FCC Levies Record Indecency Fine

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "The FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine against a single TV show, penalizing CBS and its affiliates for an episode of 'Without a Trace' that suggested a teenage sexual orgy, in the first batch of indecency fines proposed in more than a year, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Overall, the FCC's action didn't provide a broad sweeping vision for broadcasters about what is appropriate for television,' the WSJ says. 'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'"

Comments

My opinion.

[chub_mackerel]

That fucking sucks!

Re:Huh?

[Mr. Freeman]

From a Google search:
"Orgy has several meanings, including "a drunken revelry", a religious rite involving ecstatic dancing, an "unrestrained indulgence" (for example, "an orgy of destruction"), or group sexual activity."

Link to clip

[vkapadia]

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm

Here is a link to the clip in question.

You can decide for yourself if it constitutes a "teenage orgy" or not

Re:Link to clip

[Bazzalisk]

Couldn't care less.

What I don't Understand

[bloodstar]

Barring improper language or nude bodies. How can implying something be considered 'improper'. Personally, I find the mindless violence abhorrant on TV, but I don't see the FCC giving a damn about that.

South Park had it right: "Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"

Re:What I don't Understand

[Anonymous Coward]

If that show is aired after 10 p.m. the fine violates FCC rules and the Constitution itself. Previously the FCC tried to regulate broadcasts aired after 10 p.m., but found those efforts struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.

FCC quotes:

Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

The "safe harbor" refers to the time period between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., local time. During this time period, a station may air indecent and/or profane material.

"Obscenity" is legally equivalent to passing the Miller test, which this show obviously doesn't. When considering something under the Miller test, it must be taken as an entire work. You can't pull one clip out of context from a 45 minute long show and declare it obscene.

Re:What I don't Understand

[jroysdon]

10pm EST & PST on New Years Eve, a night tons of children will be staying up late, for one. Second, it was aired at 9PM CST & MST, which is what I believe got them in the most trouble.

Here is a story mentioning the New Years and 9pm time info. "... the FCC requires that no indecent programs be aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m."

Here is another story stating the same thing and more details. "The Dec. 31 episode was actually a rerun, but the PTC's complaint the first time around wasn't addressed because it fell under CBS parent Viacom's $3.5 million deal with the FCC to clear up all indecency fines. The PTC's latest complaint is on behalf of viewers in the Central and Mountain time zones, because on the East Coast the show aired at 10 p.m., within the FCC's 10 p.m.-6 a.m. window of relaxed indecency standards."

Re:USA: the land of the free?

[techno-vampire]

Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show?

Because people aren't complaining to the FCC about it. If enough people did, they'd get slapped with fines too. It's the squeeky wheel syndrome: the FCC isn't going to do anything on its own, becuause if they're not receiving complaints, viewers must think it's OK.

Re:Logic go backwards

[bagboy]

Without a trace airs on a broadcast channel. The other channels are obtained through cable or satellite. The FCC only regulates broadcast (air).

Re:Logic go backwards

[sqrt(2)]

Those are cable channels. They can show whatever they want, as long as the advertisers agree.

Just saw this

[Stevyn]

on Bill O'Reilly. The issue here is not that "sex is evil" but that this scene was a violation of the stated rules. This was shown in primetime and not after 10PM. Based on the time of day, there are rules for public broadcasters. So this can turn into a big argument, but those are the rules. If you don't like the rules, then contact your congressman or congresswoman.

And btw, I love when the southpark movie is shown after 1:30 PM occasionally. There's nothing like hearing, "you butt fucking uncle fucker" to celebrate our nation's tolerance on "foul" language.

The Show Aired at 9:00

[Jazzer_Techie]

I think a big part of this fine is because the show in question aired at 9:00 in the Central and Mountain time zones. Considering the climate, I think CBS would have been wise to tone it down or move it to a later slot. I personally am quite anti-censorship. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. If you don't want your kids to watch it, then you need to take parential initiative. But I watched the clip and read the description, and I can understand where people who are very offended by that type of material are coming from. If I had young kids, I don't think I'd want them stumbling across that, especially if I weren't there to discuss with them the consequences of teenage orgies. Still, I can't say that I agree with the FCCs actions.

Re: Hypocrisy

[Black Parrot]

> I'm sure all the complaints said essentially the same thing: "It was so horrifying and shocking that I just couldn't turn it off!"

Most of these complaints come from groups who literally sit around watching television all day with pen in hand to keep score of the scenes that offend them. IIRC, 95% of the FCC's complaints come from one small organization.

I suppose if those people want to waste their lives that way it's their business, but what's sad is that the FCC feels beholden to them.

Re:Logic go backwards

[a_nonamiss]

None, at the moment, but that's not stopping them from looking into the possiility. There have been several recent "discussions" in Congress to pass bills that would allow the FCC (not Congress directly, but surely indirectly) to regulate cable content. It's not going to happen any time soon, but I believe that there is groundwork being laid right now.

http://penusa.org/go/programs/action-alert/241/4/f irst-amendment-updates
http://www.slate.com/id/2095398

I know that those articles are kind of dated. With Howard Stern off terrestrial radio, a lot of the censorship talk has quieted a bit in the last year, but I do believe that if this administration had its druthers, you'd see an end to free speech in any broadcast medium, whether it be radio, satellite, cable, or even (and this would be neigh impossible, but "they" would still love to see it) the Internet. It's a scary prospect, but we citiznes just need to keep our eye on the ball and stop getting upset when a boobie accidentally flashes on the screen.

Re:sex is immoral

[doubledoh]

When it comes to politics, no one's guiltless for trampling on our rights

Almost no one. Libertarians are the only party that actually believes in restoring all of the rights republicans and democrats stole long ago (and continue to steal). Libertarians are the only group that believes in the philosophy of liberty and don't waver from its principles when facing difficult scenarios.

Re:sex is immoral

[drsmithy]

For instance, only Arab immigrants are required to watch the racy film, immigrants with blond hair and blue eyes won't have to.

False.

There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.

Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Switzerland are exempt.

There's a rather large chunk of the world not covered by those exemptions who aren't "Arab". Like, say, China, South America and half of Africa. Not to mention a substantial proportion of those who _are_ covered by the exceptions don't have "blond hair and blue eyes".

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, in the old days REAL HUMAN PEOPLE slept in the same bed and didn't have sex. Beds, bedding, and insulation were expensive, space was short, and insulation was poor.

Re:sex is immoral

[trippin_efnet]

I could not agree more. After watching the teen orgy from Without A Trace, I had to wonder what was so offensive about it. I mean, its a night time drama, aimed at adults. It's not like they had little dancing, beeping, cartoon characters advertising this show. If there were children watching it, they were most likely watching it because the parents were watching.

I'm sure they were so offended by that clip because they were actually aroused by the idea, and this caused a bit of double think, which turned it into sexual repression. Maybe they were jealous they didnt think of it when they were kids?

Heres the clip of the 'teen orgy' that won CBS this fine.

If they decide to block direct linking to the video, go to "parents tv". The link to the video will be in the middle of the page inside the little box saying something like WARNING TAKE CAUTION

This way, you can not only view the clip, but see how over-the-top upset they were about it. we also have the added benefit of sucking their bandwidth dry.

Any organization willing to focus so much time trying to decide what I, as an adult, get to watch on TV in the name of protecting THEIR children, makes me a bit nervous.

I saw the clip on the Parentstv bla bla website

[iogan]

and I must say, the clip was not really something anybody on this side of the ol' pond would likely get upset about, as long as it was shown after 6 pm or something. But then that's just different cultures, and so on blah blah, you guys like violence, we like sex - we've all heard it before and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

But what was REALLY funny was the write up of what the clip was going to contain!

and I quote

"

- A teenaged girl wearing just a bra and panties is sitting astride the lap of a teenaged boy kissing him while another girl in just a bra and panties fondles them both. The first girl is also shown making sexual bump and grind motions.

- Two other teenaged girls are sitting on either side of a teenaged boy, fondling him while another group of teens smoking pot and drinking beer watch them from the sofa on the other side of the room.

- A shirtless teenaged boy starts to remove his pants

- A teenaged girl with her back to the camera appears to be wearing nothing but panties. She appears to be sitting astride a teenaged boy kissing him while another girl in just a bra and panties fondles them both.

- There is a quick shot of a pile of naked flesh, mostly arms and legs, though obviously belonging to multiple teens. "

I mean shit this was like a ten second clip, they must have been watching it like a thousand times!! Playing, then pausing to really take in the scene.. I'll bet you a hundred bucks whoever did that had to go jerk off like 10 times before finishing..

Anyway I hope they do get fined, if nothing else just because it reinforces all our fun negative stereotypes about americans .. :)