FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows

I don't understand ... by Burb · 2004-07-07 22:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--

Re:I don't understand ... by Ann+Coulter · 2004-07-07 22:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?

I think that this line of argument for forced recording of material is just like the old argument about hiding stuff: it is an attempt to impose more restrictions on innocent people.
Re:I don't understand ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 23:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

When someone accuses you, he's the one who has to bring the evidence. You don't have to incriminate yourself. The new requirement is not censorship per se, but it helps those who want to control what other people can see, simply by shifting some of the costs to the broadcasters.
Re:I don't understand ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 23:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the point is that of course all broadcasters already keep recordings of all their output, so this is a no-op for them.

It also does not seem that unreasonable to me that, in return for being granted use of the airwaves, you need to have an audit trail of what you have transmitted to 200 million people.

Too much knee-jerking going on here. The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be.
Re:I don't understand ... by wfberg · 2004-07-07 23:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

Why would you impose the burden of indecency enforcement on the overwhelming majority of decent broadcasters? Shouldn't the guilty bear the burden of their misdeeds?

Besides, if the broadcast was so offensive, and had such a nefarious impact on society, shouldn't you be able to find witnesses who saw the program themselves? Won't complainants now have the opportunity to comb over every second of every program on every channel for every word that might have sounded like a naughty sex act? Like "that floor is DIRTY, SANCHEZ, can you stop dropping stuff there"? Or how about "during the medical procedure A WAND IS INSERTED IN THE URETHRA"? "the Chinese restaurant FOOK LONG.."?

For crying out loud, I saw an Oprah show in which a nipple was blurred out during an explanation of a breastcancer self-examination!! You'd think it's fairly important to mention that one bump that's NORMAL to have on your breast?

Besides, the FCC is going censorship crazy anyway at the moment. Profane speech? What's up with that? You have nothing to hide if you're innocent (YEAH RIGHT), but under the FCC's new rules and decisions, who know's when you're innocent, and when you're (retroactively!) guilty?

On the other hand, I'd love it if broadcasters would just hang on to their programs (especially without all the logo's and interruptions and bullshit) on some sort of quality medium, like DVD. I positively hate seeing "old" footage that looks like shit, even though you remember seeing it only a year or two ago in broadcast quality. What do they use to store news footage and episodes of "Friends" anyway? VHS??

In fact, the FCC is encouraging broadcasters to BURN THEIR TAPES after 60-90 days, to prevent costly complaints. Kind of like burning books because you might not like what's in them. Yay for future historians!

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:I don't understand ... by 1u3hr · 2004-07-07 23:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Not really. If it's broadcast it's already in the public domain, and someone else could quite legitimately have recorded it.
No, broadcasting something doesn't put it in the public domain. That's actually one reason cited for requiring the broadcasters to keep copies, becasue it's technically illegal for viewer/listeners to do so (aside from time-shifting).
Re:I don't understand ... by Short+Circuit · 2004-07-07 23:43 · Score: 4, Informative

and when you're (retroactively!) guilty?

I'd be very surprised if the FCC had the power to implement retroactive law. Under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, no ex post facto law may be passed.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Re:I don't understand ... by Burb · 2004-07-07 23:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

By European standards, US broadcast TV is extraordinarily prudish when it comes to matters of anatomy. Evidence: the Jackson nipple. I have it on good authority that when it comes to violent acts, there's more on US TV. But this isn't of itself an issue about where the standards are, but a question about broadcasters accepting responsibilty for what they disseminate.
Say you broadcast a live interview criticising the president. And someone comes up to you the next day and says you accused the president of imbezzlement. And you say "no, I said he was an imbecile, not am imbezzler, but unfortunately I can't prove it because I don't have the tapes..." then what?

--
Re:I don't understand ... by beuges · 2004-07-07 23:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

That was my immediate reaction as well, until I realised that if you're watching a show on tv, or listening to something on the radio, which ends up having 'questionable' material, you wouldn't have had the foresight to record it on the off-chance that the show you are watching/listening to would be 'questionable'. How often have radio DJ's been given formal warnings for inadvertedly swearing on air - it happens, and people phone in and complain, but it's very unlikely that someone is sitting and recording the show just in case the dj says something colourful.

Having said that, I personally am against the rush to censor everything that we see and hear :)
Re:I don't understand ... by jandersen · 2004-07-07 23:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it is a good idea for broadcasters to tape all broadcasts; not because I think they should be scanned for 'indecencies', but because it may have historical value. Even a load of crap like Big Brother might one day be of some interest to some researcher, you never know.

As for indecencies - with more channels than tv sets in the US, I should think it would be possible to find another channel, if you don't like the language, subject or whatever. And the real indecencies - the blatant lies from politicians, the very existence of reality tv etc, that is a whole other ballgame.

Apart from that, I think your arguments are over the top. I don't think keeping records ought to be a major problem for broadcasters; it's probably more of a problem getting around to destroying old clutter. The examples you mention are not realistic either, I think - for one thing, which judge or other authority would take complaints of that nature serious? Of course there will be people who would bee paranoid enough to look for this kind of thing, but they are already doing so - like finding 'hidden messages' in rock albums or the number 666 in random places.
Re:I don't understand ... by DarkSarin · 2004-07-07 23:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am seeing a lot of complaints about this being censorship, and in some ways I agree--the gov't should stay out of these matters, and parents should step in and take responsibility.

In order for parents to do this, however, broadcasters must be honest about the shows content before broadcasting. Personally I deplore a lot of the material on TV/Radio these days, but I respect that they have the right to broadcast it, just as anyone who wants to has the right to listen/watch.

Someone mentioned that media companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with the broadcast flag. Personally, I think that if they are going to make it illegal/impossible to record broadcast shows, they should require companies to record the broadcast in order to provide evidence of truth in advertising (hey, this show is rated TV-Y, but they are talking about sex, that's not right!).

That said, I am comfortable with either situation--either make it easy to obtain the broadcast later, or make it legal/easy to tape it yourself.

As someone who feels that personal liberty is of supreme importance, I think that it should be perfectly legal to record a broadcast. As far as decency is concerned, I'm not that concerned--censorship should be practiced at the level of the family. If you don't want your kids watching a certain show, then don't let them. Complaining to the gov't is not the way to go.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:I don't understand ... by balthan · 2004-07-07 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

but unfortunately I can't prove it because I don't have the tapes..." then what?

Too bad. 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.
Re:I don't understand ... by Burb · 2004-07-08 00:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's continue the example.... OK, so your accuser finds ten associates (who despite being half deaf and stupid are prepared to swear in court you said "embezzle") and they have a lot of money and an flash lawyer and want to drag the thing interminably through the courts until they bankrupt you .. wouldn't it be nice if you could hand them a VHS copy and say "listen to this, you idiot, and get a hearing aid".
Yes, burden of proof should be on the accuser, but you have actual evidence in your defence you can get rid of the court case so much more quickly.
I think the point still stands that keeping records of what you do is responsible broadcasting.

--
Re:I don't understand ... by Burb · 2004-07-08 00:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

In principle, yes.
Criminal court = beyond reasonable doubt. Civil = balance of evidence.
But it's EXPENSIVE to defend a case. In either case, just keeping a simple record (even crappy VHS) of the broadcast allows you to easily defend matters of fact.

--
Re:I don't understand ... by Refrag · 2004-07-08 00:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

With the Broadcast Flag, the only person that can supply evidence is the broadcaster. This is a good law. If we can ever get rid of the Broadcast Flag, this'll be a bad law.

--
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Re:I don't understand ... by kfg · 2004-07-08 00:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be.

It may have escaped your notice, but the one thing that America has always claimed that set it apart from other countries is that it is founded on principle.

KFG
Re:I don't understand ... by Miamicanes · 2004-07-08 00:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Had Justin Timberlake pulled out a big, pus-covered rusty knife and CUT HER NIPPLE OFF, it would have been OK by American standards. On the other hand, had he bent over and caressed it with his tongue, he would have been performing for his new neighbors at Guantanamo Bay ;-)
Re:I don't understand ... by Almost-Retired · 2004-07-08 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative

If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?

I think that this line of argument for forced recording of material is just like the old argument about hiding stuff: it is an attempt to impose more restrictions on innocent people.

I violently agree. I am a bc engineer, mostly retired.

Makeing us, the small market window on your home town here in the markets rated as 100+, responsible for what the networks feed us in the form of making us keep an aircheck tape of a 24/7/365 operation, at $20 an hour for the tape and another $10/hour or more for machine maintainance, will gain no real benefits to society at large, and will reduce our already too narrow operating margin by a considerable percentage. Its an expense smaller market stations cannot afford as it doesn't scale to the market size, but rather is a fixed expense regardless of the market ranking of the station.

For locally produced stuff, like our 5 times daily newscasts & morning cut-ins, yes, we do tape those, but asking us to save every tape for 60-90 days will multiply our tape costs by however many weeks that would be since like most, that tape has served its "review our own perfomance" duty at the end of the week, so tuesdays tape for the 12:00 noon cast is then re-written the next tuesday at 12.

These aren't $2.00 walmart vhs tapes folks.

From another viewpoint, we are simply incapable of responding in real time to bleep out a embargoed word when carrying what the networks feed us, or of recognizing and setting up an overlay fuzzball in real time of such goings on as the "wardrobe malfunction" during the superbowl. Our operators were as wide-eyed as the rest of the world at that instance.

Such regulatory actions rightfully should be directed to the source of the program, and not the 1700 something broadcast tv stations under the commissions purview.

As it is, we spend around 60 man hours a week scanning the syndicated and one time stuff that comes in on tape before we air it, and often wind up editing out a word or 3, but since we cannot do that to the syndi's tape, its their copyrighted property, that means we have to make yet another dub on our own tape.

This is an ill-conceived idea, really.

Cheers, Gene
Re:I don't understand ... by sdcharle · 2004-07-08 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, in the case of small, volunteer run radio stations, this is just one more cumbersome government requirement to comply with. Often these stations have a 'core' staff of a handful of highly dedicated, woefully underpaid paid staff who have plenty to do as it is.
Even setting aside questions of censorship and freedom of speech, the 'pain in the ass' factor here is enough to make this a bad idea. Small stations have a hard enough time getting and staying on the air as it is. Now they have to set up a system to ensure everything gets recorded, and take a dent out of their budget to pay for the equipment and media to make that happen? It's just a bad idea. The only possible change it will make is more stations getting knocked out of business by fines b/c some volunteer played a song not even realizing it had a dirty word on it, and the station had the recording to hang themselves with.
Re:I don't understand ... by Nogami_Saeko · 2004-07-08 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Hmm... We've done this in Canada for years. The CRTC regs required us to have logger machines recording everything the station outputs (both TV and Radio stations). We used to keep 30 days of log-tapes, but they may have increased the minimum requirement since I was last working in a station.

We always just used cheap VHS tapes on EP mode on disposable-grade VCRs - the tapes don't have to be anywhere near broadcast quality, they're just a record incase there are issues with the broadcast and a viewer complained (to my knowledge, it never happened at the station I was at). We'd just run two machines to make sure there was an overlap, then change tapes every 6 hours.

Radio stations typically just use a big reel-to-reel tape on extreme-slow speed. I think they could get an entire day on one tape.

They may accept digital recordings now (low labour and probably better quality), but the machines would have to be very reliable (probably a 2nd live redundant system as a backup).

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:I don't understand ... by capoccia · 2004-07-08 03:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
the decency standard is vague for two reasons:
- the decency standard must be flexible because community standards change over time and from region to region.
- the decency standard must be decent. a decency standard cannot use concrete examples because then the statute itself would be indecent.
Re:I don't understand ... by jdunlevy · 2004-07-08 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?
It costs money to make and keep recordings of broadcasts. In practice, a lot of stations do make and keep recordings to protect themselves, but I think it's pretty unusual for smaller (i.e. low-budget) broadcasters to do that. (I worked for a while for a family-owned commercial broadcaster that did keep tapes -- two-weeks worth of 8-hour VHS taps of audio; and I currently do a show on a noncommercial station that doesn't currently have the means to make and keep recordings of its broadcasts.)
On a side-note (this may be nothing), the RIAA-interpretation of webcasting rules (RIAA Webcasting FAQ, Q7):
Q7. What about the copies of sound recordings that must be made in the webcaster's server to transmit the sound recordings? Does a webcaster have to pay separately for those copies? A.These copies are sometimes referred to as "ephemeral recordings." The new law grants an exemption for one ephemeral recording if (1) the webcasting service making that recording is licensed to transmit it (e.g., it has a statutory license to transmit the recordings), and (2) meets the conditions of the exemption, such as that the copies may only be used by the webcaster and must be destroyed within six months.
So the FCC wants stations to keep recordings (which cost money to make, keep), the RIAA and webcasting rules don't want recording to be kept too long, and extra fees may go into effect for keeping more than one copy for more than a certain period. ??
Re:I don't understand ... by macdaddy · 2004-07-08 03:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

These aren't $2.00 walmart vhs tapes folks.
Maybe they could be.... :-) I don't think their proposed requirement says what medium the archive has to be on. VHS on the really really really long run cycle would still be an archive. You could pick a more obscure medium like betamax too if you want in my opinion. I'm still against the ruling but it might be possible to stick it to the FCC with the medium you choose.
Re:I don't understand ... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-07-08 03:50 · Score: 2

"The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be."

Oh, that's a nice line.

I'll remember that the next time I decide to rob a bank.

Moron.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:I don't understand ... by mdamaged · 2004-07-08 03:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe because this isn't about TV or decency, this is about the self-preservation and validaton of the FCC (they were only meant to divy up frequencies once upon a time), this is also about the systematic removal of the freedoms we enjoy so much, when you control what a man sees, you control him.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
-- Pastor Martin Niemvller

Then they came for the messangers(broadcasters)...

--
Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
Re:I don't understand ... by Dun+Malg · 2004-07-08 04:00 · Score: 4, Funny

"The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be."
Oh, that's a nice line.
I'll remember that the next time I decide to rob a bank.
"It's just not efficient for all that money to be sitting around in a drawer all day when it could be out in the economy circulating around. Now fill this bag or I'll kill every damn one of you!"

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:I don't understand ... by Almost-Retired · 2004-07-08 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thats an enticing thought. But with utility vcr's still available (BTW, this past years production of vhs machines was announced over a year ago as being the last run ever) I'm afraid price would win out over a potentially incompatible meduim. We should maybe buy a 12 pack of them so that we still have spares when the rest of the world has used theirs up :)

Re: your sig. I don't have a lot of faith in the ACLU generally speaking, but you are definitely "preaching to the choir" about the rest of it.

Cheers, Gene
Re:I don't understand ... by Almost-Retired · 2004-07-08 06:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Could you not have a profanity delay and drop to white noise/fault card in this kind of case.

That might be do-able if it weren't for the fact that most of the operators have other duties in between station breaks that can take them more than 10 seconds away from the button, possibly even in the back production bay looking up a commercial that the playback soft says is on the missing list in the hard drive queue. Some stations are so automated that a board op isn't required, the local break is actually triggered by signals from the network.

There are also legal enjoinders against this sort of thing in our network contracts, such conditions brought on by the popularity of the infamous 'time machine'. Which was in fact a heck of a good idea, but the networks got all bent when they found we were making room for another 30 to 60 seconds of commercial time in a 1 hour program by removing no motion frames and pregnant pauses from the program stream. We are monitored by external entities, and the networks get a summary the next day of delayed or missed commercials. So now they must be carried in real time per contract else we wouldn't be that nets affiliate for very long.

Cheers, Gene
Re:I don't understand ... by greed · 2004-07-08 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

They may accept digital recordings now (low labour and probably better quality)

Heck, for logging, drop the bitrate as low as you can get away with. Throw quality out the window, go for recording time/megabyte.
Re:I don't understand ... by dbIII · 2004-07-08 13:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Radio stations typically just use a big reel-to-reel tape on extreme-slow speed. I think they could get an entire day on one tape.
... they're just a record incase there are issues with the broadcast and a viewer complained
This is certainly the case. I was involved some time ago with a radio station that had a dispute with the student union they leased their premises from. The student union president put in a spurious complaint to the police about the radio station advertising where to buy illegal drugs, not knowing about the tapes - much police time was wasted since the person involved would not specifiy the time on the first run through - it turned out to be a reference to the song "orange crush" in an interview with REM. Oddly enough, the song is about agent orange - a herbacide used during the Vietnam war.
In that case, the requirement of the broadcasting authority actually saved the station some legal hassles.

It's about time for... by virid · 2004-07-07 22:39 · Score: 2, Funny

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

Don't watch TV by nuggz · 2004-07-07 22:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Don't watch TV by torpor · 2004-07-07 22:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Television is the enemy of creativity. There are thousands and thousands of things you can do which are more entertaining, more compelling, and generally more lively than watching Television.

Personally, I find it indicative of the height of decadence in society today that we've got massive government agencies whose sole purpose is to keep content designed for wasting time within certain 'limits' of 'social acceptance'.

I'll tell you whats offensive: the fact that 400,000 people a day are sitting in front of televisions, doing nothing with their lives, and society thinks this is 'normal'. Thats more fucking offensive than a few fucking swear fucking words, I tell you that.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Why don't they call it by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 22:42 · Score: 5, Funny

The 'Janet Jackson Nipple Law'...

..it has a nice ring to it :-)

Quite usefull by Zappa · 2004-07-07 22:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Quite usefull by torpor · 2004-07-07 22:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thing is, why should the onus -only- be on the broadcaster in these cases?

If you've got an indecency complaint to make, you should be able to make your -own- copy of the event.

Copyright laws seem more designed to prevent open criticism of the quality of media, than the actual control of copy of that media. Frankly I think far too many TV and "Mass Media" broadcasters are getting away with nefarious info-war rubbish, and it has gone on too long... the public need education on propaganda, and they -need- the right to record all media they perceive, on persistent and undeniable basis.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Re:Quite usefull by rokzy · 2004-07-07 23:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

how does that work?

"hey that was disgusting, put a tape in quick and record 5 minutes ago"
Re:Quite usefull by ray-auch · 2004-07-07 23:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmm, but aren't the broadcasters and FCC etc. about to make it impossible to make your own copy of the event with the new broadcast flag, drm etc.

I guess the broadcasters can't have it both ways - if they want to prevent everyone else copying then seems reasonable they are going to be required to keep definitive copies for evidence...

Radio stations already do this. by Gordonjcp · 2004-07-07 22:43 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

I'm shocked by your attitude by not_a_product_id · 2004-07-07 22:43 · Score: 5, Funny

"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

Re:I'm shocked by your attitude by wfberg · 2004-07-07 23:21 · Score: 2, Funny

What about sitting on the side of the road writing speed tickets? I guess THAT'S a waste of time too? I should be able to say or do whatever the fuck [emp. added-w] I want, just because I don't agree with a law, huh?

Amen, brother! FUCK indecent speech!

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:I'm shocked by your attitude by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-08 00:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

You mindless fucking right wing republicans are no better than the mindless fucking camel jockeys that flew those planes into the towers on 9/11. I believe in freedom, I may not like how some people use those freedoms, but I'll fight to the death to make sure that that freedom is protected. If you want to live under a dictatorship where dos and don'ts are laid out for you, then move to North Korea. Post your home address and I'll mail you $5 to help you on your merry way to your new life in Kim Jong utopia. Even if you pass on my offer, at the very least I can take solace in the fact that there's a special place reserved in the deepest, darkest pits of hell for the lot of you right wing fascist neo-nazis.

Amazing they're not kept already by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2004-07-07 22:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

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!

is this not a good thing? by ooleary · 2004-07-07 22:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

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".

unconstitutional? by Hognoxious · 2004-07-07 22:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously, even though this isn't a criminal case, surely the principle should still apply that it's the complainant's (=prosecution's) duty to provide evidence to back up their case not the other way round? Not only does this violate the presumption of innocence but it's tantamount to requiring someone to testify against himself.

P.S. frouth psot.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Who does it help? by lachlan76 · 2004-07-07 22:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Who does it help? by Jane_Dozey · 2004-07-08 00:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

True. I could probably write into half the TV channels I have access to about content I don't like, but I don't because I have enough sense to know that many more people actually want to see it, and that I don't have to watch it. I have the common sense to avoid the programmes I know I'll find offensive and I'm quite happy doing so. Do I have the right to dictate to the country what they should be able to see based on my own opinions? No.

I think "protecting the children" is a load of rubbish. Sure, I wouldn't want my kid to see tinky-winky getting-it-on with lala on after school childrens TV, but I wouln't mind them hearing the odd "bad word" in a programme aired after the watershed. Over protecting kids can be just as bad as not protecting them at all, since they'll grow up thinking that so much as a friendly hug is dirty (extreame example). Teach them right from wrong and let them experience the world.

--
Silly rabbit

It's always "Won't Someone think of the Children?" by bheer · 2004-07-07 22:49 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Censorship by the back door? by Mant · 2004-07-07 22:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?).

Why government listens to these people by October_30th · 2004-07-07 22:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't the government have better things to do?

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

Parents responsibility by JRSiebz · 2004-07-07 22:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'll watch TV if I want to by October_30th · 2004-07-07 22:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll tell you whats offensive: the fact that 400,000 people a day are sitting in front of televisions, doing nothing with their lives, and society thinks this is 'normal'.

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

Re:I'll watch TV if I want to by October_30th · 2004-07-07 23:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

They should be doing something more productive such as
Again, who are you to tell them how they live their lives and why do you feel so strongly about other people's chosen way of life?
You might like reading educational books, socializing or going out for hikes but they might not. Instead, they like watching TV and perhaps socializing by talking about the last nights football match or a soap episode with the neighbour - while they're having a smoke or walking the dog in the backyard.
It's their life and, even if it might seem like a pitiful mutant abortion of a life to you, they're happy with it and that's enough. If they like living the life of a fat, braindead couch-potato so be it. I and no-one else should have a say about it.
The physical and mental benefits far outweigh watching television all day.
Benefits to whom? The society? The individual?
That's the same line of argument with which people pester obese individuals and, as I've discovered recently, single men in their thirties. While the argument appears to be caring and sensitive on the surface, it suggests that the chosen lifestyle is Wrong and the person must change it to appease the majority:
"Have you ever considered that you'd be happier if you lost 10 kg?" (implication: obese people cannot/should not be happy; if they're we'll make it damn sure they'll feel bad after we've pointed out their physical deficiencies)
"You know, you'll live a longer and healthier life if you'd lost a few kilos?" (implied: i don't care if you die a horrible death but you're costing me tax money).
"You'd feel much better if you exercised once in a while" (implied: you're so fat that you must feel horrible all the time)
and so on.

--
The owls are not what they seem

Re:Who gave the FCC the right.. by bagel2ooo · 2004-07-07 22:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Agree or disagree with the argument itself, I think that it results to the fact that it is broadcast over "public airwaves." That is in that any basic receiver can pick up the transmission. This is the same as regular network television. While one would hope it would be at the discretion of the viewer/listener, apparently the FCC doesn't see it as so.

--
( o ) one could say I'm rather baked

copyright? by capoccia · 2004-07-07 23:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

how is an individual supposed to make said tape in light of current copyright laws?

So what your saying is... by millahtime · 2004-07-07 23:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:So what your saying is... by wfberg · 2004-07-07 23:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Because you can switch him off if you find him offensive? Same as your boss tells you to shut your mouth, only you don't even have to tell him to his face, just hit that dial! The feeling of POWER must be overwhelming!

Inoffensive speech needs no protection. That's what the First Amendment is all about. Protecting speech that others don't like.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty

I don't see the problem: by Artega+VH · 2004-07-07 23:01 · Score: 3, Funny

"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.

So let me get something straight... by millahtime · 2004-07-07 23:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Er? by HAL9OOO · 2004-07-07 23:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

What are you paid for? by 192939495969798999 · 2004-07-07 23:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 |

Re:It's always "Won't Someone think of the Childre by mrchaotica · 2004-07-07 23:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Dad can't do that, by law.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Corps don't have rights but... by Omega1045 · 2004-07-07 23:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Good. I cannot fathom why this isn't done already by arcade · 2004-07-07 23:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 like it? Do something about it. by dave-tx · 2004-07-07 23:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's one way to enact change on this front - register to vote, then in November vote Bush out of office. This has got to reach a point when even registered Republicans have had enough.

I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.

--

>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

A Question by segfault7375 · 2004-07-07 23:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Corporations can't "self" incriminate by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-07 23:45 · Score: 2, Informative

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

corporate corpus by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-07 23:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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

Re:corporate corpus by hearingaid · 2004-07-08 00:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Corporations can't be arrested or incarcerated, but they can be killed.
Where'd Ma Bell go? Oh wait. How about Enron?
They can also be fined, and plus their Controlling Minds can be prosecuted for their actions (what's up with Ken Lay these days?)

--
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Re:corporate corpus by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-08 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ma Bell is now several corporations, which, if combined, would be much larger than their predecessor. What do you call that, parthenogenesis? No, corporations are virtual, totally unlike the very real human.

Enron is in the midst of restructuring various businesses for distribution as ongoing companies to its creditors and liquidating its remaining operations. Ken Lay, after years BBQ'ing and praying in Texas, was just indicted, so he's going to have to work again for awhile. Probably to avoid jail in exchange for not talking too much about that Afghan gas pipeline his buddy Dubya tried, too late, to get from the Taliban. Meanwhile, they continue to operate, though without the market confidence required to make new contracts. But their existing contracts continue to squeeze California, Oregon and Washington dry. That's not much like a person, either. By now, a consumer from the Pacific coast, a pensioner from the Gulf coast, or an investor from the Atlantic coast would have strung up Mr. Enron, or splattered his brains across a boardroom table. Mr. "Brains" Lay will instead be treated with much more luxurious respect and autonomy than would any disembodied organ.

Corporate fines are financed by credit and revenue. Limited liability and "restructuring" are synthetic corporate operations impossible for humans. Corporations can be "put on hold", be in many places (or nowhere) at once, deliberate without cross-examination - all impossible for humans. Otherwise, we never would have invented these monsters to do our bidding - we'd just stick to real people, who don't cost an extra thousand bucks to incorporate.

--
--
make install -not war

Fox and P0rn by Fubar411 · 2004-07-07 23:49 · Score: 2, Funny

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

What I don't understand is... by fataugie · 2004-07-07 23:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why something said on the Howard Stern show back 2 1/2 years ago is all of a sudden something that needs to be investigated. 2 years ago, no one had a problem with it. Why now?

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?

"Doesn't the government have better things to do?" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-07 23:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

Don't the programme-makers have better programmes they can make?

Parents should be parents by Pedrito · 2004-07-07 23:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Mod parent up! by ideonode · 2004-07-08 00:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Mod parent up!

Mod teenager up, surely? ;)

You ARE allowed... by CptTripps · 2004-07-08 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 .sig can beat up your honor student.

lets bring up the tolerance level by jdkane · 2004-07-08 00:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do

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 :)

Re:I'll watch TV if I want to WeLL by October_30th · 2004-07-08 00:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

trying to imply torpor is not "allowed" (i.e. who are you? comments) to have an opinion / make a suggestion about the matter.

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

Howard Stern... by LazyBoy · 2004-07-08 00:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

...has been throwing a lot of light on the tactics of the FCC lately. (Like fines for things that happened years earlier, withholding license renewals for companies that want to take the issue to court, etc.) This is probably a response.

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.

I find this similar to... by zogger · 2004-07-08 00:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

... 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.

Cost. That's why not. by Libertarian_Geek · 2004-07-08 00:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

wow by DeusExMalex · 2004-07-08 00:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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".

Waste of my taxes. by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · 2004-07-08 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Boiling a Frog... by PhiltheeG · 2004-07-08 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...

Re:Quite usefull (sic) by Bozdune · 2004-07-08 00:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Woah - what about the broadcast flag? by sbaker · 2004-07-08 01:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

The reasonably prudent broadcaster by n4vu · 2004-07-08 01:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Simple solution by ajs318 · 2004-07-08 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!

Re:Does it need to be read-write? by fuzzybunny · 2004-07-08 01:52 · Score: 2, Funny

This is actually a great idea. /dev/null is so much more cost-effective for storing large amounts of broadcast-quality TV then ugly, expensive hard drives or tapes.

--
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage

Re:I can't understand. by Phisbut · 2004-07-08 02:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:I can't understand. by goatan · 2004-07-08 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

It seems to me that in exchange for the privilege of exclusive use of part of the airwaves the programming must be acceptable to the vast majority of people

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.

Re:I can't understand. by Tenareth · 2004-07-08 03:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:It's always "Won't Someone think of the Childre by DeVilla · 2004-07-08 03:25 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

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.

The lastest PTC "Action Alert" by Dead_Smiley · 2004-07-08 03:28 · Score: 3, Informative

==== BEGIN PASTE ==== I am outraged at the unbelievably gory violence, gratuitous explicit sex, perversion and filthy language on the FX Network series "Nip/Tuck" -- a program your company is bankrolling by agreeing to be sole sponsor of its season premiere episode.

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.
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." ... 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...

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?!

Just wait till they get to web servers by LemonFire · 2004-07-08 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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....

Parents Television Council by Vice_hkpnx · 2004-07-08 04:02 · Score: 2, Funny

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...)

printed text not regulated by SethJohnson · 2004-07-08 04:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The real flaw here is that for some reason, America thinks that dirty words published in audio format over radio or television are dangerous. But, printed words, like in a newspaper, magazine, on a t-shirt, etc. can contain any four-letter combination of letters imaginable.

The problem is that we've got a federal regulatory body that has been charged with oversight of the airwaves. There is no federal govt. agency that polices printed text. "Oh, but these words are carried by the public airwaves. The use of the public airwaves must be monitored," you might say. Well, public libraries stock tens of thousands of books that would be indecent to read over the the public airwaves. Either we need to reign in the responsibility of the FCC or we need a new agency that bans books from libraries.

As for your mention of community standards from region to region, well I'd like to point out that in Austin, TX, it is perfectly legal for a woman to walk down the street topless. Women frequently enjoy topless sunbathing at our public swimming areas. Even so, the local station that broadcast Janet Jackson's Superbowl performance is facing fines. It seems that the FCC is applying a national indecency standard to all communities.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!

agian, this would be easy for CC, but not edu by johnpaul191 · 2004-07-08 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

God Bless Canada by Deltan · 2004-07-08 06:13 · Score: 2

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. :/

It was hypothetical by Libertarian_Geek · 2004-07-08 08:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Slashdot Mirror

FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows

100 of 531 comments (clear)