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.'"
Good thing we have the Bush administration to help us with these ultra liberal television networks. Next thing you know gays will be marrying giraffes and marriage will be worthless. Shame on them.
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.
Can the USA still be regarded as the land of the free, where any citizen san say whatever they like?
Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show? I have seen a level of indecency I'd never imagined! Can anyone figure how a mother could compete with a daughter for a man? I watched on such episode on Jerry Springer. To say the truth, I almost fell sick!
I guess it's all about the money.
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."
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
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
I posted this in another thread, here's the clip in question, thoughtfully brought to you by the Parents' Television Council! Let's hear a round of applause for their diligence in bringing teenage orgy footage online.
/ content.htm
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
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!"
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Since when is an orgy worse than rape or murder?
Because 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".
We're sitting in a country where people try laws like this over and over, against the internet, against computer games, against music, against movies... so this is a taste of what our future rights online hold for us should the government succeed in having a post-facto Miller Test type law regarding content on the internet.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Isn't this why we have the damned V-chip?
So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.
This isn't really a free speech issue. It's a "why is America so full of whiny-ass bitches who thing the whole world ought to cater exclusively to them" issue.
I guess they didn't object to primte time TV footage of American troops leading naked Iraqi prisoners leashed through the prison catacombs... now that is really indecent.
Makes me wonder... why are the Americans thinking of invading Iran? The two countries are equally fucked up in my humble mind, about the same attitudes toward "indecency".
Ayatollah Bush of the Intelligent Design priesthood, the leader of the world, mwahhahhahha!
It's not the amount they are fined that matters, it is the fact that they are being fined. They "suggested" an orgy. It's not even as if one occurred where no nudity was shown, it was merely "suggested".
This is ridiculous.
I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.
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.
When the FCC enforces standards of decency they're just thinking of the chilren ... yeah, that's it.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Sounds like "advertising" dollars well spent. But seriously how is it ok to show people being blown up/slaughtered, but not ok to show some skin, or a hint at some questionable activities?
Since the USA already has a violence problem, should we continue to show people being blown up/shot at, or participating in an orgy? I vote for the later, since I'd rather be invited to an orgy, than be shot.
..........FULL STOP.
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.
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.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/worst/WithoutaT race_orgy.wmv
That's not an 'orgy', that's underwear sex.
There's a huge difference. Or so I hear...
Seriously, this isn't with 3.6 mil, no way, no how. I mean, I could barely get off to it...
I know you were modded 'Funny' and I get your 'Joke'.
Sex in itself is not immoral, but perhaps a group of teenage sons and daughters (who likely do not understand the responsibilities that come with sex) having an orgy is. Of course, if there is a problem with teenage orgies in America, ignoring the problem is not the answer either.
Ignoring all the knee-jerk reactions, you should watch the video yourself before you post./ content.htm [wmv alert]
...) and get busy. Granted, that's not what the show is all about.
Here: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace
Rated PG and airing at 10PM on CBS, it's a drunken teen party where everybody not afraid to find a partner (or 2, 3,
According to CBS.com:
WITHOUT A TRACE is a riveting procedural drama about the New York Missing Persons Squad of the FBI. The sole responsibility of the special task force is to find missing persons by applying advanced psychological profiling techniques to peel back the layers of the victims' lives and trace their whereabouts in an effort to discover whether they have been abducted, been murdered, committed suicide or simply run away. The team reconstructs a "Day of Disappearance" timeline that details every minute of the 24 hours prior to the disappearance and digs into every facet of the victim's life, following one simple rule: learn who the victim is in order to learn where the victim is.
Watered down CSI? Maybe. The show focuses on teen victims, so that probably explains the placement of that scene (flashback, actually).
I really don't think CBS deserved this, but they'll likely take it for fear of negative PR. It shows at 10PM for chrissake's! Who watches TV at that hour and isn't a pervert?
2c
Just think about this one.. If you've got the cha-ching, and a dry sense of humor, the possibilities are about unlimited. Buy a block of network airtime, and just say any old god damn thing that amuses you. You could say things like shit, fuck, cunt, or even "I shit your fucking cunt lol!1!1". Just pay the fines on the way out the door, and you are gold.
Take a guy like Gates.. he could sing "Uncle Fucker" from the South Park movie, quote highlights from "The Aristocrats" and finish up with an 8mm snuff flim, and the fines would be below the noise floor on his balance sheet.
But no.. it's all about the medicine for African childern. If they're really so poor, why are they living in Africa? I can't even afford to visit that place..
Sorry, what was I saying?
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
I don't know if I'd really want my kids to see this, but if I was forced to choose between this and "CSI", I'd choose this, every time. As I'm sure most of you know, "CSI" is on the same network as "Without a Trace", they show all kinds of violence, and it's on an hour earlier, yet no one complains.
And they wonder why this country is messed up...
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
Why do religious people insist on ruining OTHER people's fun?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
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.
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.
If you're living in a free society, that society does not restrict 'offensive' or 'indecent' speech. This is Christian fundamentalism, right-wing Republican bullshit, and is actually one of the telling signs of Fascism, not Democracy. By the way, there is no such thing as 'indecent' speech. This was an FCC fabrication to suit their purposes.
By the way, the FCC was established to govern the FREQUENCIES that over-the-air broadcasts and electrical devices use. In today's age of cable and satellite, the FCC should be little more than a VERY small government organization that tries to make sure that your cell phone doesn't interfere with your TV set, and that the government can jam any consumer electronic device they choose. They should not be involved, in any way, in censorship, broadcast licensing blackmail or fining anyone for content.
I am an American, and I'm ashamed at what our society and government have become.
... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.
The complaint form should include a box that asks, "Are you aware of the V-Chip parental access controls and it's operation?" or something to that effect. If the answer is "no" the complaint should get tossed and if the answer is "yes" then an automated reply should be sent to the effect that the viewer should tailor the V-Chip controls to suit their particular tastes.
No one ever mentions the V-Chip anymore because it's not their own viewing habits that concern them, but their neighbor's.
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.
Give it time, my friend. Give it time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Particularly if you happen to be a male who failed to plan ahead and insist on a prenuptual agreement. If you are such a person, you have little to gain and much to lose by entering into such a contract as marriage. Especially when you consider that women rarely marry a man who earns less money than they do, (that need for "security") and when you consider that the courts tend to be heavily biased against men in the case of divorce (child custody and most especially, alimony). This bias, by the way, originates from a time when women were second-class citizens who would have had a very difficult time earning their own living alone. Apparently I am unique in believing that equality does not mean you get to retain special privileges. Either way, consider the divorce rate and ask yourself how lucky you feel.
Please forgive me for the off-topic post. The subject came up via the A.C. and I honestly feel that few men consider the implications of choices like this. Thankfully I have not had to learn any of the above the hard way; I was fortunate enough to be able to learn this by simple observation. Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Even a PBS station was fined by the FCC today.
KCSM-TV, a San Mateo, CA Community College District noncommercial station was fined $15,000 for airing an episode of the Emmy-award-winning Martin Scorsese-produced documentary "The Blues." In it, a hip-hop musician says "I'll buy some [expletive].. This is the kind of [expletive] I buy!"
For a station their size, $15,000 is a major hit!
We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.
We already have that! It's called the internet.
Or cable television if you actually pay for content.
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
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...
So basically they showed the inside of a club?
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
If you don't get a prenump, you're a...well you know what I mean. These people who got married thought they met their lifetime partner, just like you. You just got lucky.
Assuming you're someone else here, when your wife cleans you out of half of the stuff you own, plus a car and the summer house, you'd be asking yourself how you could be so stupid.
We all want the dream, but that doesn't mean you can't take a little dose of reality along with it.
'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.'
And therein lies the problem. In its only decision involving broadcast indecency, FCC v. Pacifica, the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 1978 that the "normal definition of 'indecent' merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality."
When ruling on obscenity in 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court established the "three-pronged test" for obscenity:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
Note that the first test mentions "community standards." That's a recognition by the Court that something that is "obscene" in one community might not be in another. It's not much of a stretch to argue that standards for indecency vary by community also.
The FCC, by going after individual affiliates, might be called upon to present evidence that the community standards in each and every market with a targeted affiliate are such that the program would be considered indecent. If that happens, the FCC's ability to impose such fines might be seriously curtailed by the Court's decision.
all about love? there are times when a husband and wife don't love each other much. be married long enough, you'll see. Hopefully, you'll be able to communicate and work things out and rekindle love again, and a marriage is always worth saving. There's also the case where sometimes "love just ain't enough".
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
Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for us, we did it so that everyone else would take it seriously. We were already dead serious before. And our realtionship survived some damn rocky times involving other people and major relationship disagreements. So it's not like we're in a "honeymoon phase" either. We are admittedly quite unconventional, but that's what makes relationships really work.
;) ). Affairs wouldn't affect us, we were through that before we got married and learned how to survive (and even integrate) it. It's not a big deal to us. To put it plainly, if I were Bill Clinton, I would have simply said, "Yeah. I did it. So what? Hillary knew about it. Next question"?
As a sidenote, I really don't care much about money. If the marriage did fall apart and I had to pay out for the kid and split belonings, it would be painful but not because of the money. Simply because of the emotional toll. NO money in the world can soothe a broken heart. The only thing that can break my heart is the loss of my family. The impact on any future relationships would be annoying, certainly. But I think that would be overcome if the new partner really loved me as I love someone: completely and without limit or fear. To actually get to that point, we'd have to seriously change in different directions. My wife would have to become a raving Republican (can't ever see that happening) and I'd have to do the same (no chance of that without severe brain damage
For me a pre-nup is kind of a vulgar thing. You are counting on getting a divorce at some point. It's like the arms race between Russia and the US in the Cold War Era. You'd never sleep well at night. Unless... you really don't have a stronger emotional attachment to your spouse than to your money. I guess I should also say, that if a pre-nup works for two people and neither is offended by it, then I guess it's OK for them. But I really can't understand the kind of mind that actually feels good about that sort of thing.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them and find the less crazy ones. One hint, if she's "one of the guys" then she's probably gold. My wife can say some things that would get a guy slapped if he said it to a woman. Like when she points out tall, super thing fake blondes with huge breast implants and calls them "tits on a stick". Don't go looking for the demure, quiet type. They're nothing but trouble.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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."
Alright, this looks like an orgy; however, its not explicit in any way, and the people in it sure don't look like teens, I'd say they're in their early twenties.
But: What kind of crack does your government smoke to put up a law against "indecency" and regulators who think this is "indecent"?
Grow up. Overthrow your government.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
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
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?