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."

Comments

Re:Does this mean

[Darby]

Ill-guided or not, we got Saddam. That means we win.

So if I come into your home and kill you, does that mean that I win?

Re:Does this mean

[Master of Transhuman]

Depends on whether you believe we "got" Saddam.

Depends on what "got" means (at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton).

What I see we "got" is one old man who may or may not be Saddam (his wife says no, and his attorneys say they fear the US may kill him before trial to prevent anyone from knowing for sure).

What I see we "got" is no oil and 900 (at least) dead troops and thousands of civilian casualties and a $200 billion dollar bill that AIN'T gonna be paid off by Iraq oil revenues despite what Wolfie told you.

If you'd have paid me one billion dollars, I'd have "got" Saddam for you and made a nine hundred million dollar profit (at least) and nobody but him and some of his cronies would have died.

Your tax dollars at work.

Moron.

Re:Puhleese!

[Chris Carollo]

you make wild statements such as" the prison guards were told to violate the geneva convention up and down the chain of command"

Well, it's pretty well known that Bush is publicly ignoring the Geneva Convention when dealing with suspected Al-Qaeda and Afghani prisoners, so I wouldn't exactly characterize that statement as "wild".

Re:Enemy combatants

[10Ghz]

Not to defend Bush, but his contention is that the Geneva convention requires that soldiers identify themselves as soldiers via an insignia, uniform, etc. Those that don't do this, he claims aren't offered the protections of the Geneva convention.

I wonder what he would say if captured US Green Berets were tortured. I mean, their job is to blend in with the local population. They don't actually march there with their GI-issued uniforms, M-16's with Stars 'n Stripes flying overhead. No, they dress like the local populace does, and the guns they use are the same guns the locals use.

Since they don't clearly identify themselves as US Soldiers, I guess it's OK to torture them?