FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated

tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?

Comments

Choices choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which side of this do you find yourself on?

I think I'd prefer the gratuitous sexuality. That's way more fun than violence.

Remember, kids...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Gratuitous, horrific violence is OK, just as long as you don't say any naughty words!

Limit or Ban?

[chill]

I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.

  I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.

  I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.

  For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.

Re:Limit or Ban?

[Watson Ladd]

The FCC is not illegal. The airwaves are a public resource, and the goverment can make any rules they want about the type of content that can be distributed over them.

Re:Limit or Ban?

[PopeRatzo]

The FCC was formed to keep all the broadcast frequencies straight and make sure phone lines got strung out to the boonies.

This business of being America's censor is something a little newer, and a lot more questionable. Their role as pimp for the big advertising companies like ClearChannel and the rapacious monopolies like AT&T is newer still. They're still trying to figure out this Internet thing. When they do, we are well and truly screwed.

Good lord think of the children!

[tomstdenis]

Fuck the children [not literally], I pay for cable not them. If cable/tv/whatever is bad for them, then make a law banning them from watching TV.

Why should I be left with shite "family oriented" programming when I'm the one paying the damn bill?

When 6 yr olds start paying for cable maybe then we should consider what's in their best interests.

Tom

Re:They did it before

[tha_mink]

They can do it again. It's funny you say that because I've always thought it was funny that you couldn't show a nipple on TV, but you could show a bomb going off and killing people in a crowded hospital or somebody getting shot. America is funny like that. I always thought that violence and sex would even out on TV but I always thought that it would be that more graphic sexual content would be allowed instead of violence being banned. Teee-hee...who knew.

I also think that it's funny that if you do anything under the guise of "news", you've got a free pass. Dateline, 20/20, etc, show the most graphic shit on TV but it's OK because they're "news" programs. Ick.

Americans and Sex

[drgonzo59]

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not! A 12 year old can see someone's head being blown off but 'Oh my god! Shield them from seeing someone's genitalia on TV."

I don't advocate showing pornography to children, but I think they should be able the see the statue of David. I just don't understand why for so long, violence was accepted, but sex was not.

If I had to choose one or the other, I would accept the display of sexuality to children than the display of violence.

I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I have to say that when coming to U.S. I was shocked of how sexually repressed this country it. There was a story in the news how a theatre changed the title of the 'Vagina Monologues' to the 'Hooha Monologues' -- WTF!?

  A vagina is a 'hoohaa' now, because a grandmother didn't want to tell her granddaughter who is old enough to read what a vigina is? Well, what the hell is a hoohaa then?

There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.

Also, a couple of years ago, when 'March of the Penguins' was in the movie theatres, I was watching it with my wife and there was couple with their young (6-7 year old ) daughter. There is a scene in the movie when the penguins are mating. They were not showing close up of genitals or anything like that. The mother got up, yanked the daughter by her hand and dragged her out. The girl didn't quite understand what to make of her mother's reaction, she got scared and started crying. Then they came back later, just in time to watch the penguin baby chicks die because their parents couldn't take care of them. I thought, 'how sad', that poor girl...

At the same time. This is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is not because of the guns, it's irrelevant, people own guns in other countries but the don't necessarily shoot each ther with them.

And then there is the problem with violent video games. Children in Europe play violent video games. I love Doom, Quake and all of the other ones. But those children do not go and shoot each other as much as the American children. It is as if we cannot simply blaim ourselves, and our culture for disasters like Columbine, we have to blaim video games, or some other things that we can all point a finger to.

Sorry for the rant. Hey if Linus can have a nice 'healhty' rant at the GNOME desktop, so can I at the American society ;)

Re:Americans and Sex

[nomadic]

You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.

What I've found is in most cases where someone categorizes the U.S. as unique, especially in a somewhat negative way, they're ascribing qualities that are actually quite common--just not in Europe.

There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

Re:Americans and Sex

[tyresyas]

There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

Oh, yes, eurocentric. He should apologise for comparing us to the more technologically advanced and socially aware civilisations. Clearly, in America, we don't belong with them. I mean, we have the death penalty (unlike every EU member country and then some) like China, et al., we repress certain rights of homosexuals (unlike many European countries) just like the Islamic theocracies, I mean, who would EVER confuse us for trying to be ANYTHING like the Europeans. Clearly we're trying to suppress ideas in disagreement with the government and the Bible...