The Coming Fight Over TV Violence

gollum123 writes "Time reports the guardians of decency are warning about new trouble, with a capital T, which rhymes with V, which stands for violence. The Parents Television Council (PTC), the group at the vanguard of the TV-sex wars, has lately focused on prime-time blood: power-tool torture on 24, serial killing on Criminal Minds, vivisection on Heroes. And the FCC has prepared a draft report suggesting that Congress authorize it to regulate broadcast violence, as it now does obscenity, and possibly force cable companies to let subscribers opt out of paying for channels that run brutal content. In short, torture is the new sex. Jack Bauer is the new Janet Jackson."

Comments

Not really "news"

[C0R1D4N]

The PTC has been going after violence for years. Usually it's against pro-wrestling (specifically Smackdown on UPN) and they've been rather unsuccessful. They even lost a lawsuit to the WWF a few years ago for lying to advertisers.

Re:Not really "news"

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Let me explain to you how the system really works. Having been one of said easily influenced soldiers I have intimate knowledge of this. You're out on a patrol, you come upon a guy who is setting up a roadside bomb. Now more than likely this isn't really the guy you want as he's just some poor sod that a real bad guy paid to have do this. The bad guy that paid him isn't really even the really bad dude, he's just some farmer that got mixed up with the wrong crowd. You know this, so you catch the guy setting up the bomb, cuff him and take him back to your patrol base. When you reach the patrol base you have to fill out a very extensive form detailing everything that was said and done to the guy. When I say detail I mean it too. After that the guy you captured is taken to a holding area where he's given food and water and basically anything he needs even though what he was doing could have killed you or your best friend. Next time a convoy comes around which is usually a few hours they take this guy to the main base where all the interrogators hang out. These guys spend up to two years in school learing how to interrogate without using torture. They know how to mind fsck you, and they're really good at it. These guys never have to do anything that harms you because they're better than lawyer at playing word games and will generally know within the first few minutes whether you're worth keeping or not. The problems like Abu Ghraib arise because you have people that guard these guys and take it upon themselves to try and find out information. Which I don't have to say is illegal and the real interrogators will have your ass if they find out about it. That's the main point of failure. Now after the interrogator has talked with the guy for a while, if he's worth keeping they will, if not they'll give him a job working on public works projects in the city. That's how the system really works, and maybe people should actually do their research before spouting off with something that you have no clue about and put good people in a bad light. On the other hand: evidence has been accumulating about policy shifts of the US government pushing towards the legitimization of torture. Hell, there's been even a documentary about it: The Torture Question. Some questions: "What was the rationale behind the Bush administration's 2002 decision that the Geneva Conventions' guidelines on treating prisoners of war don't apply in America's fight against foreign terrorists like Al Qaeda? Who in Washington opposed this decision -- and why?" etc...

Re:Uh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the bad parents with idiot kids -- sure they'll grow up to be idiots, but I think the idea is to keep them from growing up to be violent idiots. I don't agree with their method, but it's an admirable goal.

Re:Surely this is good thing

[badspyro]

In the UK it tends to be the other way round, with the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) putting a greater emphasis on violence in age ratings than nudity or sexual content, infact, if the nudity is non-sexual, then the film or other media type (they cover cinemas, DVD's and games)can be classified as U (suitable for all).

Violence that is realistic and could be done by "easily acsessable weapons" is imiedatetely classified as at least a 15, and sometimes an 18, depending upon several different criteria, in a 12, it must not dwell on detail or have any emphasis on blood or injury. In a 15, easily acsessable weapons must not be glorified, and dangerus techniques such as hanging and self-harm must not be dwelled upon, however a sexual act may be portrayed but without strong detail.

if you want to read more about the BBFC guidelines, goto http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Guidelines/BBF C%20Guidelines%202005.pdf (PDF)

BTW, I don't work for them or anything, I'm a games development student, and we are in the middle of a project on Profetional Practices, including the regulation of the industry.

Thanks,
badspyro