Slashdot Mirror
FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
Nobody wants to see a cock on their TV. But let me fucking blow up a baby. Americans fucking love that.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Good. The FCC has no business regulating the content of what gets broadcast, only the means of broadcasting it, ie: making sure everyone stays in their licensed frequencies and doesn't stomp on each others transmissions.
We're now living in a time where it's trivially easy to block potentially offensive channels, or restrict their use with a code to keep them out of children's reach if their parents don't want them watching. If you don't like that channel X broadcasts unedited showings of "Porkey's", don't watch channel X. You, as a viewer, have no right to expect a government agency to protect you from being offended, and the government has no right to prevent a broadcaster from showing what they choose, or me from watching it if I like.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Keep in mind that many people thought it dirty to breast feed in public, and that a woman should do it in private, shamefully. And some still think that way and STILL lobby to make it illegal. We Americans are entirely too focused on nudity being "bad", which I chalk up to too many people who can't separate their religion and their politics.
This is the same reason pot is illegal, prostitution is illegal, gambling is illegal (unless the states is sponsoring it, then it is ok) in most parts of the US. Self righteous politicians and those who support them that want to tell others how to live and think.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
You've hit on one of the primary contradictions in thinking in the U.S. of today. Most people are for the free market making decisions... that is until it makes a decision they don't like for some reason. Then they go to the government to "protect their interests" or to protect themselves through legislation. So many of the stories on Slashdot, especially the governmental and corporate stories, come down to that... a corporation or other group of people who were so gung-ho about the free market when things were going THEIR way now want governmental protection now that the market has changed. See also: FCC. See also: RIAA. See also: MPAA.
Yeah, but without the FCC, I might have to actually pay attention to what my kids are watching myself. Can't the FCC just screen the babysitter for me, while I take a nap?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not a matter of the milk being expelled from the woman's body. The breastfeeding issue is that some people think that breasts are solely sexual objects and a woman taking one out is being indecent. Nevermind if she's just taking a small portion of it out to feed her child, not to gain some sort of sexual satisfaction, and nevermind that the view of the part of her breast that is out is obscured by the feeding child. No, these people insist that women should remain covered up at all times and should feed their child in the bathroom. (Like any of them would consent to taking their food to a public restroom to eat it.)
People also sometimes claim "mental harm" for being "forced" to watch, but unless you've been chained up with your eyeballs propped open, you have the option of looking elsewhere. I've had women breastfeed in front of me and I tend to look the other way because it's a private moment between mother and child (even if it takes place in a public setting) and it is rude to stare. If I was talking to the woman, I would focus my eyes on her eyes and not on her feeding child.
Women should be able to feed their child wherever they want so long as stopping to nurse doesn't cause a public safety hazard, of course. (e.g. Not stopping in the middle of the highway to nurse her baby.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
There is no country that is more simultaneously obsessed with and embarrassed by sex than the United States.
America seriously needs to grow the fuck up.
Technoli
No, it must be the fault of ordinary Americans, who are always wrong about EVERYTHING.
Some ordinary Americans, perhaps even the majority, don't care about what they can't see. This was a nation founded more or less on the principle of being able to beat your own dog and children, but we've come a long way since. But doing things to people and making information available are not remotely the same thing.
Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are all social ills with well-documented effects. Progressives campaigned tirelessly against them back in the 20s and 30s.
Yes, campaigned against them, when making them illegal makes them more harmful. Excellent logic, there.
Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are both symptoms and causes. Barring evolving out of them they will always likely all exist. The trick is to integrate them into society in a way that is least harmful, not to engage in futile attempts to eliminate them. Each of these things is also a matter of degree and even opinion. In (or near) the words of one female comic, if you're married, you're just a whore for a washer and dryer. Flip a coin to make a decision as to who will do or get something and you're a gambler. Sugar is a drug by every definition of the word. Caffeine and nicotine are powerful drugs which are readily available in nearly every society on the planet. Governments run lotteries.
Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are here to stay. We only have to decide how we will handle this fact.
Please don't make me draw the parallels to "decency", or I will do it in crayon for your sake.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Don't be ridiculous. Pol Pot and Stalin were atheist and they were right cunts too. People do bad things because we're stupid animals, not because some people believe in deities.
I was at the hospital ER a while back and it was the middle of the night. The waiting room had a mother with her two kids (one a baby, the other ~ 2) and me with my daughter. Our SOs were the ones there for treatment.
Her baby was hungry and she asked me if it was OK if she fed her child.
I told her I didn't see how it was my choice, but since she asked I was fine with it.
One of the nurses (WTF? shouldn't they be the most understanding?) came out from behind their counter and told her not to feed her child there and suggested the rest room. I kindly replied to the nurse that this woman and I were the only two in the waiting room, that I didn't mind at all, and how would she like her next meal to be served while she was on the can? I think she considered kicking me out then thought better of it and let the poor embarrassed woman be.
I mean, had they offered an exam room that might have been fine, I'd see it as the nurse offering up some privacy, rather than shunning this person. Later the mom thanked me, and I told her about all the fun my wife and I had along those same lines. It really bugs me. Thing is, this woman even had some nifty shawl thing that covers everything up (wish we had that when my kids were that young).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Well, to be honest, in a perfect world the connotations would be reversed - violence would be vulgar and sex would not be. If I can have only one I'd choose to have violence be seen as vulgar in the hopes there'd be less of it.
Did you really *see* Janet's nipple? Really? I was watching, I saw a sudden movement from Justin Timberlake, some clothing pull away, and what may or make not have been a flash of jewelry. The actual nipple was on screen for less than 3 seconds, on a pulled away shot, and covered in a very large piece of jewelry. So far as I remember it took an hour or more for there to be verification that there actually *was* a nipple in the shot, after someone isolated the 30-40 frames where it was visible and zoomed in on it.
So essentially you're saying that kids can be mentally damaged but a second or two of viewing something that may or may not from the actual visual evidence on screen have been partial nudity. Regardless, the network (who got fined for indecency) had nothing to do with the plan that Justin and Janet came up with to get themselves some publicity. So even the most stringent fining system in the world would not have prevented the occurrence, because the people who were fined were not the people who planned and executed the stunt (and Justin and Janet couldn't have ever been fined because they're under no obligation to the TV station or the public to act a certain way just because cameras happen to be on them. Their contract is with the NFL).
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.