Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Then why is it that I keep seeing commercials for "Girls gone wild" at around 5 PM on popular channels (not premium or pay-per-view). They blur out the bare minimum and the language is somewhat more than explicit.
So, pornography is just fine, but seeing an episode of T.V. that happens to make an allusion to sex is simply too much?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Thanks for the link, it helps put this in context.
Having watched the clip, I could sort of see a complaint about indecency (assuming that such are ever justified). I just wouldn't accept that the indeceny is in depicting a rather wild party of underage people. Maybe it was just the resolution of the clip, but I would swear I saw some nipples at one point, which seems to fall under current indecency standards.
Whether the Parents Television Council cares to accept it or not, drunken underage parties happen. At said parties underage people often engage in sex. As this seems to have been part of the story, I can understand why it was depicted. Yes, it probably rubs many people the wrong way, since they wish to ignore reality; sorry, but the right to not be offended still isn't in the US Constitution anywhere.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Personally, if something like this appens, 3.6 million is like a slap on the wrist. Seriously, that is nothing for the big networks.
You missed the point. The point was that there should be no fine at all.
Meanwhile, in Holland
Man, the Dutch are so far ahead of us it's not funny.
I'm not sure if I'd go this far - have you seen this episode of "Without a Trace"? I don't neccessarily agree with the ruling, but to say that "...there was no nudity in the show, no sex in the show, no foul language in the show, and nothing that anyone could have pointed to in advance and said "this is obscene content"" is stretching it a little bit. The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well... Color me not surprised. I don't *agree* with the ruling, but I'm not surprised, either.
I wonder too if their real outrage is more at the interracial aspects - there were at least a couple of brief shots of a white girl making out with a black guy. Of course they can't openly complain about that, so they whine in a more general sense. Just a theory.
Why do we mock the governments of Russia and China for censorship when we can't even show live TV ?
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We need to 'RETAKE' our airwaves from the rightwing.
The authority of the FCC of censoring broadcasting companies stands legally on shaky grounds and is subject of increasing controversy. This case is just another one in which the FCC has not only come up with some arbitrary and insane fees but it seems to have clearly overstepped its legal boundaries. Hopefully CBS takes the matter to the Supreme Court so that the right-wing conservative censorship in our country can be finally put to rest and the constitutional right of Free Speech and Expression reinstated again.
The old money in the US that really governs the country is made up of families that had their roots in a lot of quirky religions that were run out of Europe. Hence you can have tits in a margarine commercial in Europe, but if a shrouded nipple shows up in a TV show it is chased down by investigators. Ironically, it is pretty much only in the fundamentalist whacky Muslim sect countries where you will find the equivalent of a Pat Robertson and his ilk claiming god kills millions for considering gay marriage and teaching evolution. You wonder why youth is violent, but consider that the unintended message is that American society prefers extreme violence to demonstrative physical love between people. The reality is each one of us is here because two people got laid. If they had been killed...
Frankly, it would appear, the Europeans had the right idea with these whack-jobs.
Congratulations! You have likely invested the work necessary in selecting a good match as your mate and all the subsequent work in keeping the relationship healthy. One day I may be so lucky...until then I'm in this never ending cycle of dating various women, many of whom could have been a quickie character on Seinfeld.
But don't delude yourself, your utopia is not the norm. I'll keep it real short and simple. When I met my accountant to help me out of some tax problems some years back, he had a little talk to me about marriage and divorce. He said marriage can be about a lot of things, true love, insecurity, combining efforts, companionship, social status, etc. but he made it clear on no uncertain terms that divorce was always about money. He probably has the right position in our society to make the observation, being an accountant and all. I think he's right.
cat
You sick fuck. You obviously have no idea why you should get married. HINT: It's ALL about love. Money should have nothing to do with it on either side. If it does, you have two sad and sorry victims of capitalist propaganda. I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other. I don't run screaming from the house to hang out with my male friends because she's just too much fun to hang out with no matter what we do. And she doesn't run screaming from me because she has a good time with me.
Little note: Marriage has nothign to do with love it started as a property contract between a man and the family of a girl. It's shifted a bit over the last 200 years (yes the chaneg was very recent). Even now it's more about propperty then about love since the state doens't care if you love the one you marry.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
If I say I'll love my girlfriend for the rest of my life then I would expect to be taken as being honest, not be required to go through a marriage ceremony to "prove" it.
My parents' marriage broke-up, my paternal grandparents were divorced, and my maternal grandparents damned well ought to have been divorced if the catholic church would only allow it. Marriage proves nothing, and requiring it is as much of an insult as requiring a pre-nuptual agreement would be.
(Just glad that my girlfriend feels the same way)
James P. Barrett