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

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

[clem]

Having read the description, I guess what bothers me most is a group of teenagers having sex sans any awkwardness whatsoever. No accidently leaning on the girl's hair. No premature "exuberance". No fumbling with birth control. No overly eager groping. There's not even any shyness or strained silence. It appears that when these kids turned 16 the "hump like a porn star" gene was triggered. Did we all just go to the wrong high schools?

Re:Link to clip

[andreMA]

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.

Which is more indecent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is an orgy worse than rape or murder?

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Darth_brooks]

The AC brings up a very good point, and that point leads to another point.

As far as primetime TV is concerned, Violence is ok, Sex is evil. We can thank the moral majority for that. Ward and June Cleaver sleeping in separate beds, Homosexuality not existing until the 1970's (soap), open homosexuality not being addressed until the 1990's (roseanne, ellen). No sir, we can't ever imply that people have sex, because that's evil and naughty. In fact, we need standards that keep filth like sex off of the tube.

But violence is a-ok. Cop shows can show murders and beatings because "that sort of thing happens all the time" or "that's the way it is." It's gritty, "life on the street" sorts of things. Drug abuse, murder, beatings, that's cool. That happens all the time, but God forbid we show a boobie. Because people don't have sex.

Which leads us down the path we're on now. TV shows cannot show sex, but they can show violence. So how to the writers skirt that little detail? SHOW VIOLENT SEX! Brutal Rape! Orgies! Kinky prostitutes being beaten do death by druggies!

I'm no expert on sex, but I think men and women (or two men. Or two women.) tend to have have normal (or comparitively normal) sex more often than people get raped, murdered, or skinned by a serial killer after freaky sex rituals. But we can't show that on tv. We've got to show violent sex.

Re:Which is more indecent?

[TubeSteak]

Don't forget Bert and Ernie.

They used to sleep in the same bed and as a kid, I thought nothing of it.
Then some people started screaming "ZOMG teh h0m05!!11eleven"

Bert and Ernie then got separate beds.
Not good enough.
Bert and Ernie then got separate rooms.
Okay, finally they're not gay.

The fact is that kids don't think about that stuff, unless some adult points to it and says "See those two men? They're living in sin." Or some other such bullshit. Ultimately, suppressing/repressing stuff like sexuality just creates groups of sexually disfunctional people.

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Sathias]

But violence is a-ok. Cop shows can show murders and beatings because "that sort of thing happens all the time" or "that's the way it is." It's gritty, "life on the street" sorts of things. Drug abuse, murder, beatings, that's cool. That happens all the time, but God forbid we show a boobie. Because people don't have sex.

The reason for this is very simple. Showing violence on TV breeds fear and paranoia, and afraid paranoid people are easy to control and buy things to try and distract themselves from what is bothering them. People having sex just lock themselves in a room and forget about any of the crap which the modern world tries to fill our heads with. Content people don't consume.

Re:Logic go backwards

[sqrt(2)]

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

Fuck indecency rules

[Reality Master 201]

Great, some people are offended by something on TV. Stop fucking watching TV, or when you see a promo and find out that the show will somehow involve teen sex orgies, don't tune in.

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.

Re:sex is immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Holland

Man, the Dutch are so far ahead of us it's not funny.

Billionaires and Humorists unite

[murderlegendre]

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?

Re:sex is immoral

[msobkow]

Fundamentalists of any stripe are a problem in society.

Fundamentalists with power are the root of dictatorships, police states, and government control.

Fundamentalists are people who made a decision a long time ago and stopped thinking about the possibility that they could be wrong.

The decisions made so long ago are rarely based on a thorough education or understanding of the material. Most of the time it's rote and ritual, and damnation for those who question "the way" -- the same as any cult.

Free Society?

[QAPete]

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.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[causality]

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.