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."
Does everyone in DC have a tv set from max headroom? I mean how fscking hard is it to turn the tv off or program your tv to skip the channels you do not like?
... for me and for my kids. Better yet, don't censor the airwaves at all, just require a very thorough, detailed, and precise rating system, and enforce it. Then parents can decide what is suitable for themselves to view as well as their children, and nobody needs to step on anyone else's right to broadcast what they want or watch what they want.
Also, I think that any program whose audience is intended to be children, should not be allowed to have commercials. This would protect kids from commercial interests and would have the side benefit of reducing the amount of insipid commercial programming that wastes kids' time and rots their brains and bodies (because producing such programming would no longer be profitable, and all that kids would be left with would be educational programming on PBS).
Of course, there's nothing more important than responsible parenting, and that should be the first line of defense for children. But just because we want parents to be responsible doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them all the tools possible to be such, and provide as much of a safety net as possible for those kids whose parents are not responsible.
But, ... I am from Europe.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
...we used to make fun of other countries (like in the middle east) because of how their government censored the public.
Put another religious leader in the american government, and I guess we'll get the same result.
</politeness>
Why is the US so damn anal about nudity and violence? The mid east cuts off people's appendages on TV and normal public, Europe had free nudity on TV and on the beaches (Canadain women can even walk around topless)... but damned if someone curses or shows a little leg on my good ol' American Television!
I say, let them do it. It'll piss off more people than they know and nothing will motivate the people to doing squat about it until their choice has been taken from them. After all, it appears that we, the people, have been ruled incompetent, and judged incapable of making these sorts of decisions on our own. It's a good thing Uncle Sam is there to pass those judgments and make those choices, for us.
You're not the only one.
Go watch 60's and 70's western shows.
A little racy (for their time), but you see what 'land rights' are, how to deal with squatters, and other problems.. You shoot em. Go watch an episode of Bonanza, there's almost guaranteed someone to die. By gunshot, poisons, natural causes, starvation...
You're also taught respect, courage, and humility. You were also taught how to be a man (in some aspects). And I dont mean this pig-like "go get me a beer, wench" type.. but someone who stands up for what they believe in.
Anything on TV now has lost what shred of worthiness it once had. Dont go saying im romanticising about the past.. Tell me that "YOURE FIRED", Big Brother, or some other tipe show on now has anything worth listening?
When someone says fuck on TV, they said fuck.
When someone shows their tits on TV, there they were.
When someone gets shot on a TV show, they did not really get shot. It is a simulation.
There is a difference. Not that I give a flying shit. I want real sex and war violence on TV 24-7.
Very true, but the V-Chip system is pretty weak.
I work for TiVo and I implemented most of the "parental controls" functionality present in TiVo software. I can attest to the fact that V-Chip ratings are pretty hit-and-miss: some networks use them consistently, some don't. It's much worse with digital over-the-air broadcasts: even though the FCC has more control over over-the-air broadcasts, all the stations that I have seen very, very rarely broadcast ratings in their PSIP data.
I am all for the V-Chip system because it gives parents the ability to restrict their kids viewing without actually controlling the content itself (V-Chip ratings simply augment the content and make it easier to determine ahead of time if the content is acceptable for a child to watch).
But, I think that V-Chip ratings should be *much* more detailed, precise, and most importantly, UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED. And I think that the FCC should have the responsibility and power to force all broadcasters to very thoroughly and accurately rate their broadcasts.
There's no such thing as a "Web broadcast". Broadcasts mean that you're sending information in a broad manner. Web streams are no-sort-of-casts because they have to be requested before the information is transmitted. This is important to realize when considering whether or not the gov't has their normal TV regulation authority over Web streams.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
I have a theory about why violence is deemed "OK" but sex is not. It goes a little like this:
Most of us are reasonable enough that when we see a bad guy shooting random people on TV, we recognise his behvaiour as completely unacceptable and not something to be copied. I grew up seeing LOTS of gunplay on TV, and I *still* haven't shot anyone, despite carrying a concealed weapon for a number of years now. (That's another story for a different time.)
However, almost every single teenager in the world is a raging ball of hormones, and seeing T&A on TV only makes them hornier.
In other words, lots of kids will replicate sexual behaviour they see in movies and on TV, but not many will replicate the violent behaviour they observe.
From a strictly financial perspective, teenage sex is much more costly than violence. That teenage sex results in teenage pregnancies, which gives us welfare mothers, children growing up in single-parent homes (which, incidentally, has been shown in some studies to correlate with juvenile deliquency, i.e. violence, hmmmmm), and so on. The burden on society is enormous.
Contrast with teenage violence, particularly where one gang member whacks another. Now, instead of two thugs to put in jail (admit it, they were both headed there eventually anyway), you only have to bury one and put the other one in jail. Jail costs money, and now with only one thug in jail instead of two, you spend less of my tax dollars on prisons.
Of course, it could also just be the philosophical leanings of the current people in power in the U.S., but I believe that even during the Reign of Darkness (1993-2001), the administration was overly concerned with how much T&A went over the airwaves, a la the V-Chip.
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
The wealthiest portions of the IT industry basically "ignored their duty" to make political donations in the 1990's. How dare they! The pigopolists like Microsoft would never have come into the crosshairs of the DoJ if they had been "sharing the wealth" more amongst the polititians. The anti-trust settlement against Microsoft was finalized under a GOP administration that has gone out of its way to be friendly (with out- stretched hand) with big business. It was no accident that Microsoft's "punishment" was as moderate as it was: -- they could not have written the punishment they received better themselves (oops, oh, wait). Money is the "mother's milk" of politics, and those with the biggest teats get the most out of our wonderful "representative" government in the USA. I believe it was Samuel Clemmens that once stated "We have the best system of government that money can buy!" And the Bush administration has made it known (from the start) that they are "open for business" ...
I say take care of your own damned kids and leave me alone. I am an adult, I don't want a fucking V-chip in my TV and I don't want the FCC to decide what program I can and can not watch. The networks are already squeamish enough about what they show, I don't need the FCC to kill entirely kill any hope for a TV show being gritty.
One reason why I love HBO is because they flip the bird to censorship and guess what? Every single year they rake in the awards for their programming. Censorship kills intelligent programming. Why the hell can't the government get the fuck out of my TV, out of my house, and stop punishing me because some parent is too fucking stupid to take care of their own kid?
Is your kid a little shit who likes to watch bad things behind your back and you are unable to control the little brat? Here is a solution, throw out your fucking TV or lock it in your room. I am so fucking pissed at how much I have to pay for other people's stupidity these days. I can't fucking smoke pot, can't watch violent/sexual TV, my fucking city closes at 2 am (hurray Boston curfew laws!), the rave seen as all been shut down in my area, I can't buy liquor at a bar past 1 am (another hurray for Boston's blue light laws!), violent video games are on the decline because Lieberman takes every chance he can get to threaten the industry, I can't gamble, and I can't even find an all night dinner (one more cheer for Boston curfew laws!) all because somewhere someone out there is too fucking stupid to handle these 'major' responsibilities. I am pissed and I am sick of seeing my liberties being slowly sucked away because some dumbass out there needs the government to protect themselves from themselves or watch their fucking kids.
So let me state it clearly. If you can't take care of yourself or your kids, please do me a favor and go fuck yourself. Don't beg the government to save you from your own incompetence at life. Go move to a nation that gets off on baby sitting its citizens or just purge your worthless genes from the pool. If you can take care of yourself, but really want to help other people take care of themselves, for fucks sake, stop being such a whiny little hypocritical bitch, get off your ass, and go help. Don't beg the government to do the work you want done for you. Want to keep kids from watching violent TV? Get off your fucking ass, make the rounds in your neighborhood and tell parents how to raise their kids. Someone might even listen to. Hell, offer to baby sit the little shits 24/7 and make sure the job gets done right. Just stay the fuck away from me.
Honestly, if we start flinging rockets to mars or asteroids I'll sign up and be the first guy to start a new world. Maybe then in my pressurized habitat in the middle of a barren wasteland I can enjoy some nice violent and sexual explicitly TV in peace.
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.
...
... 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.
;o)
No it doesn't. Browsing at +3 is regulation. Not allowing users to troll before 9:00 pm is censorship. Let me filter - you can show your sexy/violent stuff all day if you want, just allow me a sure way to block it all.
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.
Um... that would be because I believe certain content is harmful. Sorry. If I want to keep your dogs out of my house, you're just gonna have to 'endure' my closed-minded 'regulation.' They may hurt you, but I'm afraid they're gonna knock my kids around. Look: Fair's fair. If you want your graphic content, I want a way to keep it out.
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.
The kind of control freak I'm speaking of is the parent who has to be omnipresent for all media consumption. If you read my first post, what I'm after here is a safe way to *regulate* obscene content. Broadcast it all day if you want, just rate it. Flag it. Something.
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)
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.
Maybe all this regulation talk has really caused you to suffer as you say. I suppose all the broad generalizations about anti-sex sentiment, puritan brainwashing, and emotive argument are a result of a mind depraved of graphic sexual and violent content.
Sorry.
--J
However, almost every single teenager in the world is a raging ball of hormones, and seeing T&A on TV only makes them hornier.
In other words, lots of kids will replicate sexual behaviour they see in movies and on TV, but not many will replicate the violent behaviour they observe.
Which is interesting really. Teens will "replicate the sexual behaviour they see". Now just where do you think they'll see this sexual behaviour? In a more open society that didn't cringe at every minor sighting of breast and keep everything repressed (like, say, Europe) they might see sexual behaviour treated openly and honestly. In a prudish society that tries to hide everything away from the poor children they'll probably have to resort to porn to see much sexual behaviour.
Hmm, open honest representations, or porn... I wonder which is better to have them trying to replicate?
It's worth noting that despite their much more open attitudes toward sex Europe has a lower rate of teen pregnancy than the US.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Since satellite still uses over the air transmission, they are theoretically less "immune" to regulation of content than cable. A cable-co can block objectionable material from even getting into your house by filtering out the appropriate channels.
Methinks the broadcasters are now reaping what they've sown - they've been asking for increased regulation in the form of "broadcast flags" and the like - the FCC is now saying "Oh you want more regulation? WE'LL give you more regulation!"
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
At the risk of a troll, conspiracy theories aside, I would say the US is anything but an apathetic nation. Perhaps you could point the Europe as being apathetic these days, but the US seems very much hell bent on changing the world. Forget whether it is changing for better or for worse. I would say in the past 60 years the US touched just about everything in this world, and done it with a great passion. The Cuban missile crisis was the US stating pretty clearly that they care enough to risk a nuclear war. In fact, the entire cold war was a pretty strong declaration of a lack of apathy. Two nations sitting with their finger hovering over the button to end it all and utterly dead serious about pressing it is not a sign of apathy. The cold war was no bluff. The US would have sent everything and anything to defend Europe if the USSR ever game, and the US cared enough that it was more then willing to wipe everyone and everything out to make sure the communist couldn't have it if they had to.
In this day in age the US is still very much not an apathetic player in the game. Conspiracy theories of corporate overlords and Saudi families aside, the US seems pretty hell bent on making Iraq a democracy regardless of the pain either side has to suffer. The strategy might be stupid and counter productive, but it certainly is not apathetic. If WMDs were the issue the US could have just wiped Iraq's government and military off the face of the earth and left the people of Iraq to fight over a new government that might or might not have democratic ideals. Instead though, the US is slugging through, pissing off the rest of the world, restraining from using its full might to gain control of the situation, and taking their licks. Further, the US isn't showing any signs of backing off from the rest of the world.
Even if you look beyond the Middle East, lack of apathy is easy to see. The US has set up shop off the cost of Taiwan with every intention of fighting one of the most powerful nations in the world to defend a tiny island thousands of miles away and sitting on the enemy's doorstep. Risking a war with China for a little island where democracy seems to have taken hold might be a sign of madness, but not apathy.
I don't care if you agree with what the US is doing; though I am sure an idiot is going to reply anyways telling me the US is evil and in doing so utterly miss my point. What the US isn't doing is being apathetic or complacent. The US might be sowing the seeds of its own demise, but it is digging its own grave with great enthusiasm, and not slowing rotting with apathy or complacency. With the track the US is headed down right now, if the US goes down, it is going down with a bang, not a whimper.
As to your second point ("that right will win in the end if you let the law handle it."), if you believe that, please stop whining about the Microsoft settlement, the last election, and the SCO lawsuits (even if they win).
Hate to say it, but "the Law" and "Right" are NOT tied together - there are unjust laws everywhere. Hell, you're bitching about a law you feel is unjust.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Go ahead and tell me what I can and cannot film. Tell me what cannot be seen because your archaic model of 1950's suburbia is still being held in high regard by your church.
Go ahread and try. A federal lawsuit claiming violation of my first amendment rights will be slapped on the FCC so fast, it'll take three days for the sound to catch up.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
People are influenced by what they think about. People think about what they watch. We cannot assume that anything is harmless on TV because "everyone is mature enough to keep it in perspective of reality." No, this becomes reality for many, especially children growing up without the luxury of parents who teach them the truth and give them some self-image and self-worth outside of what the media says.
Let's use discretion and at least a hint of moral integrity about what's OK for broadcast.