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?
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.
there isn't enough violence for me and we need to regulate it to get more.
There was a report issued in 2002 to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction over webcasts (internet TV and the like) and whether or not their current TV regulations would apply. It's pretty interesting and their conclusions are somewhat alarming (especially if you oppose regulation on the internet), but it appears not much came of it. You can read the report here: DOC, PDF, or TXT.
+ Donald Gunth
+ Email: dgunth@quicktek.net
"Caffeine is the greatest lubricant ever created." -ESR
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
Horrific, deplorable violence is OK as long as people don't say any naughty words
The Raven
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Restructuring how you deal with violence on TV has nothing to do with censoring it. The fact that the government is looking into helping me control what comes into my home and affects my children is great in my book.
Why does everyone throw the 'you-are-all-for-censorship' flag? Saying that I'm not tolerant or supressing free-speech is a bit hypocritical: I would ask you to be tolerant of my desire to shield my children (and myself) from harmful images and behavior portrayed on public TV.
Accusing me that I can't control my children (just turn off the TV or change the channel) doesn't especially work either. I fully agree that parents have prime responsibility for their chidren. But I don't want to have to be a control freak to protect my children. Besides: allowing me to filter things coming into my home protects me (and them) from accidentally coming across things I don't want to see.
Let's not skirt this issue either: The fact that people scoff at the US's sex/guns ratio is beside the point as well. I assume that it is the general consensus of the population of the world that viewing graphic sexual or violent content isn't beneficial, and if anything, harmful. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Mix it however you want. Or we could say its some sort of election year tactic by the conservatives..... blah. Let's talk about the issue.
--J
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.
That quote seems to be fictitious.
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.
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
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.
I'll fuckin' cut 'em.
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.