Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows
The Importance of writes "Under current FCC rules, in order to make an indecency complaint about a broadcast you have to provide "a significant excerpt from the program or a full or partial tape or transcript of the program." However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence. But that is going to change. The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] [TXT] that will require broadcasters to maintain recordings of their broadcasts for 60-90 days. The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Why is it censorship if you require the broadcaster to keep a record of what was transmitted?
And if a broadcaster has something to say, whether contentious or not, why would you not want to keep a record of it?
Government issue TiVo clusters!
"The world only exists in your eyes. You can make it as big or as small as you want." - F Scott Fitzgerald
I just tend not to watch TV.
The most offensive thing is that the shows suck. It's pretty bad that with all the 'first rate channels' my cable company gives me, I end up watching Pauly Shore movies.
The 'Janet Jackson Nipple Law'...
..it has a nice ring to it :-)
Working for a radio station in Austria, we have about the same rules here (90 days, real airplay), and we saw it as quite a pain originally. We kept the records on mp3s wich got deleted after the "holdtime".
One day we got sued from a company that a moderator had said "offensive things" about them and at court the mp3s were the key to show that this wasnt true. Since then we see this also as a mechanism to be able to show what really got broadcast in situations like this.
At least in the UK, you are required to keep tapes recorded at the broadcast feed - ie. right where it hits your link - for three months or so.
"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Are you suggesting that education, health, freedom and peace are more important than keeping Janet Jackson's breast out of sight? You damn liberal!---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
Doesn't the government have better things to do?
Yes, but I do not think that this is about censorship as much as it is a classic "wag the dog" or a shell game. Got to keep the far right and even middle right happy. They are getting upset about the deficit and war as well.
The FCC needs to get off the broadcasters backs. Howard Stern to name one, and many other broadcasters are being hammered by the FCC with independent fines and numerous other complaints on a daily basis. Who is the FCC to claim what is indecent or not? The idea of keeping old broadcastings just so someone can nail a broadcaster is insane. Broadcasters make a living trying to entertain us, why hate them?
No trying to troll, but It seems that corante.com is not a very good source for matter-of-fact reportage. (RTFA if you want to know what I'm talking about).
It says "Filtered Daily.", but I think it's going a bit too far.
Isn't there a better source availabe?
I find it difficult to believ that broadcasters aren't already required to keep records permenently for historical purposes.
Just think of the millions of hours of TV that no one will be able to research. Admittedly most of it isn't of the highest quality, but still, some historian might well be interested in the future.
The cost is nowadays minimal anyway. DivX, 400GB HDDs and backup tapes have made it simple to record everything that gets broadcast. Perhaps an archive of broadcasts should be recorded from all stations. I hardly think this affects anyones rights as we could all view it anyway.
As an aside it's also very sad when brief exposures of a naked human breast are considered indecent.
May the Maths Be with you!
Surely tapes can be used in defence against complaints too. e.g. "You said such a liebelous thing, and all my friends heard it", says the person making the complaint. "No I didn't, that could clearly have been anyone I was talking about, here's the tape to prove it".
P.S. frouth psot.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
From what I can tell, only a minority of the population would actually care enough about TV to actually complain. Most people just turn off the tv or watch something else when something's on that they don't like.
Back, a long time ago, (I think), there were many, many complaints about a lingerie poster with Kylie Minogue in it. A couple of hundred got through, out of about 20000, IIRC. Even if that seems significant, more people entered a competition to win the poster than the number of people who complained.
Why make laws to fix a problem when it can be fixed with an ON/OFF switch? I for one am sick of these 'think of the children!!!' laws, which don't help the children at all. Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things. My parents have tried to give me certain opinions my whole life. Trying to censor information isn't the way to make things good. Especially when you can't stop it after it has been done.
Doesn't the government have better things to do?
Uh, no.
Actually, between large numbers parents who vote (and organize themselves into pressure groups), and the large numbers of twentysomethings who don't vote, and teenagers who *can't* vote, who do you think makes a more effective pressure group? Who do you think the guv'mint will try to pander to?
Off topic: I've been reading this and been wondering about how much of this "won't someone think of the children" crap would still exist if legal age for voting was 14 or 15.
Go somewhere random
While keeping the tapes seems reasonable, making complaints easier looks rather like censorship through the backdoor.
Rather than a govenrment body directly cracking down, they can say they are responding to complaints, and fear of complaints may force some broadcasters to change things.
That is a bit tinfoil hat thinking, but some people in the current US admistration do seem very keen on "cleaning things up" (Ashcroft anyone?).
Yes. However, since the prudes (religiously motivated prudes in particular) make a very loud crowd that also tends to vote, the government listen to them.
I for one am worried about the recent re-emergence of social conservatism both in Europe and abroad. One good thing about conservatism is that it encourages people to vote. Voting just doesn't seem to be "cool" amongst the young social liberals and now we're seeing the results.
The owls are not what they seem
Shouldn't this parent's tv society or whatever be reponsible for what tv shows they let their children watch, instead of attempting to censor tv for all of us. Their site didn't even rate south park, I really wanted to see how they reviewed it, haha.
I think it's perfectly normal. People are lazy by nature.
Besides, who are you to say what people should be doing with their lives?
The owls are not what they seem
"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
What will the government actually be doing? They hand down the law. It's up to the broadcasters to implement it. What, from teh lawsuits the courts will be busy. Maybe by a part of a fraction more than they already are.
Evolution or ID?
Doesn't the government have better things to do?
Certainly it does, but as so many people here remind us that the airwaves are a public trust and the govt should guarantee access, stop Clear Channel, etc etc etc, this kind of intrusiveness is the cost.
Personally, I am all for complete privatisation of frequencies that can be bought and sold.
davejenkins.com |
That's just what I was thinking! Considering the spirit of copyright law, you would think that the FCC's primary responsibility would be to ensure that broadcast material survives to make it into the public domain.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
how is an individual supposed to make said tape in light of current copyright laws?
"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Not since FDR it doesn't. Now the government can do EVERYTHING that the people want right now at the moment. The thinking since him is summed up nicely by what our "conservative" president said: "When somebody hurts, government has a responsibility to move."
Perhaps the current US political administration should change their name to something that describes them more accurately, like "Taliban" rather than "republican".
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
So what your saying is that people like howard stern should not be liable for what comes out of their mouths. I am held liable for what I say at every job I have ever had. How is he above that? Because he is a celebrity? Please explain it to me.
Evolution or ID?
"However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence."
I rarely get constipated so perhaps I should take laxitive all the time
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
They don't seem to specify that.
Perhaps recording to WOM (write only memory) would satisfy the requirement.
That's pretty darn insightful, especially for a 14-year-old!
(n/t)
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I have read many complaints here. And I want to get somethign straight. There is complaining because a bunch of tv stations with a lot of money have to record and keep on file what their overpaid broadcasters say/do on air. This is in case they do something they are not allowed to do so they can be held laible for their actions.
I'm sorry. If someone does something they know is wrong and do it on the air... then they should just own up. There are consequences to your actions. If they screw up they can own up.
Evolution or ID?
But it's an offence to copy onto a video tape! So how do I legally present present this "evidence" in court. Even if I win the indecency case I'll probably get sued for breach of copyright or circumventing the DMCA or whatever else trumped up charge the corporate pond life can get away with.
The broadcasters do not own the content, so what if the people who DO own the content don't want the broadcaster to record it? In the eyes of the publisher, the broadcaster is just a consumer with redistribution rights, but not necessarily retention rights. Can the FCC mandate that the owner of the entertainment property grant a broadcaster the right to record/duplicate the material?
"Dad, I don't want to vote for the Save The Children-act!"
"Son, you'll either let me watch you vote for the act or you're grounded for six months"
"Ok, dad."
The owls are not what they seem
"However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence."
Wouldn't less tapes being kept of a broadcast mean more cases get dismissed not less? It seems completely obvious that more tapes=>more evidence=>less dismissed for lack of evidence. Got to check Semantics not just Syntax!
Eventually this will be used to squash opinions that go against those of the government. This has nothing to do with indecency. Just wait until they start trying to govern the internet. ...and then they came for me.
My guess is your job isn't to be a raunchy DJ. Howard's JOB is to do that. And yet he is fined for it. If you're a computer scientist and you make fart jokes, it might be considered inappropriate at work. However, construction workers that want to hear fart jokes can tune in Howard. If your office wants to censor you listening to Howard, technically they probably can. The government can NOT, however, and should NOT, because 18 million people (about) enjoy listening to the show in various public (and allowed private) places. If you think for one minute that your kid is being warped by Howard, turn it off, or better yet, get real, because your kid has heard 10 times worse at school every day since kindergarden.
stuff |
Dad can't do that, by law.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I know corporations are not really given any rights under the constitution. However, the 5th Amendment specifically says, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Could being forced by the government to keep tapes for the specific purpose that said tapes might be used against you in the future during a criminal proceeding go against this concept?
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
I'm quite amazed that this isn't already demanded for broadcasters. I would think they should be required to provide full recordings of every program they make (but drop the advertisement), and submit to the national library.
I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, that this is already done in Norway - and everything is archived in the national library. I'll have to say I would be terribly disappointed if this isn't done.
Remember that great scifi-series has been lost for all time, due to not beeing archived. Great shows has gone down the drain forever.
In an ideal future, all such materiell would also, after a time, be made available for the general public through the Internet.
I seem to remember that BBC had some plans about making all their stuff available. Not sure what came out of that though, but it would be truly wonderfull.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Don't people understand that the VCHIP can block out based on Sex, dialog, violence, or age?
Geez!
... that there are broadcasters who don't do this anyway, as S.O.P.
How else do you defend yourself, when someone says: "You broadcast a claim that I fucked a goat, now I'm suing you for the breakup of my family..."?
Surely there's already a very good rule for all this in that silly old book called the Bible ?
"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"
You Americans are crazy. One day one of you will attempt to sue the rest of the world because "my life didn't turn out perfect so it must be all your fault".
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
<I>Yes, but those people complain a lot!!!</I><P>
Mod parent up +1, Insightful. I'm sure you've heard of such organisations as the <A href="http://www.parentstv.org/">Parent's Television Council</A>, for example, who seem to be dedicated to yelling as loudly as possible.
You're not being very specific there, but I take it you are reffering tot he 100-something lost episodes of Dr. Who? Unless I am mistaken it was not a matter or them not planning on having an archive, but that two diffrent locations assumed the other had the archives and destroyed thier copies. Of course... I could be mistaken.
I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy.
But doesn't the FCC only have power over the broadcast networks? Cable and satellite are pay services unlike the over the air networks. I know the FCC has a lot of power, but can't the cable networks tell the FCC to suck it? Channels like HBO & Showtime can show whatever they want, does this not also apply to places like Comedy Central? I have seen the South Park movie shown uncut on Comedy Central (albeit at 1am). It seems to me that the censorship on cable networks has far more to do with them not offending thier advertisers than the FCC.
Segfault
Here many radio broadcasters are required to keep tapes for longer than 90 days I believe several years of archives are the standard. That is for radio but Television is different and never had similar laws I believe. I can only wish that the BBC had been required to keep AV archives of television for the same length of time, perhaps the great missing Dr Who episodes and many other classic BBC shows that have been lost forever would have been kept.
Free trust_based image hosteing
Great idea lowering the voting age to 14 or 15. Spears and Aguillera in 2008!
when i was working in radio we kept records of what was transmitted for 6 months. this helped primarily in training, letting us see what we were doing right and/or wrong. it also helped get us out of hot water when some people called in to complain that we had said something that we didn't say.
lets face it folks, shit like that happens, and its good to have some kind of evidence to back you up. of course if the tapes prove that you were in the wrong you're in SERIOUSLY deep shit.
on the other hand, making the complaints process easier is doubleplusbad. of course for those of you who DO want to complain, please cut and paste the form below from http://www.hourwolf.com/rezod/fcccomp.html
M*E*M*O*R*A*N*D*U*M
[TODAY'S DATE]
TO: THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
FROM: _____
RE: INDECENT BROADCAST OF
I was []horrified []appalled []shocked []_____ to the point
of []dehydration []palpitations []urination []_____ by the
[]disgusting []salacious []blasphemous []_____ that aired
_____ in _____ on _____.
I []vomited on my dog []spilled my whiskey sour []set the
house on fire []_____ when I heard the word []uvula
[]conundrum []caca-doody []_____ and I'm sure many young
children were exposed to []personal body parts []breast
implants []penis enlargers []_____ and their heinous
functions when they were openly []discussed []laughed about
[]endorsed []_____ by a studio audience obviously filled
with []lunatics []extroverts []atheists []________________
and Dada Beatniks.
Suchetha
damned lameness filter keeps getting to me, so for your edification, some gilbert and sullivan
I am the very model of a modern Major-General, I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral, I know the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical From Marathon to Waterloo, in order categorical; I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical, I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical, About binomial theorem I'm teeming with a lot o' news, With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential calculus; I know the scientific names of beings animalculous: In short, in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, I am the very model of a modern Major-General.
I know our mythic history, King Arthur's and Sir Caradoc's; I answer hard acrostics, I've a pretty taste for paradox, I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus, In conics I can floor peculiarities parabolous; I can tell undoubted Raphaels from Gerard Dows and Zoffanies, I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din afore, And whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore.
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
"Son if you make a complaint to the authorities that I forced your to vote the way I want I'll ground you for 12 months."
Since when do laws and parenting have anything in common?
Is it just me, or doesnt anyone else see that this is a good thing to do. If in the future we cant record anything because of broadcast flags and DRM "features" on our TVs, how would you be able to complain since you wouldnt be able to even make a copy of the show to bring in? If that were the case and they didnt have to keep a copy around it would be impossible to file a complaint. At least with the new rules you wont have to worry so long as you complain within the 60-90 day period. Oh well, maybe I just dont know anything. :(
So, can they choose? I would choose 60 :).
A corporation doesn't have a "self" - it's not a person, so it has only a few attributes created by people. So it has no "right" to freedom from self incrimination, guaranteed to people in the Constitution's 5th Amendment. These records will be useful in documenting a media corporation's actions, so real people can have a chance getting remedies to damaging actions.
--
make install -not war
Dad can ground him for as long as he wants until the son is 18.
The owls are not what they seem
FCC: We demand to see "Gnome Tennis" episode 7 broadcast 4/5/2004
Broadcaster: Extract the appropriate archive tape and prepare for submission
Tech: Google search for GnomeTennis-040504[divx](B3STRiPz).bittorrent
"People" don't have FCC broadcast licenses - corporations do. Corporations, since they can't be arrested, incarcerated, or killed, among many other unavailable enforcement options, must be required to document their actions, to provide comparable evidence, of guilt or innocence, to that naturally created by living humans.
--
make install -not war
Great idea lowering the voting age to 14 or 15. Spears and Aguillera in 2008!
:-)
By the time Spears hits 35 (which is the minimum age you need to be to be president) they'd have lost their cred with the teen crowd
There was a time when a 21yr old was a "callow youth" not worth listening to, but these days they can vote. So why not push the voting age down lower? Kids are a lot smarter than you think they are.
Go somewhere random
Some of you may habe seen this, but this guy is calling on the FCC to do something about how Fox news showed actual penetration during a promo ad. Sure, they blurred out the boob, but they didn't do anything about that large penis downstairs... (not safe for work, but these are downloadable clips) http://homepage.mac.com/mjsmitho/FoxNewsPornSlip/F oxOpps.html
I'll tell you why
Because whoever is behind this shit sees the blood in the water and is now looking at past tapes to see if they can apply Today's standards to yesterday's broadcasts.
I think it stinks and is completely unfair.
WTF? Over?
There's this little thing called Secret Ballot - Dad *can't* see how he voted.
Go somewhere random
Don't the programme-makers have better programmes they can make?
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
"Me and my son would like go and vote together, if that's OK?"
I bet most officials would just think how nice and good husband the dad is when he even takes time to vote with his family teaching the son how to vote.
If the son starts making noise about it, well, he's grounded for six months then.
The owls are not what they seem
"Fuck" is so obscene that the FCC can't even spell it out in a document that defines it as an obscene word? America sucks SO very much.
Remember that First Amendment thing? It allpies to EVERY AMERICAN....Not Just Stern, or Rush, or Al. The guy down the street can get on a CB and cus and curse all he wants. That's public airwaves...right?
My
My point was that the poll workers wouldn't allow the father to find out how his son voted, so he could go against his father's wishes with impunity.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In other words, does the government have anything better to do than listen to a group of people that I don't agree with. That seems to be what the story submitter is implying. Fortuneately the government does listen to various groups of people with differing opinions on matters. That's why you have your free voice too -- because you belong in a group of people who (I imply) may speak out for less censorship. By indicating the goverment should ignore the opinion of a group of people under the guise of "government [has] better things to do", you would be diminishing the voice of a group of people, and that seems to be a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Now cue the arguments about what is democracy :)
I sure hope they would, since it would violate voting law!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Regulation is Bad!
Unless, of course, it reinforces your personal prejudices or furthers your religious agenda.
-- Cerebus
Look, there is no way that the right to vote should be given to anyone who's still dependent on his/her parents. There is too much room for abuse.
The owls are not what they seem
If either of you are interested in the real irony here, it is that October 30th is continually protesting what he/she believes to be torpors statement of the unacceptablity of an individual being "allowed to waste time", by trying to imply torpor is not "allowed" (i.e. who are you? comments) to have an opinion / make a suggestion about the matter. Even moreso as it seems quite apparent torpor wasn't
suggesting individuals should not be allowed to watch television (i.e. it should be outlawed,etc.) he/she was merely stating his/her belief that he/she has found it to be a waste of time, during which many other wonderful things could be experienced. Yes, there does seems to be a bit of elitist cock stroking mixed in with the potential helpfulness of the statement, however this is not unusual. As it is not unusual for october to attempt to silence all those perceived to disagree with his/her ideas. He/she used with militant diligence to rob the feeble minded of petty pleasures.
They should have to keep copies of TV shows in good condition until their copyright expires. If they don't, they should pay a fine of 200% of any profits made from the show (i.e. from selling advertisement or whatever) to compensate the public for not holding up to their end of the copyright contract.
...the second half of the 21st century, when the FCC is a historical encyclopedia entry (file next to "copyright, repeal of"), TV is a playback tool for streamed video, and "broadcast" means their wifi has a bigger aerial.
This will all look so amusingly dated...
Anyone is allowed to have an opinion, but when the opinion is made public it also becomes subject to public criticism.
As it is not unusual for october to attempt to silence all those perceived to disagree with his/her ideas.
True, if you mean that I am not actively seeking consensus and like to provoke reactions instead.
The owls are not what they seem
That's why you have to be an adult to vote. Although, by law, people are prohibited from "voting with you" (meaning the poll workers aren't supposed to let people in the booth with you, even if you say it's ok). So even if the kid told the poll workers that it was ok, they still shouldn't let the parent in.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
It will then possible to show that every fundy asshole sonovabitch busybody complaint is not founded...
What better way could there be to have the right-wingnuts make a bunch of fools of themselves???
As someone else already pointed out, they're putting the burden of proof on the accused not the accuser.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
... open records laws and sunshine laws for government. Society decided it was a good idea. Commercial Broadcasters have been granted a license, a permission, to monopolize a certain frequency in order to provide programming for their corporations profit, but also to be of the general publics benefit. Now I am against censorship, but I am pro "of the general publics benefit" as well, so this is a dilemma. I have long been a critic, generally speaking now, of broadcasters dismal news coverage,their LACK of honest news coverage to be more accurate, as well as content selection. For instance,and what has been almost universally complained about here, clear channels almost complete lock in, especially with the higher wattage stations across the country. They are already "forced" -it's a joke really- to go through what has turned into a rubber stamped "review" procedure to be eligible to renew their licenses, but that has rarely resulted in any station or network being not renewed. And it's a bear to be able to provide any alternative programming. the review procedure was supposed to be the check and balance on that, but it'snever worked, practically speaking.
So, based on the pros and cons, I tend to think this is a better thing than not. I know a lot here will focus on indecency complaints, personally I haven't seen or heard much of any indecency on over the air radio or tv, although I find it ludicrous that violence is never classified as indecent or x rated, whereas even mild sexuality is. Yes, I know the x ratings are for movies. Just using it conversationally as a descriptor. I am way more concerned about their news covereage, and how they perpetuate outright FUD constantly and keep up their propogandizing brainwashing for the benefit of two political parties and large international corporations, and get away with it completely, year after year. That to me is deserving of a little "censorship" right out of their "licenses".
Now if we had a much more restrictive set of guidelines as it applied to a commercial broadcasting corporation, and a much more liberal first amenment applies approach to how we granted licenses to individuals for community radio and TV, I would have a different opinion, but we don't, so I fall on the need for access to their tapes if you wish to make a complaint. They want the license to print money generation after generation, they can conform to some guidelienes, and keeping a tape is not that restrictive of a guideline. If they profit from the publics trust, there needs to be fees and restrictions applied to them, forcing them to keep master tapes and to provide copies seems reasonable enough as a compromise. Frankly, I'd rather see mandated timeout rules,licenses that do in fact expire with no rubber stamping automatic renewal, so as to give new broadcasters a chance, and for the allowing of many more "legal" low power radio and television stations. In other words, turn over a much larger portion of the available spectrum to not for profit broadcasters, so that real first amendment may be applied to named humans. Phase the transition in over say a 5 year period. Humans need more freedom, corporations need a lot more restrictions and less freedom to keep gouging and avoiding responsibility in providing broadcasts that really *are* in the publics interests, IMO. The *public* is a lot more than a specific common denominator advertising designed set of demographics. A lot of the *public* now feels left out in what's on the air, they are forced by the current restrictions to listen to cookie cutter programming for the most part, and for various reasons, the lack of choice can lead to dissatisfaction and calls for censorship which in reality are just calls for something besides the "standard" formula programming that is there to view or hear.
If a broadcaster doesn't record everything now. And the government decides that they have to record everything and keep it on record, they now have the added cost of maintaining the new manditory data. There are costs for people, equipment etc. Even if it only added $1 of cost per month, they shouldn't be forced to do this. How does this relate to the 5th amendment? If you ask me, the groups who offer the complaints should be providing the proof, not the broadcasters. That's like forcing me to install equipment in my fridge that detects when I'm drinking on Sunday! (Illegal in some areas).
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
What part of "well regulated" is so hard to understand?
In the 2nd amendment, it's the militias that are to be "well regulated". The right to keep and bear arms is suppose to remain unfettered.
this sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent".
FCC dude: "you'd beter keep proof that you're not being indecent, otherwise we'll know you are! think of the children!"
me: "shut the hell up - if you don't want children being exposed to "indecency" you'd better not let them go outside. if your kid hearing the word "shit" is your biggest problem then you're doing ok in this world".
Better than what? Better than represent the people of America? The PTC, the PTA, the ACLU and the NRA (as well as the NFL, the WWF and the NOW and a ka-hundred other acronyms) are made up of citizens whose rights to representation and action are equal . Like it or not (and I don't like MOST of the things government does...), this really is the way it was intended to work, and the lesson here (as with all experiences with the government on all levels) is this: if you like it, then contribute; vote, campaign, debate, interact, etc. and if you don't like it, then contribute; vote, campaign, debate, interact, etc.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
This is terrible. What's next? Is the government going to force everyone to where a gps device so we can track and make sure they don't commit crimes? How's about cammera's on every street corner with little microphones, just incase some one says something offensive?
The FCC shouldn't monitor what is said over the airwaves at all. They have turned into the government's censership enforcement. The only responciblity of the FCC should be make sure my brodcast isn't interfering with your broadcast. That's it. The airwaves should be privately owned, bought and sold. They are not "public airwaves" They are no different than owning land property. Do what you want with it, but don't screw with your neigbor's land.
makes me sick. The radio and your TV has 2 buttons. One to change the channel, One to turn it off!!
This is what I really hate about the FCC and groups like the PTC. They should have no say is what I can or can't watch or listen to and what can or can't be shown/said on TV and radio.
The only duty they should have is to enforce the accurate and complete labeling of what a show contains (Adult Language, Nudity, Violence, R X, PG etc) and keep those ratings honest.
Let me decide what I want to see and hear, not some coucil with a stick up their ass who freaks everytime they hear the work ass or bitch on TV.
Parent your children. There are two knobs: volume and power. Use them. Don't force my favorite shows to a G level because you can't parent your children or use a remote control.
A prime example. After the Janet Jackson thing, the Bob and Tom radio show simply sucks. They can't play or say nearly any of the things they used to, so now I don't listen to them any more.
All because someone couldn't handle the site of a nipple on TV.
On the radio the other day, someone equated the erosion of our liberties to the process of boiling a frog: you don't throw the frog into boiling water, it's reflexes are faster and it will hop out; what you do is put the frog into water then boil the water. If you want to take away liberties you start small and unnoticable and erode them before anybody notices what is going on.
This is just another step in that slow but eventual process.
Add to this measure recent amendments added to the defense authorization bill by Brownback (increase fines) and Harkin (get Rush off military radio), and INDUCE by Hatch and company, and Clear-Channel fined to a "clean-slate" status; one can see that government is positioning itself to enforce the political agendas in power.
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
Hmmm, where to begin?
1) Do you really think that sex on TV, or women wearing tighter or more revealing clothing, causes more illegitimate children and more sex crimes? Where are the data to support this? I recall reading that illegitimacy is actually on the decline at the moment.
2) Why don't you also complain about violence on TV? People have been dying like flies on TV shows and movies since the 50's. Are we more violent because TV shows and movies are making us violent? People have tried to make this argument, but the data don't support it.
3) Hey, maybe it's all the fault of our local TV news programs! That's what Michael Moore suggests ("Bowling for Columbine"). Maybe we should prevent the local news from carrying sensational stories about murders and stabbings, so we'll all feel safer and for some reason stop killing each other (there are no data to support this, either).
You seem like a well-meaning person. Unfortunately you have drawn a conclusion that isn't supported by any data. The pinups of the 40's, for example, hardly seem racy today -- but back then, a glimpse of thigh was big big news, indeed. Had you been around back then (were you?), you probably would have joined the ranks of the outraged at seeing the famous Betty Grable leg shot.
Just checking -- how do you feel about recreational drugs, like marijuana? Do you think that marijuana starts people down a slippery slope to crank, coke, heroin, and so forth? No evidence for that, either, I'm afraid.
Honestly don't /. posters have anything better to put up than this...
the FBI requires thieves to film themselves during burglaries. Seriously, though, it does make sense to crack down on TV indecency. Studies have shown that 90% of sexual offenders had seen nipples in their early infancy.
I love C++
The problem isn't that the FCC is trying to make work for themselves or the government, it's that they are heading the call of a million overly sensitive people.
I personally am offended at a lot of what I hear on shock radio and tv, but I'm able to draw the line between something that is basically harmless and something that someone needs to be reprimanded for.
The FCC has been FLOODED by complaints lately. I admit that they could take it a little easier, but it's not completely FCC's fault. (well, it is, but letter writers are also to blame).
Assuming editing the recordings is a major no-no (and totally defeats the purpose) the recording has to be the same quality/resolution as the original feed. At "low-def" resolutions of 320x240, a person flashing their naughty bits in the background may be sufficently pixlated to be "decent", but at HDTV resolutions, may be offensive. (Think about the screencaps of the "nipple incident"...) So, really, the stations should be required to keep all 2160 hours of previous HDTV broadcasts archived. I'm not sure what that would be stored on, but it's a gi-normous amount of data.
Even for standard "low-def" TV, assume the stations can record onto a theoretical 4 hour tape at broadcast quality. (I know, they use Beta, or something exotic, so I'm spitballing here....) Anyway, thats:
(90 days * 24 hours) / 4 hours a tape = 540 tapes
Which need to be labelled, tracked, stored, rotated, etc... Ouch.
And what about syndicated stations? I have a friend who works in the news, and she told me that local stations often tweak what they get from the network feed to fit the local audience. So every station is going to have to track a lot of duplicate data.
Seems like a lot of cost for a possible nipple.
The burden of proof should always be on the accuser. If you can't back up your claims then you shouldn't be making them.
Can you say SCO?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Did I read that right? In order to for me to bring a complaint against the broadcaster, *I* have to provide a tape of the show? Doesn't that conflict rather seriously with the broadcast flag that will in future prevent me from making that recording?
www.sjbaker.org
in the rest of the world if someone swears or gets naked people laugh instead of holding big investigations and creating a big deal out of it. If your kids cant handle seeing a naked body or hearing the word fuck then really they're going to have issues in the real world, and if you want to keep it from them then just don't let them watch that stuff its perfectly simple. If i was running the FCC the most i would do is demand that stations stick a delay in and if they swear they have to press a button that sends a signal to the listeners radio/tv that generates a beep/blanks the screen (like the v-chip?) its up to the listener to enable that function though.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
drugs? harm lots of people (read: colombia). television? uh... harms the couch we sit on?
also, the world doesn't want non-offensive television. the conservative population represented be the fcc wants non-offensive television. last i checked, having a law banning going past the lowest common denominator is stupid and drags society down. can we say welfare?
A corporation doesn't have a "self" - it's not a person, so it has only a few attributes created by people.
Apparently, a judge of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886) doesn't agree with you. See http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm (which explains this in relation to a false advertising suit against Nike), or at least read this excerpt:
Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own opinions - were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations, being artificial creations of the states, didn't have rights, but instead had privileges. The state in which a corporation was incorporated determined those privileges and how they could be used. And the same, of course, was true for other forms of "legally enacted game playing" such as unions, churches, unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and even governments, all of which have only privileges.
But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations out of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the others (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don't have "rights") - and moved them into the "rights" category with humans, citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to newly-freed slaves.
Unlike land how would one "own" the signal space between 1Mhz and 2Mhz? How do you own a chunk of the electromagnetic spectrum? This is not like land, it is publicly accessible given the right equipment and needs to be treated either as a public resource with NO regulation or as a public, government monitored/controlled, resource with whatever regulation we the people and the government on our behalf want to enforce. The key to that last part is enforcement. If it is going to be treated as the later type of public resource then standards have to be set. Censorship is interesting in this spectrum because there is no limitation to who can access the medium of transmission, you only need the right equipment. I personally think individuals adults should bear the responsibility for maintaining whatever level of 'protection' they feel is necessary for them and their families and not try to force what they think on others. But if everbody, or at least most people, wants 'protection' then in a democracy that is what you get. Too bad not enough people vote to really know where America stands on most instances.
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Back in the '60s, when I worked at a major market station, we taped everything that was fed to the transmitter (it was a very slow-moving reel-to-reel machine). Don't know how long it was kept -- probably a month. I've been out of the business for 30 years or so, but I can't imagine major stations *not* keeping recordings, regardless of FCC requirements.
In the UK, television stations can show whatever they like after 21.00; I don't know when in the morning they are obliged to start being "family-friendly". In Mainland Europe, I believe the system is even simpler: everyone understands that television broadcasts are {primarily} for adults, and parents are entirely responsible for deciding what their kids should or should not watch.
If you don't like what you see, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it. And if you can't stop your kids watching TV when they shouldn't be, then you are an unfit parent.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Most shows keep a record of their broadcasts anyway. That's how we have records of, say, the moon landing. This isn't a big onus, it just keeps the studios honest. If you oppose this because it's government getting involved where it doesn't belong, where do you stand on say, inheritance tax or laws illegalizing throwing aluminum cans into your garbage?
#-#
Ad Astra Per Aspera
A rough road leads to the stars
Doesn't the government have better things to do?
Government agencies want to continue to live.
How do government agencies continue life? No, not by providing useful services to the community. They survive by making headlines.
The DA prosecutes to make headlines. Ever try to get the DA to prosecute an assault charge? See how completely uninterested they are compared to asking them to prosecute murder. Murder charges get their rocks off. Why? Assault won't show up in the paper, but prosecuting murder gets headlines and paragraphs, maybe more. (Adjust accordingly if famous people are involved)
The DHS isn't concerned with keeping America safe. They're concerned with people believing that they keep America safe.
The FCC? They aren't really concerned with keeping indecency off the air. They're concerned with people believing that they do this. Attacking Howard Stern, for example, makes headlines and energizes the people who are most likely to continue funding them (religious right). On the other hand, Oprah Winfrey qualifies as obsence under the same guidelines, but she hasn't been attacked because it would be contrary to their goals: keep getting funding. Oprah's powerful enough that she could decide elections, and by extension, FCC funding.
From the government's point of view, making headlines IS almost always the best thing they could be doing.
GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
I assume that the bottom line of your post is a sig, and not referencing the post. I'll then go on to assume that you're referencing the Second Amendment.
"Well regulated" din't mean the same thing in 1787 that it means now. A letter from Thomas Jefferson (as President) in 1808 best explained it, saying "well-organized and armed". It was expected that every male citizen would own a military weapon, and be a volunteer in the militia. Some states even had laws requiring this.
Of course, if you were actually referencing the post I apologize.
Voice your opinion by not watching network TV if you're fed up with what is censorship in your opinion. Watch HBO or any other pay media that is light on censorship.
What difference does this make anyway? 99% of TV watchers will continue to watch TV regardless of censorship issues. The people will watch the ads, revenue from ad agencies will still roll in, bills will get paid, and everybody in corporate america will be happy.
Just how can seeing Janet's bare breast screw your kids? I mean, a breast is part of a normal woman's anatomy. Showing a bare breast is truly so far away from pornography, but Americans somehow don't know the difference.
I do agree that there's way too much violence on american television, but for some reason that seems more acceptable that simply showing a breast. What is indecent is not the showing of the breast, it's what is being done with the breast. Britney Spears' video clips *technically* don't show any bare breasts, but they are far more indecent than Janet's half time show.
What is so wrong with the woman's anatomy that creates a panic into Americans when they see it?
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I thought consumers already did this, buying "the complete season" DVDs of worthless shows. Sort of like the Japs taking pictures of everything.
Look, there is no way that the right to vote should be given to anyone who's still dependent on his/her parents. There is too much room for abuse.
Folk who cross voting age don't magically become financially independent. Adults are often dependent on their spouses for money. The point is, secret ballot gives everyone a fair chance to vote in secrecy.
The original point I was trying to make is, there is no magic definition of adulthood. Once upon a time, you could be 25 and be thought of as "too young". It gradually went down to 21 and today we have 18 as the "magic age" -- an age that's actually low by historical standards.
There are hundreds of 14-17 year-olds, they are recognized as some of the biggest spenders around. At the same time, they've got no rights and no one to speak up for what *they* want (as against childrens-rights groups who think they know what people of that age want). Sounds unfair to me. If you read Glenn Reynold's article I linked to above, you'll note he talks about the enormous waste of talent we incur as we imprison kids in high school.
Here's an interesting related article you may like to read. I disagree about giving babies the ballot, and 14-year olds may not yet be ready to vote, but giving 16-year olds the right to vote is IMO a no-brainer.
Go somewhere random
But what is acceptable to the majority? Despite the loud fuss made about the Jackson nipple by some, it does seem to be a minority who where offended. Most people seem to think of it as a cheap and tacky stunt by a failing "artist" and I don't think there are many who would go out of there way to find pictures of her nipple.
When you say as a parent I have to monitor my children's viewing, fine, I already do but when supposedly mainstream programming shows crap like the half time show then I can't rely on any rating scheme. Just cut my efforts off at the knees
you could record and watch programmes before hand to check there suitable this is something allot of parents do here in the UK I even remember my parents doing it, why? Because different people have different opinions on what there children should see so they take and accept that responsibility themselves and don't devolve it to others like the TV stations and expect them to think the same as them. To quote South Park Horrific deplorable violence is OK so long as you don't say any naughty words. (or show "gasp" a nipple)i saw some whe i was 1 hour old because i was breast feed.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
There are restaurants where it is illegal to purchase alcohol on sundays (Parts of Alabama). I'm sure though that you could find an analogy for this "police and record evidence of yourself" or "Prove you're not guilty" type scenario.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Some have made this point, but if I burn some noxious substance in a public park, or blast "music" like the FBI used againt Noriega and the Branch Davidians, most here wouldn't suggest I should have the freedom to do that.
And I haven't seen a massive outpouring of civil rights for smokers. I don't smoke but it is now worse than apartheid. People will cough from 50 feet upwind - and you call people who want to take responsibility for their own children prudish?
If you want to subscribe to the SewageVision cable channel, go ahead. But you know what you are getting.
Also, I don't see any of the geeks here wanting to repeal the Pure Food and Drug act, which is merely truth in labeling. If something is labeled as a "family" show, it should not contain obscenity. If broadcasters simply want to label everything including game shows PG-13 or worse, they are free to, but then they will be turned off (moreso than they already are).
Broadcasters can't have it both ways - they want the public airwaves, but want to turn it into a marketing sex-fair. They want to label things as family fare, but then show and talk obscenely.
Would that not be requireing (sp?) you to possibly incriminate yourself?
A Nony Mouse
Did anybody actually check out the PTC's website? If you check out the campaigns on the side, they have a rundown of their current "targets", each of which can be clicked on for more information. One some of those links, there's pretty graphic, explicit information. If they're so concerned about getting "smut" off of the Internet and television, why not start by getting it off of their own site?
;)
They kind of bring up an issue that I've always been curious about. In order to find this stuff and have some kind of valid case against it, you have to actively watch it, so the content can be examined. I wonder how many volunteers they have for that gig?
Social scientists drool over the mundane stuff that's otherwise not kept. Yes, producers and studios keep their actual shows, but what actually gets broadcast otherwise -- news, commercials, local talk shows -- are what really demonstrate who we are. They show what style of dress is important, what kinds of food we ate, the cars we drove, the attitudes we have, what we thought was important vs. what we thought wasn't important.
I always wished that TVLand would show a couple of hours of broadcasts as they happened, with all the original commericals intact. I'm sure it's an IP nightmare, but it would be fascinating. But then again, I think old magazines are as interesting for the ads as for the articles.
I just started work in the program library of an Australian TV station. We have a shelf of VHS tapes of news programs that I'm told are for 'legal reasons.' If somebody complains we pull them out, I guess... hasen't happened yet, and I haven't been here long. It seems logical enough... this could possibly exonerate the station from hysterical claims of etc, etc, etc, etc. It isn't much work (on my end), and I do believe stuff ought to be archived for posterity anyway.
Beauty is not there. Nor in the stagnant bay of Marsh's library where you read the fading prophecies of Joachim Abbas. -
...all network-connected computers are required to maintain logs/recordings of their broadcasts for 60-90 days. Just in case whoever was at the recieving end didn't have logging/recording enabled in their IM client/MP3 stream player/RIAA piracy monitor/whatever.
Can anyone tell me a good principal difference? Some people here claim it is in the "best interest" of the broadcasters to do this anyway. Well if it is, why do you need a law?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So, a bunch of guys beating the crap out of each other is what you consider good family entertainment?
This sig is the express property of someone.
I am never convinced with this argument. "If you are innocent, what do you have to hide ?"
Oh wait... are you really Ann Coulter. I cant believe it. This wont be the first time that would have disagreed with you either.
Thats ok, if you're old enough to vote, you are old enough to provide for yourself...
GO live on your own.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Most TV stations aren't very profitable these days - and this proposal will cost a lot of money. For instance, here's a minimum setup for standard definition television:
Two digital betacam decks: $50,000 each.
90 days of tape @ $27/hour = $58,000.
That's $158,000 right there - not counting maintenance on the constantly used decks. If a station broadcasts in HD - like most do, because of another FCC rule - they would need to record that separately, and HD decks/tapes are much more expensive. Many HD stations are broadcasting multiple sub-channels - you'd need to record each one separately.
If you take a station like WGBH Boston, the PBS affiliate, the costs add up quickly. They run two standard analog channels (2 and 44), two digital HD channels (with multiple sub-channels in the evening), and three radio stations. The total cost could easily approach $1 million.
So, is the FCC proposing this new rule, or is it the Sony sales department??
Yeah, shouldn't they be out there incinerating
babies or spreading low-level radioactive waste
over the lands of Islam?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Comedian Jay Leno likes to joke that his life is recorded 24x7 for legal purposes.
IMHO it's silly for broadcasters NOT to at least CONSIDER taping everything to protect themselves against false allegations against someone with a doctored-up tape.
Only good reasons NOT to record until any statute-of-limitations on civil lawsuits expire are
1) cost/effort/storage space
2) legal prohibitions if someone else owns the copyright
In the case of #2, a log of what you showed and where to get the original can protect you just as well as your own copy.
As for recording everything for posterity, everything should be recorded at least once, but it's not the responsibility of EVERY NBC station to keep their own copies of every episode of The Tonight Show for posterity.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well, given that Bastardy is at an all-time high, I guess it could be in decline. But even so that doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by pop culture, just that other factors are correcting the trend...
I can't say I've looked at that (or rather that "this") but I do know that if we lower the voting age enough, my 3 year son would be right there to vote for Buzz Lightyear. He'd take us to infinity and beyond!
I mean, yeah, children are our future and all, but come on.
American families are being poisoned by the extremely offensive content in this show. Such TV programming is seriously harming America's children and grandchildren, and SPONSORS LIKE YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT WITH YOUR ADVERTISING BUDGET!
I applaud Carfax, Orbitz, Castrol, Progressive Insurance, Capital One, Cingular Wireless, Gateway Computers, Schering-Plough, Chattem, Orange Glo and Alcon Laboratories -- early sponsors during "Nip/Tuck's" first season -- for their decisions to stop paying for commercials on the show. By showing true corporate responsibility, these sponsors have earned the thanks of every parent and grandparent in America.
But by making the opposite decision and striking a deal with "Nip/Tuck" to bankroll its season premiere, XM SATELLITE RADIO HAS DISPLAYED CORPORATE IRRESPONSIBILITY.
The creator of "Nip/Tuck" has declared that it is his aim to remove every barrier to depiciton of explicit sex on TV. By paying for "Nip/Tuck," you are supporting him in this aim.
Therefore, I am hereby joining with the Parents Television Council in calling upon you to stop paying for the shameful gross-out content of "Nip/Tuck."
I suggest that you read the summary of "Nip/Tuck's" content which the Parents Television Council has compiled (see below), and then decide whether this is the image you want American consumers -- your potential customers -- to have of your company.
With my support, if XM SATELLITE RADIO persists in its financial backing of "Nip/Tuck," the Parents Television Council will do everything possible to ensure that your potential customers become aware of the "Nip/Tuck" content that your company's commericals are paying for.
Here is a summary of the first-season content on "Nip/Tuck."
[WARNING: The following content summary during "Nip/Tuck's" first season is explicit and will be EXTREMELY offensive to many. Bear in mind that it appeared on basic-cable television where it was available to millions of children.]
GRAPHIC SELF-CIRCUMCISION SCENE: Dr. McNamara's son, Matt, performs a circumcision on himself at home. Since his girlfriend is turned off by his extra foreskin, Matt decides to go to a website and learn how to perform the operation on himself. Matt removes his pants. We see Matt's upper body. We hear the instructions going on in his head: "For the first cut, grip the foreskin and pull it out. Cut in circular motion in a thin quarter inch strip." We see him looking down as he cuts at the foreskin of his penis. We see him shudder, then he looks at his hand, which is covered in blood. He faints. ... Drs. McNamara and Troy talk about a patient who wants to have sex with the latter in return for not reporting a surgical error; Troy says, "Are you actually telling me to stick my dick in the Crypt Keeper to make your mistake go away?" ...Words like asshole, shit, tit, and dick are commonplace...
FOUL LANGUAGE: In describing a liposuction he did on a patient's chin, Dr. Troy says: "I sliced that bitch's waddle off 15 months ago."
In a recent episode, Kimber says: "I'm the one with candle wax burns on her ass. I'm the one standing out on the street corner with her tits hanging out. I bust my butt to fulfill every sexual desire you have. I want a little goddamn appreciation."
Other examples of foul language:
Troy: "20 milligrams of Vicodin and a blowjob will clear that right up."
Troy: "You know what they say, for every beautiful woman there is a guy who is tired of screwing her."
Troy: "You are the hottest piece of ass in this place. And you're mine. But if I am going to do this one woman thing, I can't be with just one woman."
Lexy: "I read this thing in People about 12 year-olds giving blow jobs to
I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
It wouldn't surprise me that in the end they will force people running web servers to keep a copy of every page served.
Just wait....
Write to them! Tell them you're against this!
What slashdot really needs is a "-1, Tinfoil hat too tight".
I wish you had read the whole post. We turned off the tv most of the way thorugh the half time show. and as a reasult missed part of the 3rd quarter. what's wrong with you that you can not read ?
I agree that Spears is much worse than a sinlge bared breast.
The panic was not over the boob so much as the taboo associated with it over the public ariwaves.
Yeah, this bother's be too...they way it is being applied in a retroactive way. The other day pissed me off.. the local classic rock station here actually played a censored version of The Who's "Who Are You". I couldn't believe it...you could hear where they went in and spliced tape to omit the the two times Daltry sings "...who the fuck are you..."
Guess next they'll be digging up or creating censored versions of classics like Money, Devil Went down to Georgia, Jet Airliner...." and anything else with a remotely dirty word.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Therefore, there should be no government regulation of it.
/.'s who support this crap are morons.
The fact that the medium is broadcast versus subscribed to is irrelevant.
Supreme Court decisions are worthless posturing.
And
Have a nice day.
Howard Stern for FCC Commissioner!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
We didn't see the boob. Read the whole post. The TV was turned off about halfway through the half time show. The halftime show was very suggestive in a sexual nature that was way more offensive than a single nipple. Everyone (with small children) I have talked to about the show agreed that it was in total not appropriate for family viewing.
Wow, your parents had way more time to devote to screening your TV watching than I. Besides a major sporting event should not include such debasing content.
If you want to see naughty crap on TV get cable or sattelite or go rent porn.
I agree that violence is too tolerated on open broadcast mediums.
If that is your view of football then no. However, it is a sporting event where beating the crap out of each other gets a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct. It's not Hockey.
It's not that simple. TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean. This standard has slid a lot over the decades and quite frankly needs to be cleaned up a lot. What happened to shows that were funny or creative with out resorting to cheap baseless tactics ?
Why is it group's (like the PTC) descriptions (NSFW) of these offensive shows make me want to watch them? Hell, it's like when Tipper Gore somehow made me think that Twisted Sister might be worth listening to.
(Also, the PTC seems to be hung up on anal sex...)
because your kid has heard 10 times worse at school every day since kindergarden.
This is where I start to wonder about things. I'm against censorship... and I'm not a religious nut upholding tired old values... but doesn't society seem to be getting more and more out-of-hand.
So your kid hears swearing at school... that makes it alright for TV/radio since the kids hear it everywhere anyways. And then people will claim "well, it's on TV and everywhere else, how can be blame the kids for repeating it."
It's often shown that situational exposure as a child leads to adult temperaments. For example many sexual offenders were in turn sexually abused as a child. Violence begetting violence, and various other things, it's all perhaps cumulative.
Basically, I can deal with the way things are now, but I'd really hate to see what my offspring (or offspring's offspring) will have to deal with...
It applies to every short term or temporary low-power radio station, which can be licensed for up to a month. AFAIK it also applies to permanent broadcasters. Apart from the nuisance factor in teh case of a temporary station, no-one seems to mind. It is a reasonable precaution for all parties to have a record.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
But how do distinguish "public airwaves" from other transmission media in such a way that legitimises censorship?
Why does using the "public airwaves" imply a responsibility to adhere to particular content standards?
The thing is, there IS data. Scientists have put together a pretty good model of juvenal brain development. For example, it is now known that the adolescent brain at about the age of 12 to 14 goes through what is called a second pruning, where many nerve connections die back just as they do in the first yerar after birth. This second pruning appears to involve more environmental selection, and even consious choice on the part of the individual, in the sense that if a child were to say, practice the violin or a sport at this time, rapid progress more usually results than at other times. There are known limitations on this too, for example people don't see such development in the language centers, in fact this period is when the ability to learn a new language from scratch takes its last sharp downturn into the state it continues to occupy therough the rest of our lives.
How does this relate to Janet's (i.m.h.o. rather cute) breast? During this period, sexual cues seem to imprint deeply, resulting in a lot of very sharp, profound behavioral changes. Since humans also synthesize bits and pieces in the process, and some people imprint very deeply. I'd argue that a lot of porn, and on rare occasions even a relatively inocuous thing like the wardrobe malfunction can damage a young person, and here's why.
We all know some people who are sexually very tightly focused. It seems quite normal, especially in males, for a man to have a thing for breasts or legs, to always date blondes or redheads, or other such self selected rules. These people run to about 15% of the hetero male population. Note that we now think homosexual behavior is something that happens prenatally or in the very early stages of childhood, and I am specifically NOT saying that it is selected in this same way. I've brought up this arguement before and someone always jumps me for gay bashing even if I don't say anything one way or the other.
What I am saying is that an incident like the wardrobe malfunction will work on young hetero males as follows. Roughly 85% don't fixate much on just one feature, and so aren't particularly vulnerable to a negative effect here. They will incorporate JJ's nipple with other memories and later, for example, they will still develop interpersonal relationships with women who have smaller or larger breasts without feeling dissatisfied. They won't judge a woman largely or solely by breast size or shape.
Of the males who fixate more heavily, some will get a thing for black women, which is not a negative in general, and may promote a positive sense of racial diversity if the young viewer doesn't totally obsess, but I suppose it could be counted as a negative if the focus goes to an inability to be sexually interested in any woman who doesn't have that exact skin color. Then there's the boys who focus on the fact that that nipple guard she is wearing is attached through the nipple. That's more problematic. A strong fixator may gain a focus on women with body piercings, which can be difficult on a relationship and so counts as moderately negative, but a few will focus on it as the start of an S&M development, and this can become seriously negative indeed. With the number of viewers for the incident, a small percentage, just amonng 12-14 year old heterosexual strong fixators, may equal 1,000 viewers.
Is this a big deal? Probably not for a nipple, but remember, most states prohibit a child from getting anything except ears pierced until age 18, so I'd argue that parents have a concern over the piercing part and not just the flesh part. Is it a bigger deal for commercial porn, where any lessons learned are usually reinforced by immmediate masturbation (an ultra strong positive reinforcement with little or no time delay)? Undoubtedly.
What does this say for TV violence? Well, we know that some of the brain centers that are developing are related to our neolithic hunter gatherer mode. A male at this time is acquiring some nearly instinctual ways of thinking about protecting the tribe, hunti
Who is John Cabal?
I work in the video vault for Nebraska Educational Telecommunications, and we have a hard enough time finding space for more stuff as is. It doesn't help that we are going through a remodeling process, and people are dragging their junk down here until they get moved to their new cubicles. I can't wait to see how this will affect my job *groan*
it's technically illegal for viewer/listeners to [record broadcasts]
are you quite sure? wouldn't recording for the purposes of documenting an alleged violation fall under acceptable fair use?
Well, the first part of your comment, while interesting, isn't very compelling. We can argue about root causes and trade theories all day, but that isn't data. In order to make a social policy determination, a statistical causal connection has to be established between the process you are describing and measurable changes in societal behavior, hopefully with multivariate analysis such as multiple regression, where we can throw as many variables as we can think of into the mix to see which one really matters. As Huckleberry Finn once said, "You can reckon till the cows come home, but that don't prove nothin'."
Will pr0n cause some sicko to get sicker? Maybe. I don't think anyone has the data to make that claim. Hell, for all we know, pr0n helps the sicko sublimate his sicko desires.
As far as the correlations between toking/drinking/smoking and coke/heroin addiction are concerned, one could argue that drinkers and smokers should be actively converted to tokers! Correlation is not causality, as you point out.
When did i say did see the boob? it was the lowlight and most known part of the show hence the reference
Wow, your parents had way more time to devote to screening your TV watching than I. Besides a major sporting event should not include such debasing content. You really don't half or whole hour in the evening? but i should have mentioned that they screened none childrens programes and yes sports would have been one of them because it's not childrens viewing, have you ever seen cheerleaders or race queens? there the ones at every football or motorsport event in the ultra short skirt's very tight tops and shorts so tight that the camel toe is there for all to see. It's not just Superbowl that has half time shows most sport event has something similer.
If you want to see naughty crap on TV get cable or sattelite or go rent porn.
Well i certainley wouldn't watch superbowl for "naughty" crap but i wouldn't presume it to be family viewing and let a child watch it unscreened either.
If you want to know what you children will see on TV watch it first, don't expect others to do it for you.
If i had seen the show and my parents didn't like it it would have been my parents fault not the TV compaines.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
We must protect our children from bare boobies at all costs! Won't someone pleeeeeeease think of the children?!
"The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be."
Which is great if you're the one who happens to define what is "pragmatic".
I'll bet all petty tyrants will tell you they're just being "pragmatic".
I'll take a country based on law, not on Colin Powell Juniors 18th century view of morality.
Nice photos. I was bummed when I learned you edited them all with Photoshop, though. I'm a big fan of no alteration (no filters, no Photoshop, no darkroom tricks...the extent of my manipulation is the film I use). How much were most of them altered? Burning/dodging, color manipulation, object addition/removal?
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
The part of the spectrum used for TV broadcast is considered open in that the recipient does not have to pay a fee in order to receive the broadcast. Also the lessees (the broadcaster does not own the frequency, it is leased from the federal government) have signed an agreement with the government to adhere to FCC rules governing decency.
You're right. People will lose jobs. mostly people like bush, cheney, et al.
Tough titty.
Bush is so bad that he has to go. There is no option. We couldnt' have picked a worse president. We didn't.
I'll go one further then what people are saying with regard to parents taking responsiblity and not the government.
There is an unwritten law that says that parents have a responsiblity to protect their kids. An idea that is built into the very fabric of our society. This goes all the way back the the times when a newborn baby, unprotected, would be eaten by a tiger in the wild. Protection of one's offspring was essential to the survival of the human race.
We no longer live in that kind of world. Certainly children need some level of protection when they are very young. But typically, kids are much more resourceful then parents make them out to be. While parents have fairly strongly developed habits, making it difficult for them to change, children are at a stage when their minds have no problem accepting new things.
In some of the older days in america, children went to work when they were very young- they learned to cook, clean, take care of siblings, etc. All "parent" actions. Kids had no problem in doing these things. Was this "hard on them"? Did they "grow up fast"? Maybe. But that's if you place a distinction upon what it means to be an adult vs what it means to be a child. I know several adults who frequently act like kids- clowning around, trying new things, etc. Are they still adults if they act young and jovial? Of course they are. Then why do we have problems with kids acting like adults?
In other words, parents are the ones to cause kids to become limited such that they can't deal with what life brings them, by assuming they need to be "protected" all the time. There's an excellent book I read called Feel the Fear and Do it Anyway- you should read it. In it the author explains how damaging it is for a parent to tell their kid to "be careful". What they are really saying to that child is "You aren't able to handle the world. You need to be protected." and "I won't be able to handle it if something happens to you." What a powerfully negative thing to be placing on a child! Instead of helping them handle their new or difficult situation, you're actually telling them that they won't be able to handle it!
Parents need to learn that the only way they can really guide their child to success is to empower them to handle the world on their own. You don't do that by uncontiously telling your child that they aren't capable of handling new experiences. You do that by trusting in their abilities and teaching them to rely on themselves instead of you.
clear channel or huge commercial stations can swing this easily.... but again this is another thing that would be a nightmare for shoestring budgetted non-commercial / community / educational radio stations.
i realize it's easier to archive 90 days than it was 20 years ago, but 90 days of audio 24/7 recorded and archived is a lot of mess for smaller stations.
there are still plenty of little stations that have the DJ record their show on cassettes. if i remember right the current rule only requires the archive to be kept for 2 weeks. obviously some people (Howard Stern, Rush etc) archive everything they do.
... that FCC is protecting the general public from getting an accidental peek of nipples and breasts. How many souls had been sent to hell from the Janet Jackson episode?
What we need is more guns and blood. We need to balance the evils of boobs with the beauty of gun flashes and the symphony of gun sounds executing the wrath of God.
Here in the US it is the broadcasters responsiblity to adhear to rules of deceny in terms of program content. In order to leese a frequency for TV broadcasting the broadcaster signs an agreement with the federal government do this very thing.
it is a shame that people dress this way or behave in lewd fashion at such events. I remember growing up watching the Dallas Cowboys play every Sunday afternoon. The entire family gathered around and we had popcorn and snacks. I recall well hearing my aunt yelling at the ball on a field goal attempt "Go Left, Left, left!!!" Like somehow her words would guide the ball through the posts. Back I don't know if the fans at the stadium dressed like they do now but if they did it was not shown on TV. It serves no good purpose to televise that sort of thing in the first place.
anyway as far as screening TV instead we'll do something else. There's a whole closet full of board games and there's a basketball hoop that needs to be set up. Forget TV, what a waste it has become.
Really, this protects both the broadcasters and the viewing public:
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Really, while irresponsible parents are trying to ban anything that shows more skin than that on the face, shouldn't you be at least intrigued by the fact that we watch (and quite often have no problem in children watching) people killed but watching a new person being made (technically it can be just that, although I am sure that cinematographic "masterpieces" like "Grand theft anal" have little to do with it) is highly immoral. Heck, even a goddamn nipple is a threat to whole human existence although in your early life it was literally keeping you alive. Which is more dangerous: Letting children watch a bare nipple/tit or letting 'em watch some poor bastards being slaughtered?? This from the "save our children" point of view, although it is the parents' responsibility actually, not to be enforced by the government.
--------
verifying the authenticity of hypothetical claims such as:
-----------------
On 9:50pm July 5
MSNBC Scarborough Country
Scarborough stated: "Michael Moore wishes for the death of American troops".
Guests included:
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Jennifer Giroux - seethepassion.com
The commercials that aired during the show endorsed products and services from:
Dr. Scholes
Lendingtree
Ramada
American Express
Infiniti
Monaco Financial - www.shipofgold.com
------------
If we know who pays for such (mis)information to be pushed into our homes, we can vote with our wallets and stop purchasing their products/services.
The tiral, for obsenity, in the UK of Penguin publishers for the book Lady Chatterley's Lover.
The prosecution arguement was simple, what would happen if a minor was to read this book.
If his ruling, in favour of the defence, the noted that it would be a sad day if any country was to base it's censorship laws around what a 14 year old girl might think.
To me that is the way the US is going. Not so much from a 14 year olds POV but from a christian right POV. Both should be avoided at all costs.
George
What is CSSRepublic
While you silly Americans are arguing over Janet's boob, Canadians enjoy uncensored television. The only programs that are censored are the ones on US Stations or "pre-bleeped" from the US.
:/
Canada enjoys such wonderful shows as, Trailer Park Boys, KinK, and uncensored Sopranos and Osbournes on broadcast TV.
Silly Americans, when will people stop believing the government is their mom? Put the power in the hands of parents to keep an eye on what their kids are watching. These are the same nutjobs that will ruin the internet for the rest of us.
That judge doesn't do anything, let alone agree with me - he's dead! I don't even have to check that: even if his first words were in that decision, no American has been documented as living 118 years. But the Southern Pacific Railroad Co. is still around! Hardly a "person", and quite the monster.
Rights are not created, not by a court. Rights are inalienable, people are endowed with them by our "Creator", whatever that self-referential entity might be. Privileges are freedoms and entitlements, that are created by people as simulations of rights, but are "alienable": they can be permanently removed, without upsetting the "natural" order. Our American government is strong, stable and sustainable so long as it reflects the actual ("natural") conditions of rights, privileges and their suspensions and adminsitrations.
That's a fascinating citation, even working in a reference to Asimov's "3 Laws of Robotics" that shows how far we've gone awry in 21st Century America. We're also now coming up with the necessity to engage in "corporate executions", just as "I"-type robots are swarming our movie screens, if not yet our homes and workplaces. Hopefully we'll have a workable remedy available before a real USR gets off with mass murder by issuing a press release saying "oops".
--
make install -not war
Just another example of the DIFFERENCE between a Republican and a Democrat administration.
If you LIKE this behavior in YOUR government, then vote Republican this Fall, else vote Democrat.
(Naderites don't want or need MY advice, so I'm not talking to you).
The other day pissed me off.. the local classic rock station here actually played a censored version of The Who's "Who Are You". I couldn't believe it...you could hear where they went in and spliced tape to omit the the two times Daltry sings "...who the fuck are you..."
But could you complain about that radio station offending you?
no one will read this. it is too far buried.
keeping record of what the commercial broadcasters do is an excellent idea.
if you think otherwise you are naive.
we are bing colonised.
In the USA,
1/3 people make a living wage.
1/3 make $10. hour or less
1/3 make more like $7. hour.
I make $9. hr. I can not make it on this and I accrue no private capital.
commercial broadcast is DEFINTIELY in on the process.
only "success" and anxiety are pushed by commercial media, that and a whole lot of SMUT.
Good luck.
I do agree that there's way too much violence on american television, but for some reason that seems more acceptable that simply showing a breast.
There's also a certain irony that a sport so violent and dangerous that the players need to wear body armour in order not to be carted off in an ambulance (or hurse) is considered "family entertainment".
I have an idea I wanted to put forth for some time. But, with this simplification of bringing complaints, I think I'll be able to get away with it. It will either A) serve my purpose, B) make the FCC realize how dumb this new system is.
Except for Jessica Simskank's show (which should be banned b/c she makes me physically ill), I really don't care much about what goes on in any one show. What I do care about is the repeated bombardment of disgusting commercials.
I want to ban all hygiene commercials from TV. There are some things you don't need to see on TV to know they exist. The obvious frontrunner is feminine hygiene products. But toothpaste commercials are just as nasty - I don't need to see down someone's gullet while watching re-runs of Green Acres. Baby diapers are high on the list - we have entire tasks forces searching for child porn, but they let naked kids run around on TV all frickin' day! Who wants to see that crap? Herpes medication can take a hike, too - I dont need to be jack-moved by a Valtrex commercial mid-yank while watching Charmed.
Razor commercials have gotten stupid, since the mfgs have just continued to ad more blades, and make their razors actually less usefull at their intended job. While I'm at it, I want to level a complaint againt Carl's Jr. commercials (Hardee's to you in the east). I don't need to hear the nasty chomping of some retard and see their sloppy ass covered in ejacul- er, special sauce, to know your burger is good. These commericals make me want to vomit my Cheerios - and I don't waste Cheerios!
When the FCC tries to fine every single channel, b/c they all show the same commercials, then we'll see this 'law' repealed (aren't we, as a society, supposed to get a say in our laws? why do administrative types, like the DMV and the FCC, get to just make up 'laws'?).
-bZj
.sig
Here's part of the problem: The FCC refuses to define their rules concerning decency. So they've signed an agreement with the government to adhere to undefined rules. Greaaaaaaat.
Here's another problem with your argument (going back to your grandparent post). You said that you turned the superbowl halftime show off because it was too raunchy. Well -- up until the point where you turned it off, there was no violation of "standards"...your argument doesn't add up -- at least on a legal level. Sexually suggestive dancing meets the national standards for TV-Y. It sounds like your standards are more restrictive than that. Not a problem -- but if you continue following your track, you will need to start arguing for dumping the FCC's rules and going with a local/regional system to actually represents the community standards rather than just arbitrarily making them up and going after high profile targets so it appears that they're doing their job (and to ensure that they don't lose their jobs).
I think that your logic is further skewed, however. Just because a broadcast is "beamed" into your house -- just because it's free of charge does not give an excuse to censor it. TV is not beamed directly into your head, you need a specialized piece of technology to receive it, decode it, and display it. We have been forced by our government to buy TV's with V-chips in them. If you're going to enforce anything, enforce the ratings. We've created this witchhunt, hunting the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Is the FCC going after people for inaccurately rating their programs? Hell no, they're going after the most visible targets (like Howard Stern).
I think that with most censorship proponents, however, this issue goes far beyond keeping their children away from content they don't like. If there is a technological solution, why do we need a crackdown on the content itself? Why not just enforce the ratings (especially for "family" oriented programs)? I believe it is because they want to control what we say, see, and/or hear. They want to control the "moral" direction of our country...it's not "I don't want my kids to see that" (although that's what the majority of 'em will say) -- it becomes a question of "I don't want you to say that, because I don't want anyone else to feel the same way you do about this". A perfect example is the Parents Television Council, who goes after cable tv for adult-oriented programming. They have a v-chip in their TV -- the cable network repeatedly warns that the program is graphic and unsuitable for some audiences, but I guess this isn't good enough for some people. What else could they possibly want? Hiding behind kids to push a communications/mind control agenda is pretty deplorable -- far moreso than showing off some nipples. Frankly, the control aspect of this scares me -- even if you don't want to control my mind, you should surely be able to see how this is frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties.
-Turkey
TV broad casters use the public airwaves. as such they have a responsibility to keep the content generally clean.
"Clean" is a very subjective thing. There's also the possibility that output which is "too clean" might itself offend people.
Far better, IMHO, that broadcasters be honest and consistent in describing their output so that people can make an informed choice about what they want to watch. As for those who deliberatly seek out what offends them just so they can complain about it the phrase "get a life" is most appropriate.
Maybe it's just me, but why does the government have to make laws that force you to do things that are right, or good. Also why is it suck a concern that they make sure there is no indecent broadcast shown? I understand keeping surveillance tapes and such for criminal purposes, but making stations keep records of their broadcast for 90 day, just so 3 months down the road I can make a legal case if their was some indecent material. That seems like the justice system has way too much free time to blow on worthless issues, but I guess that's nothing new.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
I'm sick of television. I don't even watch television anymore save for the periodic watching of the news. I hate commercials and I hate mass media and I hate 99% of what's on television these days.
So I say let them have it. Let them take television and censor the absolute shit out of it and make it "morally consumable by the masses" or whatever the fuck they're trying to do. I've got my internet, I've got my open communication and free speech, I've got my encryption and my firewalls and my geeky toys. Let them have television and everything that comes with it, I'll be on teh intarweb!
(note my use of 'shit' and 'fuck' -- two things I cannot do on television. But I can do them here, on TEH INTARWEB!!! Ah, freedom.)
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
So, a bunch of guys beating the crap out of each other is what you consider good family entertainment?
Maybe hockey or boxing.. but this is not how football is played (or supposed to be played). And I don't consider hockey or boxing to be any sort of family entertainment. Maybe thats because I have always disliked those two sports.
Perfect example of hockey is the cheap shot by Todd Bertuzzi of the Canucks which landed Steve Moore in the hospital with a broken neck.
Braodcast TV is rarely about political speech and should be generally considered entertainment or comercial speech. The latter two categories are less protected by the first amendment that the first (by supreme court case law).
It would be nice if the fcc published a clearer set of rules governing the programming over public airwaves. The FCC should do a much better job of enforceing the ratings given to content and every program broadcast on the public airwaves should be screened for content and rated. Case and statuaroy law both are clear that broadcast TV is a generally available medium and it is considered to be invasive because every house in the US has one (nearly) and most have two or more. The specialty piece of equipment is obviously not a burden to obtain access to programming. A new TV may be purchased for less than $50.
I am all for you having access to what ever depravity ridden programming you may desire. Don't put it in on the public airwaves. Suggestive dancing is not the same as PETA protesting a cannery. It does not qualify for first amendment protection.
This makes sense. You think this is just about Janet Jackson's tit? If a station airs one more minute of pro-Bush ads than pro-Kerry ads, Democrats need the proof! Our civilization is at stake!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Maintaining extra hardware, a huge archive of expensive tapes, and extra staffing to manage it all are not something that the smaller stations will be able to afford.
A few decades ago, minimum transmitter strength required wattage way outside the budgets of many local stations, causing them to shut down.
Over the last few decades, rules regarding the percentage of media controlled by the same owner have been damaged several times. This makes it possible to buy up or squeeze out smaller stations, further reducing the number of voices heard.
This could be just another ill-conceived idea, but it could also be intended to increase the presence of one corporate voice like other consolidation efforts. Or both.
Control of the media is the 21st century's hydrogen bomb.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
We the undersigned pledge our support for freedom of speech and expression on our airwaves, print, the Internet, broadcast, cable and satellite.
While we realize that the government has an obligation to protect our children, surely there needs to be a limit to what is regulated. Adults and parents are capable of making decisions about what to watch, read or listen to and are certainly capable of turning off or putting down anything that may offend them or their children.
As voting citizens, we ask our elected officials to consider your actions in attempting to further regulate television, radio, cable, satellite, print and Internet content.
We consider further censorship attempts to be unconstitutional and we will fight these actions by voting for a politician who cares about our rights as Americans.
http://www.stopfcc.com/
I really haven't decided what I think about the whole radio/tv censoring thing. We had a DJ here who was super popular with 13-17 year old kids, because he was by far the most perverted thing on the air. Just perversion for perversion's sake. He didn't make money for his station from the adults, he made it from the kids. We finally got rid of him because of the content of his radio show. I was very happy. Was this the wrong thing to do?
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
Nope...never did have any complaints about it....and I don't know why they're doing this since these tunes, unedited have been playing on the radio for about 30 years...why start censoring them now? What makes them more offensive now than they were 20-30 years ago?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I was making an analogy to broadcasters being required to tape and store copies of their broadcast to prove their innocence or guilt. Another analogy would be if everyone who shopped at the mall were required by law to film themselves shopping to prove their not shoplifting. Having documents showing a license for building a house and having to maintain a tape library and be forced to staff it are a bit different though.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
The problem is, there is no way to prove ANYTHING about ANY social issue using the methodology you would limit us to. No one can show that any tax system is better or worse than any other, no one can prove that the death penalty does or doesn't deter, or that the three strikes rules do or don't work, or whatever. Why? because there are supposed to be different burdens of proof for differing hypothesi. If I propose in a physics experiment that there is an unknown fith fundamental force, any responsible physicist will, and should, say "Produce some real proof of that remarkable claim or shut up". Now in the social sciences, all to often there is no corresponding mechanism. If one theory is based on broad models of brain development, has a basis in physical as well as mental sciences, and makes predictions matching the predictions the model makes for those other areas, anyone is free to say, "but sexual development is an exception to that rule, and we shouldn't count that other evidence as relevant to the sexual development case", and the sociological community as a whole is reluctant to say "Ah, the burden of proof shifts to the person claiming the exceptions". There are about a hundred thousand variables proposed in this matter. You can't apply multivariant analysis to them because they don't have a common scale of measurement. If they did, you would need the entire world's projected computing power for the next 100 years to crunch the data. (And I'm at least a half-believer in the Vingian singularity). You "don't think anyone has the data to make that claim". There's lots of data, and I can even post some links. But how can that data be analyzed by an industry that too often gives equal weight to all competing claims, from the reasonable to the totally far fetched? While a consensus is developing in this area, and there are plenty of major institutes and organizations that will take a solid stand about the negative effects of various media on kids, there are still, for example, psychiatric industry people who have proposed that all rapists had fundamentalist Christian parents, without exception. Instead of being laughed out of their jobs, their theories are often still competing for funding, analysis, and public attention with ones like the ones I mentioned. Will your multivariant analysis really include as many variables as we can think of? I welcome more analysis of the existing data to further clarify what we know, and don't yet know, but if we can't call obvious junk science junk science, and keep having to go back to square one, we will never get it. Links: http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData/snDescri ption.asp?sn=3535
This is the British cohort study. It was begun in 1970, continued for 16 years and used as its sample all the children born in Britain in the initial year that were born where hospital records were kept (so it excluded only a small fraction of children born at home via midwives). As studies go, it's a whopper, but it did end in 86 for what that's worth.
http://www.fradical.com/research_links_updated2.ht m
This will go to a number of links the American Academy of Paediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association sites, and some Canadian and overseas sites of note as well. Links cover childhood exposure to a broad range of various forms of sex, violence, racism, and other stimuli, and are generally current, i.e. 2000-2004.
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/PP/pp03-01.ht m
Here's a Canadian Association link that's fairly general, about overall media effects rather than just Porn. Of the 50 footnoted documents, only about 10 are multivariate studies.
Who is John Cabal?
First of all, even though it's entertainment, it's still an art, which is protected. Furthermore, when the broadcast media is being used to push a moral or social agenda (such as speech decency standards), it becomes de-facto political speech. If Jackson's breast was an act of political speech protesting decency standards (I'm not arguing that it was, just suggesting a hypothetical situation) -- it wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment for broadcast anyway.
Is this old or new case/statutory law? Remember, the fed says we all have to buy a V-Chip in our new TV's -- it's the law and it's been the law for quite some time. There is technology in place so the airwaves are no longer intrusive. That particular argument has been completely nullified.
You're pointing out a hypocracy in a system that you seem to support. Suggestive dancing does, in fact, qualify for first amendment protection because it has artistic value. Maybe not to you, but I can think of a whole lot of angry professional dancers who would vehemently disagree with you. I'm saying that we should be allowed to put whatever the hell we want on public airwaves. If it's truly offensive to enough of the populus, the market (and associated sponsors, which are part of the market) will weed it out. Again, there is a technological solution to making sure that kids are protected -- or to ensure that we don't have to see content that we don't want to -- it's called the V-Chip. If my money has to go into this, why can't I be trusted to make use of it? What was the point of having it if we're still regulating the content itself? I fail to understand why the already-imposed technical solution isn't good enough...it's a win-win situation for you. Or is this about more than just protecting your kids? What is it that you're trying to control -- the community standards themselves?
-Turkey
Isn't it already a requirement (to get Federal facility construction funds) that a public or college station has to have a logging recorder?
(I have googled for such a reg and can't find it.)
's, 's, and such go? Please let me appologise for how hard the above is to read.
I'm going back to plain text posting until I either figure out what's wrong on my end or die of shame. Again, sorry.
Who is John Cabal?
Oh great, now I post in plain text and yet see the HTML parsed instead of displayed as text. That's just plain wrong.
Who is John Cabal?
Both are very thoughtful posts, so the messed-up formatting was indeed very puzzling.
I have been apart of the small non-commerical sector of radio, this market containts many non-profit organizations, such as churches, high schools, college and others. These groups cannot afford to record all of their broadcasters. Many of them only record talk shows, news programs, and sports events but many of them broadcast music programs, such as top 40 hits or small local bands. These kinds of programs don't need to be recorded because their is a log of what songs were played from which cd's and records. So if their is a problem, we can check the log. With these new requirements being put in place will force many of these small non-commerical stations to go off the air?
A site cowboyneal will like http://www.freewebs.com/atpa/
I sure am glad someone is watching out for our best interests. Who will save the children? NOT! People, there's a freaking WAR going on. Who cares about Janet Jackson's tit?
You might be surprised to find out that kids are actually *more* puritanical than their parents. Liberal attitudes, on the whole, don't tend to blossom until college -- if then.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
We should all file claims with the FCC whenever we see anything broadcast on TV that has been censored. There is nothing more offensive, indecent, horrific, and morally repugnant then censorship.
Of course, you cannot legally videotape anything because you would be violating the DMCA, you know, because of that do not copy bit or whatever. So, yeah. I think they should do this:
1. Make a law that everybody must keep videotape copies of everything they watch on television.
2. On the same page, make a law that makes it illegal to videotape anything you watch.
3. Make a law that law enforcement personnel from the MPAA can come to your home or business at any time to audit your videotapes. If they find that you videotape things, you go to jail and all your property is confiscated and made the property of the MPAA. If they find that you do not videotape things, you go to jail and all your property is confiscated and made the property of the MPAA. Then, MPAA law enforcement officials can select random houses to obtain them and the property therein. That would slightly offset the drastically horrendous effects of movie piracy, which sends many people to the theaters because the pirated version looks like shit and they want to see it in the theater to enjoy the full effect of the movie, which they might not otherwise have bothered to go see.
-EOF-
Broadcasting over the public airwaves is intrusive regarless of v-chip status in the tv. The rating system does not work because it is not enforced and there are many older tv's still in service that do not have a v chip. I have three such sets at home. Suggestive dancing is never artistic nor political and never deserves first amendment protection. While we may differ on this the supreme court has always said that pronogrophy does not qaulify as well as other speach and my be limited to protect minors. As a member of the community my oppinion of what is decent is just as valid as yours. In particlar over a public medium the standards of decnecy should reflect a more conservitive view. Access to indecent material must always go through a tougher gate keeper in order to keep it out of reach of minors. V-chips are not suffecient. if you want this stuff then prove your are over a certain age or buy premimum channels over cable. Open TV broadcasting content must be more limited than other mediums because of its ready access. That's the way it must be: one can discuss gay rights, race relations, etc but one can not girate one's body in lewd fashion or other suggestive action. This is never political: it is for profit and shock value in order to gain attention for ratings or other commercial use.
If the federal government should be more conservative in what they allow, I have a few questions. First, why more conservative? This is speech that we're talking about, and there is no concrete evidence that nudity causes harm to children. It is because you have more conservative political ideals than I? Second, (and this is the crux of the problem) these laws should more conservative in relation to whom or what? Why should a New Yorker have to endure the decency standards of the MidWest? Do you feel that you should have to adhere to broadcast decency standards of...say...an Islamic community in the Pacific Northwest where (for example) showing womens ankles is considered obscene? I sure don't. I'll bet that you don't. If these things are going to be regulated, they need to be done on a local level. I have no problem with my kids seeing nudity. I actually find it offensive that "obscene" language is censored from movies...it's part of the art, and was put into the script for a reason -- and contrary to your beliefs, it's not just for money or shock value...That's as ignorant as someone saying that your are pushing this agenda in order to push your church's beliefs on everyone else. You may be from a different area than I with different community standards. I can live with that...I don't have to live in your community. The fact is that there are enough different community standards in the USA that the federal government has no business trying to enforce a national standard of decency -- because we clearly don't have national decency standards. We all need to respect this.
Next, why do v-chips not work? Because you can't/won't use it, or because of this single incident when something was improperly rated? Do you think that because of a single screw-up, we should throw our hands up and say "it didn't work...everyone must pay!"? You're saying that we should spend more money to go after people who broadcast things that you don't like instead of going after the people who rated it wrong. (I'll remind you of the federal witchhunt against people like Howard Stern). That's some crazy-talk if I've ever heard it, and is counter to free speech. What's so difficult for you about compromise? I'm willing to compromise on this -- I already bought a TV with a V-chip that I'll probably never use -- but I guess that's still not good enough. I feel that the rest of us have been pretty flexible -- letting people push us around for the sake of their "family values". At a certain point, I just say that you need to look after yours in your own home, and I'll look after mine in my own home...and stop trying to push legislature down my throat. If you don't like what's on TV don't watch it. Why is that so difficult?
-Turkey
The problem I have is, I think, a common one: I don't like Bush. I don't really like Kerry either, but I'm afraid that if I vote independent, I'll just help Bush win. I particularly don't like the way the Democrats have been hounding Nader to keep his name off the ballot wherever they can. You'd think that Democrats would rather see Nader in office than Bush, but sometimes it seems like they spend more time vilifying their next of kin than they do the Republicans ...
-monique
In Canada as far as I now we've been required to make "logger" tapes for quite sometime now. Cause where I work we're required to keep the last 60 days of broadcasting on tape.
Actually the CRTC requires 60 days now. But just like before all we use is cheap VHS tapes. We're also required to keep a written log sheet of everything we aired each night. At least this is the case where I work and I would assume it's the same in many stations. However, we're switching to automation in the fall so I don't know how log-tapes we'll be handled after we make the switch. I fail to see how this is a huge deal. It's called accountability to your viewers. I'm frankly shocked that the FCC is just considering this now!
I don't get it... How is 'perfect example of hockey' an event that rarely ever happens? Hell, I bet it happens in most other sports just as often. Idiot.
The fact that they wear protective equipment is exactly what allows it to be considered "family entertainment". This is not a bloody gladiator match, no one wants to get hurt out there. It's a game about team strategy, determination, endurance, and individual hard work. I'm sure those qualities are difficult for you to comprehend, but get over it, it's not that bad.
Ever watch NCAA hockey? In any case, beating the crap out of someone in hockey still gets you a penalty and gives the other team a powerplay no matter what league you're in. A lot of unsportsmanlike penalties draw suspensions and big fines, as well as somehow making it out into the media where everyone who wouldn't like hockey anyway begin to whine and complain.
It's probably not always going to be "family" entertainment in really strict households, but damn... If you can't handle watching football, we might as well throw in the towel right now. Getting rough in a controlled environment, no matter what sport it is, isn't going to cause the downfall of society. I still consider the 'idea' of the football player to be a good role model. Yes, I know there are dark sides, but in general when we watch a football game, we're watching a display of what you can achieve when you really put your mind and body into something. Dedication, determination, and usually good sportsmanship. If you've ever watched a game, you'll often see players from opposing teams hugging, shaking hands, and helping eachother get up. Anyone who's watched more than a few games knows that neither side wants anyone to truly get hurt, even the opposing teams fans applaud when an injured player is able to get up off the field. If all you're seeing is "guys beating the crap out of each other", I believe you are the one with the problem.
If it is talk radio, you can get it onto 16 kbs mp3 with no problem. 3 megs an hour.
{snip}
/s/ A former radio journalist.
> of course all broadcasters already keep recordings of all their output
{snip}
Wrong, wrong, wrong
There are hundreds of small, community-focused radio stations in this nation to which this would be an unreasonable burden. Non-profit radio, community radio, tribal radio, most of whom are on the edge already.
Sure, it's of no consequence to the Robots of ClearChannel, who wish to execute any announcer or operator who deviates nore than 16ms from the scheduled routine. But, for human-operated radio, having to run tape or files 24x7x366 is not cheap, and neither will archiving it in presentable form.
Not every station is automated, and some which ain't make some damned fine radio. But, the FCC once more erects another burden on small stations which the big chains can just blithely march right over.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
> there are still, for example, psychiatric industry people who have proposed that all rapists had fundamentalist Christian parents, without exception. Instead of being laughed out of their jobs, their theories are often still competing for funding, analysis, and public attention
Do you have solid evidence to the contrary? Just because YOU are offended by an idea, it isn't immediately wrong. By the way, many, many great inventions & theories came from "far-fetched" ideas, so unless there is completely irrefutable evidence denying it, what's the problem of looking into it? Then, the next time someone gets the same stupid idea, there will already be a study showing his crazy christian-bashing idea is wrong.
I can understand the logic of that statement, being that most "fundamentals" I have met are extremely socially (ie, sexually) repressed to the point of ignorance.