let's face it - up until then would YOU have suggested that it would be safer if sporting events would be broadcast in tape-delay for fear of indecent exposure?

Jackson was acting as an employee of CBS and as such CBS is partially responsible for her actions even if they did not know what she was going to do. Otherwise, they could show anything they wanted on live TV and use the excuse "We Didn't know". The fact that Janet Jackson exploits her sexualality on a regular basis could have been a clue to CBS executives, but they chose to take a chance. They could have gone a safe route and hired Donny Osmond, but they wanted cutting edge and got burned for their efforts.

Heh... Come to Canada.

Generaly speaking... we dont have "decency laws"... we have "common sense laws"....

Yes there is no nudity on tv durring the day.
Heck... one tv station shows actual soft core porn after midnight... the most you'll see is a breast or an ass.. no penis and only an insinuation of sex. (these dont start till midnight. we Canadians let our children stay up later to watch TV)

In all honesty....
I think the FCC is full of religious bigots.
You can see worse on NYPD Blue, C.S.I., or any of the cop/investigation type shows on TV right now. You might not see actualy breasts or assess or kinky BSDM things....

But I found the footage of Justin ripping off Jannets bra cup without prior station knowledge to be very wholesome compared to some of the content in regular TV.

And fining someone for something they had no prior knowledge of... no way of preventing....
Is like fining Joe Blow in Alabama for not stopping 9/11.

The U.S.A. loves 2 things.
Imposing new Restrictions (both on its own people, and on the world at large)
and finding scapegoats.

What I think everyone here is ignoring is that the US government owns the airways. They choose to allow networks to broadcast on them. If you use their signal medium, you have to follow their rules. The government isn't saying you can't have porn on TV, or BDSM, or anything else, they're saying that the signals they're leasing to FOX and CBS et al. have to be kept clean, because that's what they want. If you rent an apartment, you don't own it, and there are certain things you can't do. Same idea.

Hmmmm understand electricity … how bout a locking outlet … 7 dollars last time I looked … hooked up easily like a standard outlet … can even do the fancy double throw portion)

Also make a locking switch for those advanced users (just like hooking up a wall switch to an outlet) those are 3 bucks

But ohhh no the poor or the un electrical savy parents. (note most renters rules alow the locking cover plate mod)

One problem is: even if you do everything in your power to keep your kids from watching these shows in your house, they will inevitably wind up at someone elses house who has "cool" parents who let them do whatever they please. The point is you can not protect your kids from everything you don't want them to hear or see. Network TV is so tame compared to what is available through the internet and cable that this whole discussion seems a little silly. The best way to protect your kids is to raise them well and teach them that the world is full of things that are not good and help them sort out what is right from wrong according to your personal beliefs. Hiding the bad things from them will only encourage them to seek it out.

This is a great idea!

Let's impose huge fines on anyone who assaults us with contentless drivel.

No more MTV, E Network, Fox News, my God it will be wonderful!

I don't have to worry personally; my spam was all purged a few months ago.

One problem is: even if you do everything in your power to keep your kids from watching these shows in your house, they will inevitably wind up at someone elses house who has "cool" parents who let them do whatever they please. The point is you can not protect your kids from everything you don't want them to hear or see. Network TV is so tame compared to what is available through the internet and cable that this whole discussion seems a little silly. The best way to protect your kids is to raise them well and teach them that the world is full of things that are not good and help them sort out what is right from wrong according to your personal beliefs. Hiding the bad things from them will only encourage them to seek it out.

Very good point

Also I think a lot of urge to see a lot of this is expressly BECAUSE it is forbidden
Honestly that is a lot of it

1. This is not about Fox political bias.

2. This is an attempt by religious wackos and lazy parents to strip us of our God given rights.

3. The article said that the FCC is cracking down on all references to sex and nudity. Clearly a violation of the US Constitution Amendment 1:
"Congress shall pass no laws respecting or abridging free of religion, speech, the press..."
Clearly the FCC fine violates all three rights that are protected by the first, and is hence, a violation of the US Constitution.

4. Didn't sound like S&D to me. The FCC stated that the station was fined cause there was alluded nudity and the complainants didn't like what the cast was doing.

5. The job of a parent is to be parent. A parent only has the right to censor what their own children see, not what everyone else sees. Other wise America would be a religious dictatorship.

6. If the FCC can do this, then worse will definately come. If you surrender one right, then the government will take away all of your rights. That is why we must support and defend the rights of all, even those who we disagree with. Cause if we allow the government to censor FOX just cause we don't agree with FOX politically, you can be certain that the government will be coming after you or me next.

7. Hopefully FOX will appeal and if this goes to the Supreme Court (unlikely), I think the SC will overturn the fine.

8. There is no right to not be offended.

1. Correct.

2. You mean parents who are too lazy to padlock every outlet in their home, and not fast enough to turn the chaneel when some sleazy pixelated sex stuff surprises them? BTW the V chip does not work for broadcast, if I recall correctly.

3. Perhaps references, but this example is about imagery. There have always been exceptions to free expression: libel/slander, government secrets, false emergencies, pubic nuiscence, harrasment, and, guess what? indescency.

4. What is S&D? It sounded a whole lot to me like pixelated nudity, not an allusion.

5. I guess America has always been a religious dictatorship, because nudity has never been allowed before 10 pm on broadcast tv, and for a long time not on tv at all.

But tell me: do you see any problem with letting the local broadcast tower air Kim Wylde movies in the mid-afternoon?

6. The FCC has always been able to do this. You seem to think that prior to the current administration we could watch pixelated nude spanking scenes during prime time. They are not taking away any "right" that we have ever enjoyed. So your slippery slope argument is frightfully ill-founded.

7. If the SC elects to hear FOX's appeal (unlikely) after the fine is upheld all way up to them, they will uphold it.

8. Then you favour the repeal of harrasment and sexual harrassment laws, I take it? If the Witnesses knocked on your door every morning and you had no reasonable expectation of the law helping if you'd told them over and over to leave you alone, you might change your mind.

The decency laws are based on fanatical interpretations of the Bible. They were imposed by the same people who forced "under God" into the pledge and then had to have the US Supreme Court tell them they could not force children to pray at public events. Look at the context in which the laws were passed. They were clearly put in place to force religion on people.
159 people have no right what ever to censor what the other 290 million of us watch.

And as for your first paragraph, it is fine as long the privates are covered up and there is a warning. If you are parent, then may I suggest that you might want to do your own job, ie. carry your own weight, instead forcing the rest of us to do for you.
In MHO, parents who rely on society to raise their kids, are not fit to be parents.

Are you suggesting that non-Abrahamites (C/J/M) generally do not mind their kids being exposed to that sort of sleazey crap? What planet do you live on? And are you suggesting that hard-core porn is acceptable from broadcast tv, any hour of the day, because it's up to the parents to make sure if they don't want their kids watching it, that they don't?

Are you suggesting that non-Abrahamites (C/J/M) generally do not mind their kids being exposed to that sort of sleazey crap? What planet do you live on? And are you suggesting that hard-core porn is acceptable from broadcast tv, any hour of the day, because it's up to the parents to make sure if they don't want their kids watching it, that they don't?


No I was thinking that parents should do their damn job.

And if you teach them right this wouldn’t be an issue

I just don’t find it right that a show with correct warning should be fined because someone’s viewpoint that they don’t want to see it.

If it is a problem fix it in your house (don’t know about you but padlocking one outlet in my house would be enough) if the kid picked up the tv and move it to another room just to get it to an outlet (or in mn 12 foot to another room) they would be in another whole world of trouble from me.

So basically those that NEED it censored are those that

1 Cant watch what their kids are watching

2 do not possess cable able to filter

3 do not possess cable/satellite that can filter

4 have a tv easily movable to a different outlet

5 have un attended children that can move the tv to another outlet

Wow takes a lot of work to just possibly watch smut

Yes it does take a lot of work
But that is what PARENTING IS.

I mean why does your kid do anything u want him to (such as staying in the neighborhood or biking only on sidewalks ) or what not … because you have explained the dangers to them!

Its like closing a street before 10 pm because there is the possibility of some un attended idiot child wandering onto it.

you talk to your kids right and they wont do it

. . .

you talk to your kids right and they wont do it

How old are your kids, or do you even have any? :rolleyes:

Yeah basically it means always being home when your kids are, or locking the tv in a closet. Anybody that doesn't do that doesn't know how to parent.

Can I point out a few things?

In a few years, our telivision stations and radio channels will resemble what they've got in Cuba if they keep this shit up.

Also, the FCC has never been biting down as hard as it is now. In other words, 10 years ago, when I was 8, they weren't fining people and censoring stuff as much. And what is the result? I have 18 year old friends who refuse to see R rated movies. I have 18 year old friends who will stop reading a joke immediately after seeing a curse word. I think this is plenty proof that parenting has a lot to do with what your children view.

2. You mean parents who are too lazy to padlock every outlet in their home, and not fast enough to turn the chaneel when some sleazy pixelated sex stuff surprises them? BTW the V chip does not work for broadcast, if I recall correctly.
you recall crap. the vchip blocks out shows with certain ratings, all shows are required to have ratings. and yes parents are too damn lazy too actualyl do what they should be doing parenting. they rely on the government to regulate everything they find offensive for everyone instead of them doing it their damnselves

3. Perhaps references, but this example is about imagery. There have always been exceptions to free expression: libel/slander, government secrets, false emergencies, pubic nuiscence, harrasment, and, guess what? indescency.
guess what? indescency is completely objective and should not be mas regulated ebcause a bunch of pussy soccer mosm and old ladies with sand in their vaginas

they dont allow nudity on tv past 10 pm, and IF they do its on cable and IF there its pixelated. there is NO nudity on american tv, ANYWHERE except channels you pay for and they still have to adhere to the asinine rule of past 10 pm nudity. everything past 10 is infomercials for the majority of thestations througout television





8. Then you favour the repeal of harrasment and sexual harrassment laws, I take it? If the Witnesses knocked on your door every morning and you had no reasonable expectation of the law helping if you'd told them over and over to leave you alone, you might change your mind.
red herring

What I think everyone here is ignoring is that the US government owns the airways. They choose to allow networks to broadcast on them. If you use their signal medium, you have to follow their rules. The government isn't saying you can't have porn on TV, or BDSM, or anything else, they're saying that the signals they're leasing to FOX and CBS et al. have to be kept clean, because that's what they want. If you rent an apartment, you don't own it, and there are certain things you can't do. Same idea.
Wrong, the government does not own the air waves just like the government does not own the water or the air you drink and breathe. The air waves are a common good.

1. Correct.

2. You mean parents who are too lazy to padlock every outlet in their home, and not fast enough to turn the chaneel when some sleazy pixelated sex stuff surprises them? BTW the V chip does not work for broadcast, if I recall correctly.

3. Perhaps references, but this example is about imagery. There have always been exceptions to free expression: libel/slander, government secrets, false emergencies, pubic nuiscence, harrasment, and, guess what? indescency.

4. What is S&D? It sounded a whole lot to me like pixelated nudity, not an allusion.

5. I guess America has always been a religious dictatorship, because nudity has never been allowed before 10 pm on broadcast tv, and for a long time not on tv at all.

But tell me: do you see any problem with letting the local broadcast tower air Kim Wylde movies in the mid-afternoon?

6. The FCC has always been able to do this. You seem to think that prior to the current administration we could watch pixelated nude spanking scenes during prime time. They are not taking away any "right" that we have ever enjoyed. So your slippery slope argument is frightfully ill-founded.

7. If the SC elects to hear FOX's appeal (unlikely) after the fine is upheld all way up to them, they will uphold it.

8. Then you favour the repeal of harrasment and sexual harrassment laws, I take it? If the Witnesses knocked on your door every morning and you had no reasonable expectation of the law helping if you'd told them over and over to leave you alone, you might change your mind.

2.Go out and buy a Tivo.

3. obscenity can only be banned at the local level, not by the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled this over and over again. And it isn't about imagery, the article explicity states its about references.

5. Due to religious fundies, nudity is not allowed at all on broadcast tv, not even on national geographic. That is how extreme they are. But this wasn't always so.

6. Before the wackos set up the FCC to impose their religion, there were no such laws.

7. The SC puts the first amendment before not being offended. The SC has stated repeatedly in various cases, that you don't have the right to not be offended.

8. different subject.

Wrong, the government does not own the air waves just like the government does not own the water or the air you drink and breathe. The air waves are a common good.
And as every other common good, is regulated by the government.

Wrong, the government does not own the air waves just like the government does not own the water or the air you drink and breathe. The air waves are a common good.
the government just leases airwaves, they let their supposed un-government related group FCC ( :rolleyes: ) be the airwave nazis, thus thats how they play partisan games and bypass the first amendment alot

you recall crap.

Correct. I was wrong.

Hey guess what? I just checked out the v chip on my tv and you know what? This fucking Emerson doesn't even have a password for it.

If it did, I am sure that any fruit of my loins could crack it by the time they were nine. I'm pretty sure I could have.

Do you have a vchip with a password? How many digits in your password? is it 1-10 per digit or 1-36? Does it tell you when there have been unsuccessful attempts?

the vchip blocks out shows with certain ratings, all shows are required to have ratings. and yes parents are too damn lazy too actualyl do what they should be doing parenting. they rely on the government to regulate everything they find offensive for everyone instead of them doing it their damnselves


guess what? indescency is completely objective and should not be mas regulated ebcause a bunch of pussy soccer mosm and old ladies with sand in their vaginas

So that gets back to the question: should hardcore porn be allowed on broadcast stations in the middle of the day? Oh, you got a v chip. And no kid can get ahold of a tv that was made before 2000, or one with a less than 17 inch screen, or one like mine where the vchip is apparently a joke.

they dont allow nudity on tv past 10 pm, and IF they do its on cable and IF there its pixelated. there is NO nudity on american tv, ANYWHERE except channels you pay for and they still have to adhere to the asinine rule of past 10 pm nudity. everything past 10 is infomercials for the majority of thestations througout television

No, they DO allow pixelated nudity, and even brief nypd blue ass-cracks, after 10 pm. They DON'T allow it, on BROADCAST tv, before then. This was the point. FOX is a network of BROADCAST stations that are also carried by local cable companies. Whine about not being able to legally see pixelated nude bdsm scenes during primetime all you want, but do not pretend that the FCC has overstepped the law. They have not. Vote for those who will allow hardcore on the big four on broadcast at noon if you can find any, and complain about politicians not representing you if you don't, but don't pretend that this is an incursion on rights we formerly enjoyed. Back in the day, when the only tv censorship was apparently kids listening to their parents (*LMFAOAMSOMN*), there was no Dennis Franz' ass-crack or Girls Gone Wild nipple-bars on tv at all. This is not a case of government peeling rights back, this is a case of government maintaining enforcement of what has always been the law. Change it if you can but don't make like it's something new.






red herring

No, that was a response to someone who basically said that freedom of expression had no limits.

So that gets back to the question: should hardcore porn be allowed on broadcast stations in the middle of the day? Oh, you got a v chip. And no kid can get ahold of a tv that was made before 2000, or one with a less than 17 inch screen, or one like mine where the vchip is apparently a joke.
thats not the problem. the problem is the repression and attack upon anythign sexual any where anywhere near the airwaves broadcast or cablecast



No, they DO allow pixelated nudity, and even brief nypd blue ass-cracks, after 10 pm. They DON'T allow it, on BROADCAST tv, before then. This was the point. FOX is a network of BROADCAST stations that are also carried by local cable companies. Whine about not being able to legally see pixelated nude bdsm scenes during primetime all you want, but do not pretend that the FCC has overstepped the law. They have not. Vote for those who will allow hardcore on the big four on broadcast at noon if you can find any, and complain about politicians not representing you if you don't, but don't pretend that this is an incursion on rights we formerly enjoyed. Back in the day, when the only tv censorship was apparently kids listening to their parents (*LMFAOAMSOMN*), there was no Dennis Franz' ass-crack or Girls Gone Wild nipple-bars on tv at all. This is not a case of government peeling rights back, this is a case of government maintaining enforcement of what has always been the law. Change it if you can but don't make like it's something new.
NO, they DONT. unless you have HBO, Showtime, or Cinemax, your ass wont be seeing any sexual related nudity, ANY time of night, broadcast OR cablecast. butt crack is NOT NOT NOT NOT nudity. in alot of countries, breasts arnt nudity. and even on hbo, the nipplefest doesnt start until midnight EST. and thats a channel you pay EXTRA for. on no other channel on tv can you even see a nipple at 2 am without pixelations, broadcast or cablecast. not E! not MTV not BET NOWHERE

2.Go out and buy a Tivo.

3. obscenity can only be banned at the local level, not by the federal government. The Supreme Court has ruled this over and over again. And it isn't about imagery, the article explicity states its about references.

5. Due to religious fundies, nudity is not allowed at all on broadcast tv, not even on national geographic. That is how extreme they are. But this wasn't always so.

6. Before the wackos set up the FCC to impose their religion, there were no such laws.

7. The SC puts the first amendment before not being offended. The SC has stated repeatedly in various cases, that you don't have the right to not be offended.

8. different subject.

2. So every parent who doesn't want their kids to see this stuff should move to an area that HAS Tivo and then subscribe, plus lock their tv away. (I could make an antenna when I was nine. And did I mention: the v chip is a joke?) I guess the poor don't need control over what their kids watch.

3. The SC has never smacked down the FCC and this conservative-loaded one will not start. And it was about imagery. Read it again, Sparky:

The episode in question, which aired April 7, 2003, featured explicitly sexual scenes from their bachelor and bachelorette parties.


``Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner,'' the FCC said. ``Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable.''

5. Nudity never was allowed on tv, and we are a lot more tolerent of it now. Do you really think non-religious parents don't have a problem with these things? Again: what planet do you live on? BTW, NG has its own network. On cable.

6. Yeah back in the day the airwaves were full of NON-pixelated bdsm scenes. :rolleyes:

7. I suppose we will see what Renquist and the rest have to say, won't we?

8. No, it's about the right to "not be offended" that we supposedly don't have. If freedom of expression is THAT sacrosanct, I should be allowed to tell my female employees that they have nice tits.

thats not the problem. the problem is the repression and attack upon anythign sexual any where anywhere near the airwaves broadcast or cablecast




NO, they DONT. unless you have HBO, Showtime, or Cinemax, your ass wont be seeing any sexual related nudity, ANY time of night, broadcast OR cablecast. butt crack is NOT NOT NOT NOT nudity. in alot of countries, breasts arnt nudity. and even on hbo, the nipplefest doesnt start until midnight EST. and thats a channel you pay EXTRA for. on no other channel on tv can you even see a nipple at 2 am without pixelations, broadcast or cablecast. not E! not MTV not BET NOWHERE

What you just described is the way it's supposed to be. It looks like you need to reread the article too. This was at 8 pm.

P.S.: Oh wait... the pixels are what make it not nudity, right? :rolleyes: I mean, they could show the director's cut of "Angel Heart" at 8 pm, and show Mickey Rourke's boney ass going up and down between Lisa Bonet's thighs, as long as they cover his crack with pixels, right?

Correct. I was wrong.

Hey guess what? I just checked out the v chip on my tv and you know what? This fucking Emerson doesn't even have a password for it.

If it did, I am sure that any fruit of my loins could crack it by the time they were nine. I'm pretty sure I could have.

Do you have a vchip with a password? How many digits in your password? is it 1-10 per digit or 1-36? Does it tell you when there have been unsuccessful attempts?



So that gets back to the question: should hardcore porn be allowed on broadcast stations in the middle of the day? Oh, you got a v chip. And no kid can get ahold of a tv that was made before 2000, or one with a less than 17 inch screen, or one like mine where the vchip is apparently a joke.



No, they DO allow pixelated nudity, and even brief nypd blue ass-cracks, after 10 pm. They DON'T allow it, on BROADCAST tv, before then. This was the point. FOX is a network of BROADCAST stations that are also carried by local cable companies. Whine about not being able to legally see pixelated nude bdsm scenes during primetime all you want, but do not pretend that the FCC has overstepped the law. They have not. Vote for those who will allow hardcore on the big four on broadcast at noon if you can find any, and complain about politicians not representing you if you don't, but don't pretend that this is an incursion on rights we formerly enjoyed. Back in the day, when the only tv censorship was apparently kids listening to their parents (*LMFAOAMSOMN*), there was no Dennis Franz' ass-crack or Girls Gone Wild nipple-bars on tv at all. This is not a case of government peeling rights back, this is a case of government maintaining enforcement of what has always been the law. Change it if you can but don't make like it's something new.




No, that was a response to someone who basically said that freedom of expression had no limits.

The Girls Gone Wild informercials, do not explicit nudity. Explicit nudity is when you don't have anything covering up the private areas (in this case breasts). Nothing in the article or on any other FOX program even comes close to being hardcore.
The FCC has violated the US Constitution. Again, these laws weren't always on the books. They've only been there since the 50's when the wacko religious folks were running things.
This is a serious incursion on our rights.
I don't know what country you are in, but in America, free speech, free religion, and free press have always taken precedence over people's desire to force their religion on others.
I fully agree that this is a severe violation of the US Constitution. If we don't stop them here, then where? When we do stand up and start demanding our rights back. After reading this thread and the article in question I did a quick poll. Seems some people believe this incident is another sign that another revolution is coming to America. And you know what? I might be on the side of the revolutionaries. When you talk about the federal government invalidating the US Constitution just because some lazy parent or some wacko religion is offended, then you are asking the American people to hearken to the words of Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence,
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Our rights are being violated and we have suffered them while they have been sufferable. But these violations are building up to boiling point from which there can be no return. And when that time comes, (likely in the next 50 to 100 years unless corrective action is taken), it will be too late for the religious wackos to change their tyrannical ways and it will be too late authoritarians who attack our constitution in the name of parenthood. For them, that day will bring justice.

2. So every parent who doesn't want their kids to see this stuff should move to an area that HAS Tivo and then subscribe, plus lock their tv away. (I could make an antenna when I was nine. And did I mention: the v chip is a joke?) I guess the poor don't need control over what their kids watch.

3. The SC has never smacked down the FCC and this conservative-loaded one will not start. And it was about imagery. Read it again, Sparky:



5. Nudity never was allowed on tv, and we are a lot more tolerent of it now. Do you really think non-religious parents don't have a problem with these things? Again: what planet do you live on? BTW, NG has its own network. On cable.

6. Yeah back in the day the airwaves were full of NON-pixelated bdsm scenes. :rolleyes:

7. I suppose we will see what Renquist and the rest have to say, won't we?

8. No, it's about the right to "not be offended" that we supposedly don't have. If freedom of expression is THAT sacrosanct, I should be allowed to tell my female employees that they have nice tits.

8. You have the right to say that. I agree that there is no such thing as a right to not be offended. Free Expression can only be restricted if it causes violence or bodily harm to people. If it causes people to have heart attacks, then you could ban all references to sex. But the fact is, it doesn't. Nor does seeing a butt crack.

What you just described is the way it's supposed to be. It looks like you need to reread the article too. This was at 8 pm.

P.S.: Oh wait... the pixels are what make it not nudity, right? :rolleyes: I mean, they could show the director's cut of "Angel Heart" at 8 pm, and show Mickey Rourke's boney ass going up and down between Lisa Bonet's thighs, as long as they cover his crack with pixels, right?
I read the article, they aren't talking about anything explicit. In fact that stuff isn't even softcore, let alone hardcore.
If you want to know hardcore, order Spice or Playboy television. That stuff is hardcore. Though Playboy is more toward softcore. SPice has more explicit stuff on it. But both are owned by the same company.

Can I point out a few things?

In a few years, our telivision stations and radio channels will resemble what they've got in Cuba if they keep this shit up.

Also, the FCC has never been biting down as hard as it is now. In other words, 10 years ago, when I was 8, they weren't fining people and censoring stuff as much. And what is the result? I have 18 year old friends who refuse to see R rated movies. I have 18 year old friends who will stop reading a joke immediately after seeing a curse word. I think this is plenty proof that parenting has a lot to do with what your children view.
Another completely logical post with a cogent argument and an excellent real life example gone completely (and wisely) ignored. Shablammo!

Another completely logical post with a cogent argument and an excellent real life example gone completely (and wisely) ignored. Shablammo!
I agree with this.

I was planning on staying in the US long enough to go to college, but now I am reconsidering. This is too much.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/tv/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1155&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041012%2F2301786745.htm&sc=1155&flok=NW_5-L5

The FCC is going a bit over board. Now its like you can be fined just for talking about sex. Now you cant air anything without it being censored by religious wackos.
Geez . . . stupid uptight evangelicals!

I was planning on staying in the US long enough to go to college, but now I am reconsidering. This is too much.
Where are you from?

Where are you from?
1914 Moscow.

1914 Moscow. :D

I don't like reality TV anyway. It lacks any kind of substance whatsoever. There's just nothing interesting about it.

Of course we know that 1.2 million dollars is pocket change to FOX. The only concievable reason that the FCC would ever care to levy this kind of fine would be to make anti-speech activists ("concerned" parents, mostly, who feel that everyday bodily functions, as well as sex, are essentially evil and should be kept as far away from their children, so that they can keep their "innocence") feel like they've accomplished something for the "fight for decency".

This disgusts me. As despicable as many FOX programs may be - and as much as I personally believe that anybody who wants to watch reality programs has got to have some kind of cholesterol-induced brain hemorage to be able to stomach them - I really hope that the station fights tooth and nail over this fine. I wish them the best of luck; they've got my full support.

"You know Fox Turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice" - Marge Simpso

HaHa. Fox owned itself.