Slashdot Mirror


FCC Looks Into Regulating Violence on TV

The Importance of writes "The FCC's regulation of indecent and profane speech has gotten a lot of attention recently. Now, the FCC is considering getting into the business of regulating violence on television (broadcast and cable/satellite). This isn't unexpected, because the House Commerce Committee ordered the FCC to conduct the study. Notice of Inquiry [PDF] [TXT]. Somehow, I don't think the FCC is going to tell Congress there is nothing they can do about violence on TV."

14 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. I agree with the FCC... by havaloc · · Score: 5, Funny

    there isn't enough violence for me and we need to regulate it to get more.

  2. Regulation? by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Funny


    I'll shoot the next guy who tries to tell me that violence on TV is a bad thing!

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    1. Re:Regulation? by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll shoot the next guy who tries to tell me that violence on TV is a bad thing!

      Just wondering, are you also planning on fucking the next guy who tries to tell you that sex on TV is a bad thing?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. this is bad by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is not a problem for the gov't

    this problem can be solved very easily

    on most TVs, there is a dial, keypad, or buttons that can be used to change what channel is currently showing. it's an amazing piece of technology that a parent can use to influence the life of a child

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  4. Oh god by Trikenstein · · Score: 5, Funny
    I can see it now.

    It'll be like 80's TV all over again.
    Like the A-Team, where they expend 10K rounds of ammo, but no one ever gets hurt.
    Or during a fist fight or HtH combat, the guys always land on soft cardboard.
    And those god awful wimpy, mustache twirling, limp wristed villains they had back then.

    1. Re:Oh god by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 5, Funny

      you got a problem with the A-Team fool?

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
  5. Re:Maybe I am too European, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Typical socialist. Don't you know seeing breasts will cause the young men of our land to use otherwise perfectly harmless guns to force women into positions they'd rather not be in?

    Breastestes are bad, m'kay.

  6. Re:I'd trade violence for sex on TV anyday ... by Denyer · · Score: 4, Funny
    i read some email that was sent to CNN from a concerned mother who stated that her child's life will now forever be changed because of that scene.

    I assume she either never breastfed (in itself lacking wisdom) or is simply a fucking hypocrite.

    Come to think of it, families are evidence of sex. Perhaps we should ban those on TV, too.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  7. Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I agree, the kids must be protected. Let's go back to the fifties, where you can't see a married couple share a double bed or, God forbid, show a toilet. And all entertainment shall be Westerns and detective shows where not a single bullet lands on its target, except perhaps to harmlessly shoot the bad guy's gun from his hand.

    Of course, sex has to go. Not just dirty shows like Sex in the City and Friends, but any show about divorce, single parenthood and unmaried couples engaged in any sort of relationship. We don't want kids to know that there is any sort of lifestyle beyond the two-parent house. We also don't want them to know that their parents are real people who have lives beyond complete servitude to them.

    But why stop there? Let's abolish Conan O'Brien and The Daily Show and The Simpsons and Adult Swim, because the humor is just too hard to get for a young child's fragile mind and we wouldn't want them to get confused.

    We should also abolish all beverages but milk for kids, because that's the only one that's guaranteed wholesome.

    That would be a start, but there's still a long way to go. The number one priority of our government should be protecting our children at all costs. That is, for the eighteen years or so when they're actually kids... Once they turn into ignorant, sheltered adults we should send them out into society and feed them to the wolves.

  8. It's about time... by jlanthripp · · Score: 2, Funny

    The government really needs to regulate violence on television. The violence on television lately is so poor that the only fix is for the government to step in and ensure that all violence shown on television meets standards of quality. I for one demand that the violence in my entertainment be the finest violence available.

    --
    "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  9. Re:Equalising... by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are forgetting that America was founded by prudes. For Gods sake, the Brittish thought they were too uptight.

  10. Re:Cable/Satilite by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Funny

    After all, if the government doesn't protect and care for our children, who will?

  11. Re:Max? by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Funny

    and best of all, the politicians will all think that TV finally cleaned up its act...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  12. If someone tries to take violence from *my* TV... by Adapt+or+Die · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll fuckin' cut 'em.