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."
Hey, I thought Cable and Satelite were more or less restriction free on what they can broadcast. They just do some self censoring. It works now, why mess with a good thing?
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
Anybody notice something missing here? Check what they don't mention...this is television altogether, not just broadcast. Sure, they don't mention DVDs and videogames specifically, but those are forms of non-broadcast television. Will they be under attack next? What about books? Is violence in books any better? Sure, TV violence is bad, but that's only been effecting people for a few decades...books have been around for centuries, and there are scores of violent books.
What is the FCC asking for? This is not just a survey of violent visual material, but an index of how it effects people, and on what levels, and these questions are asked very broadly. To the FCC I say: Good freaking luck.
that we can no longer see wartime footage? Highly convenient that such steps should become popular about the time the most American casualties are occurring in this administration's ill-guided war.
Finally they are trying to equalise their violence vs nudity vs language levels, going the wrong way though.
How is it that in the US you can see as many shootings as you want on TV bvut as soon as someone says fuck or bares a breast, the loonies go nuts... I thought seeing people getting killed would harm a kid more than seeing a breast or two.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
Expect more of this to fire up the GOP base and conservative democrats.
I mean, how many people are going to be upset at a politician who claims "I fought to clean up violent media."
Its a shame most people don't see that as meaning, "I'm big on censorship."
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.
That doesn't matter, the point is to clamp down on what the plebs can see and hear. The consolidation of federal power has been going on since Hamilton, and this is just one small step for mankind's enslavement. Considered in the light of other news, anyone can see what direction we are headed in. "Slippery Slope" is not a fallacy, it is usually correct.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
They should regulate the media industry. Prevent, instead of encourage, media consolidation. Regulate if/how media businesses should be owned by corporations, and ensure said corps don't dictate the media outlet's line. And most of all, they should prevent its CEO (the chief regulator) to have such close tie with a member of a government that demonstrably wants a total secrecy and government-approved only press releases.
Instead of that, they pretend to be working on censoring nudity and violence on TV, which is a comparatively mundane and non-important, and pretend to be working on stuff that way. In reality, they just divert the public's attention from the real issues they're not working on, a method not unlike what Joseph Goebbels was advocating.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
having moved to the states from germany, i was amazed at how the violence to sex content ratio is so backwards. i remember watching a commercial during germany's prime-time tv shows, and they'd advertise some shampoo where you'd see the lady bare-chested and everything....and it wasn't a big deal.
i think people are very hard-up about anything regarding sex in this country. remember that nipple slip during the supperbowl? wow, mothers of America were yelling bloody murder! 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'm not surprised that we see so many sex-related crimes in this country, it seems that people have been so shunned from sex while they were growing up, that when they're old enough to do whatever they want, they go all psycho....
I honestly think that teaching your kids about sex and showing them that it's a very natural part of human life is not a bad thing (TM).
This sig contains repetition and redundancy.
Dumbass Politican 1 : "Okay, heres the plan. Lets fist make it so we only got like 3 media companys."
Dumbass Politican 2 : "Yea, I'm feeling ya."
D.P. 1 : "Then, we can enact these here laws that allow us squash any kind of creative thought!"
D.P. 2 : "Hell yea, but why do we need that consolidation again?"
D.P. 1 : "Cause numbnuts, the networks said that they're sick of having to compete for viewers. And if theres only two or three companys, and nobody can serve anything but vanilla, THEN they no longer have to worry about dealing anybody that can muff with their hold on the public. No dissent, no new ideas, no thinking. We win all around! Duh."
D.P. 2 : "And we get fat paid"?
D.P. 1 : "A-fuckin-men".
This is a great use for the V-Chip, the much maligned device that would be put in all televisions and allow parents to censor what shows their kids could watch and let others watch whatever the hell they want. However, thanks to over reactive "experts", the V-Chip was crucified as being a tool of government sanctioned censorship of our airwaves, ignoring the fact that it's actually self censorship. I say bring the V-Chip back and establish a consistent rating system for all television shows to use.
Better yet, don't censor the airwaves at all, just require a very thorough, detailed, and precise rating system, and enforce it.
NO! This is the wrong approach. The gov't should not do any of this. The FCC should be there to make sure Company A's radio freqs don't mess with Company B's radio freqs, and end there.
The gov't saying what's wrong and what's right, what's too sexually explicit and what's not, is completely wrong.
If soccer mom's are afraid that their kid might see something bad on TV, they can: A) don't let the kid watch TV or B) let the kid watch and explain it was wrong. having the gov't rate what is right and wrong is just flat-out wrong. what's next? the FCC says a Christian radio show isn't indecent, but a Jewish one is?
Keeping children safe is the responsibility of the parent, not the gov't.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
You seem to be missing the point my friend. This is all about money. It's a shakedown. Hollywood isn't passing around enough campaign funds. Congress will threaten regulation, a flood of campaign funds will flow in and the call for regulation will be forgotten.
This is just like every other argument, it isn't to protect the "average" person. It's to protect the morons who are too stupid to learn how to change the channel. And especially those people who are too stupid to use "The V Chip" that congress mandated be included in all new TV sets. Remember when they told us that they were mandating that so "parents" would be empowered to control the television viewing habits of their children? All of a sudden, that's not enough. MORE HAS TO BE DONE! I call bullshit. It's a smokescreen and a sham. This is about legal extortion, nothing more and nothing less.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What, does this mean that we won't be able to hear about the actual events that occur in Iraq, since that's too violent for our poor, virgin American ears and eyes?
The problem with this policy is that it ignores the fact that the world is a violent place. Maybe things aren't so bad out by the FCC building in DC, but if the FCC took a stroll out through the city of DC alone at night, they'd probably get mugged. If they meandered through the streets of Darfur in Sudan, they'd get shot. If they stepped out into the neighborhoods of Fallujah, they'd be blown up.
The world isn't violent because of what's on TV or the Internet. The world is a violent place because people can't get it through their damn head that maybe - JUST MAYBE - if we all started to respect one another and chill out occasionally, we'd live in a happier place. But no. Wars and gang shootings aren't happening because of human frailty, selfishness, or obstinance. No. It's because some guy got shot on network TV last night.
I honestly think that teaching your kids about sex and showing them that it's a very natural part of human life is not a bad thing (TM).
I understand that you haven't been in this country very long but please try to remember that we are under a conservative, religious, republican regime that believes in creationism, teaching abstinence instead of condom usage, covering a CLASSICAL ART statue because it is nude, and ignoring the seperation of State and Church.
Of course we have to be up in arms about a boob. Our leaders tell everyone how great it is to be scared of it.
Maybe instead of flipping out about the content of programs on TV, we should teach our children to respect one another? Jesus didn't waste his type chastizing the prostitutes; he taught people the importance of mutual respect and understanding.
If we teach our kids that getting a tax break is more important than sacrificing a little to help those who are not as lucky as ourselves, our kids are going to turn out to be MUCH worse than kids who watch "trash" on television - our kids are going to be selfish, callous, and uncompassionate. And I worry quite a bit more about the callous and greedy than I do about the kids who like watching action films.
Teach your children the value of other people. The greed and selfishness I see in the world today is far more indecent than anything I see on television.
Please. Broadcast television standards have been in place since the first commercial station got a license.
This administration may be conservative prudes, but so was everyone else ever at the wheel of the FCC, and blaming existing decency standards on them is unjustified.
This
The mideast cuts off people's appendages on TV
They also make the US like pretty free and wild compared to how women are allowed to dress. Different strokes and all.
ABC, CBS, NBC have alot of catching up to do. CNN and Fox News are showing much more violence from Iraq than the other three show any day put together. Quality violence is so hard to find.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Excuse me, but the FCC will decide that FOR you, you know.
And if some pesky wording of the law gets in the way, I'm sure Congress can easily pass an amendment.
You're relying on reality which is always a sure path to defeat when dealing with politicians.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Nothing more needs be said, really. We mutilate our male children's genitals and recoil in horror when told that African tribes cauterize their female children's genitals.
Neither society uses anesthesia.
I may seem like I'm ranting, but one reason given for circumcision was to cut down on masturbation. Like feeling good is a bad thing! And it doesn't seem to work, but it sure does make us crazy about sex.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I completely agree with the idiocy of american puritanism. But, just one point: the "nipple slip" (she was actually wearing a pastie) was probably more objectionable than it would usually be because of the inexpectedness of it. That is, if you don't want your kids to see that, you can usually pay attention to ratings and have certain content expectations for regular TV, especially sports. But when the content is rated one way and turns out to be different, it's very difficult to "protect" one's children, so they almost have a point.
Read jack phelps dot net
Funny* you should choose the phrase, "enslavement."
:p
My fortune when I logged on today was:
A warning from Scots Historian Professor Alexander Tyler circa 1787 re the fall of the Athenian Republic:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money (generous gifts) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependence back into bondage."
If the 90s were all about apathy it's dead clear where we're headed. My take, if they're going to do somewhat about violence, at least give us our sex back.
* not so much funny as interesting, really.
Regulation absolutely does equal censorship. If government controls dictate that certain types of programming can't be on until after 9 P.M. that IS censorship. If the FCC fines NBC (or whoever) because someone flops a boob around on TV, that IS censorship. Yes, even a mandated rating system is censorship is because it means that you can't show something unless you jump through a certain hoop. If you are not allowed to show something unless the government reviews it first, that, my friend, is without a doubt censorship. You can not 'regulate' speech without censoring.
As to your kids, take some fucking control or don't complain. I am sorry you don't want to be a 'control freak' but the minor inconvenience of knowing what your kids are watching and/or setting up some parental locks is worth censorship of the rest of the population can see. I honestly don't give a damn about your kids and am at a loss as to why you think it makes any sort of sense that the rest of the population should have to endure censorship of what they can view because you don't want your kids to think you are a mean Daddy/Mommy.
I find abhorrent that people think it is okay to use the force of the government to get around being 'control freaks' with their children. This same stupid line of reasoning would dictate that the Internet needs to be controlled by the government because your kids might run into a porn site and you don't want to be a 'control freak' that uses a filter on your computer. Hell, this line of reasoning says that people shouldn't be allowed to swear in public or talk about sex on the streets because your kid might overhear it, and you really don't want to have to be a 'control freak' and always be with your kids to protect them from such vile behavior.
Parents need to take responsibility for themselves and their damned kids. Don't want your kids to see violence or sex on TV? Lock out all channels but PBS and Discovery (although, be careful, god forbid they learn about science of sex through the Discovery channel). Any modern TV can do this simply and easily. Still paranoid PBS might do a special on sexual reproduction or violence, throw away the damn TV. Whatever the case, I, an adult without kids, shouldn't have to suffer because you are manically trying to protect your kids from depictions of sex and violence, yet are too lazy to put in the effort to shield your kids from the fact that violence exists and most adults not only have sex, but have it often.
If you want to shove puritan values down your kids throats yet are too lazy to actually put in the effort to do it, do everyone a favor and don't breed.
Look buddy, whether you like it or not, a vast proportion of kids in modern society have parents without the time to police their every move. Why not introduce perfectly feasible technology to help parents do their job as they see fit? The suggested scheme isn't the government telling us what's right or wrong - it's the government telling us the content of particular shows. It is the parent who decides whether that content is "right" or "wrong" for their child.
steve
TV is the perfect medium. It passively places the rabble in a harmless state without the negative effects of other methods such as alcohol. Such pacification is a critical part of social control.
TV allows the elite to clearly define the norms and customs of said rabble and set the appropriate expectations. This means that every person in America knows that he or she must consume. It means that every person in America has a common cultural basis.
TV clearly presents people in similar economic and social situations as the rabble, but with better stuff. This implies that the lack of stuff is caused by some personal defect, and not the fact that your job pays nothing. Friends was brilliant in this regard, convincing gullible young adults that life is good and good things could be had even if the means to pay for them was non existent
Remember that the one mistake Bradbury made in Fahrenheit 451 was the notion that we would need walls of TVs for social control. We now know that a single set will do the job. We now have confirmation that people will go into debt to acquire this means of social control.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Heh. Yeah, because "sex should be open to all children" is exactly what he said.
I'm glad to see that the FCC is finally taking up the responsibility of censoring what little kiddies watch on tv, because it sure as hell isn't the parents anymore. When I turn on the tv and flip through the stations and pause on, say, USA and see a police show about gang violence and how it glorifies street life with kids carrying pistols, it makes me wonder about gun violence among youths. It also makes me wonder when it's going to push the feds to take all the guns from us good guys. I enjoy my freedom in my state to legally carry a firearm for self defense. If no one steps up and does something about the growing problem we have with teen violence, we will all lose that right. If you don't agree with me, you must've already done something to lose that right and don't give a shit about anyone else. If this offends you, you are probably one of the millions of parents who don't give a shit about what your kids watch on tv. Don't think it can happen? Ask a Canadian. Ask a European. I just hope we haven't let it get too far out of hand.
The problem is that there are way too many politicians with way too much time on their hands generating noithing but worthless legislation and mandates. If you think this statement is far-fetched, please turn on CSPAN for about 8 hours (if you can take it), I garauntee you will be fighting to keep your eyes open and holding your mouth in order to fight back the vomit.
I can't think of anything worse than a fat, disconnected (from reality), slick talking politician mandating how I should live my life because I am incapable of making my own decisions, however, my intellect appears to be fully in tact when I am filling out 10,000 tax forms each year and making out the check to pay their salaries (that they more than likely voted to increase).
Just shut up and keep paying, just keep paying, after all bubba needs a new yacht and house in kennebunkport.
Congress will regulate the TV violence display choices for everyone, which will have wide support from lazy parents. Then, when they apply the same rules to sex, there will be momentum, and it will be easy. Then, when they apply the same rules to "dangerous ideas", it won't be so hard. Then it doesn't matter what they do.
--
make install -not war
All the examples you've given show the US, as a single entity, being active. However, that was not the point. It's the apathy/activity of the people that decide the fate of democracy (and what the parent was referring to).
Democracy is based on the rulers being accountable to the ones being ruled. This accountability can only happen if the subjects are active - passive subjects let their government stay in power even after it screws up, basically allowing it unlimited power. Because of this, the ones in power want their subjects to remain passive. TV is a tool for this passification. That was the argument.
"Conspiracy" refers to some kind of secret plot, but the contributions from corporations to US politicians are public knowledge, available from, for example Opensecrets.org, so unless you think that the donating corporations are stupid enough to continuously spend money for no gain (which they propably aren't - they wouldn't have gotten big if they were), I'd say those theories are statements of facts.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.