Slashdot Mirror


"Sensationalized Cruelty": FCC Complaints Regarding Game of Thrones

v3rgEz writes: As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over HBO's content. That doesn't stop people from complaining to them about them, however, and after a FOIA request, the FCC released numerous complaints regarding the network's Game of Thrones. While there were the usual and expected lamentations about 'open homosexual sex acts,' other users saw Game of Thrones as a flashpoint in the war of Net Neutrality.

197 comments

  1. Please by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Theon Greyjoy deserved it.

    1. Re: Please by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That could take some time...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Please by MouseR · · Score: 1

      So did Robert and Ned.

    3. Re:Please by Askmum · · Score: 1

      The torture of Theon falls under the "sensationalized cruelty" or at least mindless cruelty IMHO. Maybe I'm getting weak in my old age, but scenes like these (there were others, and I'm not talking about the blood wedding, which was just bad acting, especially from Fairley) I FFWD through. They were not my taste.
      I have not read the novels so I can not comment on how much of this is George's work and how much is Benioff's and Weiss's idea, but GoT does get worse while the seasons progress and I have the idea that the first series were more George's creation and the later were more Benioff's and Weiss's and are written purpousfully for shock value. To put it like this: after the the first two seasons my feeling was "never let this end", now after season 5 my feeling is "it has run its course".
      But that's just my opinion.

    4. Re:Please by N1AK · · Score: 2

      I have not read the novels so I can not comment on how much of this is George's work and how much is Benioff's and Weiss's idea, but GoT does get worse while the seasons progress and I have the idea that the first series were more George's creation and the later were more Benioff's and Weiss's

      The first series sticks quite close to the books, at least compared to the later ones. Theon suffers some pretty disturbing stuff in the books (having fingers flayed, and being left to suffer until the pain is so unbearable that he has to chew them off) which probably wouldn't make it onto TV, in any detail, but it never felt sensationalist or like prime-time BDSM.

    5. Re:Please by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I disagree; the book DID feel sensationalist and BDSM. The 10-page descriptions of torture even overshadow the 5-page descriptions of meals. I never started watching the show precisely because I figured the shock moments would disturb me more than the awe moments would please me - and besides, I can see the dragons on youtube. :-)

  2. Glad they didn't read the books by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism... I mean really I think GRRM went through the list of things that might get a nuns panties in a bunch, and found a way to write them down.

    The TV show might in some ways be considered censored for good taste!

    1. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I mean really I think GRRM went through the list of things that might get a nuns panties in a bunch [...]"

      I do believe they literally had some nuns' panties in a bunch on the show.

    2. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's get pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship and paganism off the TVs in America, and back into the White House, where it belongs!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by timrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's funny because most of those things are also in the Bible, and yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever made a serious campaign to ban the Bible.

    4. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by sehlat · · Score: 3, Informative
    5. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that stuff is why I -want- to watch it. I'm glad I get to have opinions too!

    6. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Shame.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    7. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      /sarcasm Wait, you mean we're not talking about the bible? :-)

    8. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The TV show might in some ways be considered censored for good taste!

      Perhaps in terms of content, but not in terms of being explicit and graphic. Whenever others have showed violence or sexual assault by or on young people usually it's far more implied or indirectly shown. They show the burned carcass that's supposed to be Bran and Rickon, Geoffrey very painfully dying of poison, Arya cutting a man's throat, Sansa getting raped, princess Shireen burned at the stake, Olly stabbing John Snow and the list just goes on. I almost expected them to film Meryn Trant having his way with the young girl in the brothel, but I guess even they decided that would be over the top. Yes, the books are cruel but they could have shown it far more subtly if they wanted to. I'm sure they're aware of all the headlines they get though and being so mainstream and established they can push it without getting much social stigma attached. At least going by their ratings they're still in the zone where most people want to tune in to whatever fucked up thing happens next rather than turn away in disgust. More people than you think have some morbid curiosity.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism...

      All of those things are found throughout the Old Testament. While Jahweh seems to get his knickers in a twist over idol worship, paganism and the like, He seems to be down with pedophilia, incest, rape, pillage, slavery, torture, genocide, etc. In addition there are many spectral figures, angels, demons and the like. Other than the religion, there's nothing in GOT that the average Solomonic Era soldier wouldn't recognize. It looks even more like the Middle Ages of the Crusaders and the Teutonic Knights. I don't see a lot of difference between the Red God and the Auto da Fe of the Inquisition.

      If we're going to start banning things for bad taste and hate speech, can we start with CBN and the 700 Club?

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    10. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by starless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny because most of those things are also in the Bible, and yet no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever made a serious campaign to ban the Bible.

      Does Jesus count as a zombie?

      I suppose the eating of body and blood in some churches is a bit of a giveaway...

    11. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame.

    12. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism...

      I'm pretty sure most of that can be found in the bible.

      Things I've seen in Game Of Thrones is on the same level or more tame than things I've read in books. So why aren't the "moral majority" up in arms about about that?

      Well because books dont get the same media coverage and more likely, these people dont read.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism... I mean really I think GRRM went through the list of things that might get a nuns panties in a bunch, and found a way to write them down.

      He just cribbed from the bible.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    14. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

      Does Jesus count as a zombie?

      If you're dead for 3 days and then come back to life, you're a zombie. Jesus is the very definition of a zombie.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    15. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. Hilary's email scandal has only bolstered support for her candidacy.

    16. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're dead for 3 days and then come back to life, you're a zombie.

      No. If you come back as a zombie you are a zombie.

      For example, the turning of Vampires is usually accomplished by death, being dead, and then a return to undead. Vampires are not Zombies.

      At least, nobody but a pedant brandishing a dictionary definition would try to call them zombies.

      Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.

    17. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Does Jesus count as a zombie?

      If you're dead for 3 days and then come back to life, you're a zombie. Jesus is the very definition of a zombie.

      That is not accurate. Zombies are not alive. They are undead. If you come back to life, you are not undead, you are alive.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by alhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.

      So did he get all his experience back?

    19. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you're dead for 3 days and then come back to life, you're a zombie. That's what a fucking zombie is. Just like Jesus.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    20. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      People *do* complain very loudly, though, when somebody makes a movie based on the Bible!

    21. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zombie Vampire Christians!

    22. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So did he get all his experience back?

      Maybe, I prefer the lichdom route myself. If you're going to be undead, better to be undead and have awesome magical powers.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your pro Trump?

    24. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jesus was the prophesied one and he came back to life after being killed by soldiers of the powers that be, after being betrayed by a trusted colleague.

      He could heal people and cast out demons that invaded their minds.

      He was, wait. Oh my god. He was just like Neo in The Matrix. They must have based him on Neo.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    25. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auto da Fe? What's the Auto de Fe?

    26. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they're using -1 CON rules.

    27. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      It's correctly spelled either way, although da is more common than de. You could look it up on the interwebs.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    28. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's pedophilia in Game of Thrones? Great! Which episode? I always like to jack off while thinking of the children.

    29. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's what you oughtn't a do but do anyway.

    30. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... are you describing Game of Thrones, or the Christian Bible?

    31. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think 2000 years ago people could make the distinction between alive and undead, just like most layman today?

      He was dead for 3 days, then walked around, people will scream 'he's alive!' while they run around in panic; Jesus was an undead christian.

    32. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little finger is pretty close to being one...

    33. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      0th Edition rules, bro. Jesus was a cleric.

    34. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torquemada's Corvette.

    35. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by odie5533 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if his party had enough money to spring for a true resurrection. Otherwise he loses one level and it can not be repaired by any means.

    36. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While Jahweh seems to get his knickers in a twist over idol worship, paganism and the like,

      In other words, competition.

    37. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      There's a rather large gap between writing "a rape occurred" and graphically depicting it. If the events were related by characters secondhand, I'm willing to bet no one would care. GoT does deserves 1st amendment protections, of course, but I can sympathize with people who find it troubling that extended depictions of torture and rape are considered entertaining.

    38. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedophilia, incest, multiple non-abrahamic religions, polytheism, zombies, ghouls, various fantasy figures, idol worship, paganism...

      And that was just the first episode

    39. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by DrXym · · Score: 1

      nuns panties in a bunch

      Not to mention the nun rape - assuming silent sisters are nuns.

    40. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by DrXym · · Score: 1

      No Jesus is Azor Ahai

    41. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a satirical campaign a year ago in Australia:

      https://www.change.org/p/target-withdraw-the-holy-bible-this-sickening-book-encourages-readers-to-commit-sexual-violence-and-kill-women?source_location=petitions_share_skip

      And an article explaining the why:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/05/why-angry-australian-gamers-want-to-ban-the-bible/

    42. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by houghi · · Score: 1

      Are talking about a book or The Book(s)? I mean, Jezus was a zombie. The Holy Spirit? Fantasy figure. I am sure the Egyptians followed a non-abrahamic religion. And idol worship is so important that it is explicitly forbidden.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    43. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell that to a fundamentalist. That particular subgroup of Christians have a persecution complex a mile wide in the US despite actually having outsized influence in way too many areas of society.

      They and the mommy bloggers and their followers make up most of the content complaints anyway, and both deserve to be ignored just about everywhere.

    44. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by trabby · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the latest z grade straight to video flick found on Netflix

    45. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever made a serious campaign to ban the Bible

      Yeah, that's what makes it so unexpected.

    46. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by operagost · · Score: 1

      Tired old troll is tired.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    47. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      The New Testament is for casuals. You just have to run back from the graveyard. Took him 3 days, though. And he had to put up with Barrens chat.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    48. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, zombies are undead. Various things die and turn into something else, but are not the same thing as being alive. Zombie != vampire != lich != restored to life after dying.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      My favorite part of the Noah story in the Bible was all the rock monsters.

      Related: Super Boat!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    50. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by operagost · · Score: 1

      Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't mean that God condones them. That would mean he directly approves of Satan's acts, because he appears in there.

      Try thinking logically next time. Oh wait, you're a troll. Nevermind.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    51. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      Martin is, essentially, writing historical fiction. The themes borrow very heavily from the War of the Roses, with some high fantasy elements thrown in.

      Now, I don't know if you've ever taken a look at how people have historically treated each other, but what happens in the books and whats shown on TV is pretty lightweight compared to some historical shit. From crucifixion, to the auto da fe, to the rack, humans have been doing nasty shit to each other all throughout history. I don't think they're really going for sensualization of the content, merely accuracy within the context of the story.

      Martin writes characters that feel real, and as such, it makes you feel. Whether you love a character or hate them, you're engaged, and that's the hallmark of a good entertainer. Because of the shit that Ramsey did to Theon and Sansa, I will enjoy it all that much more when he's given the opportunity to say what up to Joffery in the afterlife

    52. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      Auto da Fe? What's the Auto de Fe?

      It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway

    53. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by operagost · · Score: 1

      Well, thank goodness there isn't racism, or else we'd wake up the millennials on social media!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    54. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Vampires are not Zombies.

      Oh, come on .. use your imagination .. in the modern parlance ... Zombpirenado!!!

      As to the ritualistic cannibalism in Christianity and the resurrection bit .. meh, don't care, don't believe it, whatever.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    55. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something appears in the Bible doesn't mean that God condones them. That would mean he directly approves of Satan's acts, because he appears in there.

      Try thinking logically next time. Oh wait, you're a troll. Nevermind.

      That they're mentioned in the bible doesn't necessarily mean they're condoned, no. That they're explicitly condoned, however, does mean that they're condoned.

      Logic has no place in religion.

    56. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that also bans the Koran as the entire bible is contained in the Koran.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    57. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That sarcasm tag belongs at the end of the sentence, otherwise, the / shouldn't be there.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    58. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link to RFC needed!

    59. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Christ was purported to have already had awesome magical powers.

    60. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least Jesus didn't come back with a brain stolen from Abby Normal.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    61. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Banning the Bible wouldn't accomplish anything. People would just find something to take it's place. What we need is to, somehow, evolve past the point where we need such things, and everything associated with it, at all. Of course we also need to evolve past things like greed, lust for power, crime and corruption, racism, sexism, and a whole long laundry list of problems with Humans in general, and that ain't happening anytime soon, either. Oh and since I'm 100% certain that this will be one of the least popular opinions I can post anywhere, I'll just quietly accept my (-1, {whatever}) moderation, LOL IDGAF.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    62. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by kheldan · · Score: 2

      So did he get all his experience back?

      Yes, but he lost all the items in his inventory.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    63. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      But those poweres were pretty beefed up once he came back. Teleporting? Flight? Able to ignore pain from multiple open wounds? Sounds like someone managed to get their phylactery stashed before the Romans found them...

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    64. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since Jesus never actually existed, this is a moot point.

      As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing.

      There's not a single verse, poem, story, carving, sculpture, painting or drawing of him from the time period in which he supposedly lived. Absolutely nothing. Pretty strange considering all of the amazing miracles he was supposed to have performed. You'd think someone would have made even just a passing mention of all this stuff, but nope, not a word.

      In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind.

      We do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned, not once.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    65. Re: Glad they didn't read the books by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Lazarus.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    66. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Since Jesus never actually existed, this is a moot point.

      Jews think otherwise. They have always accused Jesus of being the illegitimate son of Mary and a centurio named Panthera from the occupying imperial roman army and say he was stoned to death before being put on the cross for public shaming. If Jesus didn't exist, the jews would have spent the last 2000-something years loudspeaking that message, rather than trying to mock his lineage.

      What was actually doubted for 1960 years was the existance of Pontius Pilate, whose name wasn't known to history at all, besides the singular mentions he got in the gospels. That was a very strange opposition, since his position as the imperial roman prefect in the Holy Land was rather significant. His historicity was openly denied by many scolars since the enlightement to until 1960, when an antique slab was excavated with inscription praising him for the financing of paving a sidewalk in Jerusalem.

      Christianity insisted on putting his name and role in the Passion story for two millenia straight, there was even a saying "Got into some cause (randomly) like Pilate in the Creed". That tradition was vindicated eventually, which strongly supports the gospels' credibility. Being accurate to the minute convinces historians it is also accurate on the main theme.

      BTW, Jesus also has a hologram, it was on display in the Turin cathedral this spring. You hear of the Passion and say video or it didn't happen! Voila! God actually thought of that 2015 years ago.

    67. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Similarly, in the Jesus resurrection story he is not a zombie. He was simply returned to life, as in properly restored to being "alive" as he was before death, not as in "undead", or transformed by his death into a new being.

      Wait, so he was Jesus the Grey and turned into Jesus the White?

    68. Re:Glad they didn't read the books by vux984 · · Score: 1

      You know, it wouldn't surprise me if that connection was Tolkien's intent.

  3. Theon Greyjoy is for Reeek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You are all Reek. Reek says "Reek". REEEEEEEK Reeeeeek REEEEEEEEK! REEEEK! You Reeeeek!

  4. If you don't like it, don't watch it. by kronnek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FCC should just reply with the following: Thank you for your concern, We have read your complaint and come to a solution, if you don't like it just don't watch it. Regards, FCC

    1. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Since it's HBO, the better answer is "If you don't like it, don't buy it."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't like what other people watch, get over it, you're not the thought police.

    3. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one. if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it. and let everyone else alone.

      No, it really doesn't.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one.

      Because that works so well when some fucker who DOES like guns shoots me with one.

      if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it.

      Because that works so well when my contribution to global warming is literally so minuscule that it will happen with or without my help because powerful people don't give a shit.

    5. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for abortion as well.

    6. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but the people sending these complaints in see the FCC as in a position to be just that and wish they would be. (But only so far as their policing aligns with their personal beliefs).

      In other words people with convictions and no power to impose those convictions on others seeking a surrogate. Why is this news again?

    7. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't want to be part of the social pact, move away from civilization and leave us alone.

    8. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one. if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it. and let everyone else alone.

      If you don't like polluted water, don't drink it.
      If you don't like pedophiles, don't have kids who can be their victims.
      If you don't like rape, don't have sex.
      If you don't like murder, don't kill people.

      Hmm ... No, I don't think it works for other things too.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it's HBO, the better answer is "If you don't like it, don't pirate it."

      FTFY.

    10. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

      How cute. You actually believe that the majority of people who watch GoT pay for it.

      I believe that the majority of people who steal it don't have the balls to call the FCC and complain about it.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does he say anything about "the majority"? How cute that you read into to it what you want to see. And he wasn't even talking about the total viewers - he was talking about the subset that complained.

    12. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that works well for other things, too. if you don't like guns: don't buy one. if you don't like global warming: don't contribute to it. and let everyone else alone.

      That's some fine logic there, Lou. You are as irrational as the people you rail against.

    13. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the people complaining have never watched it. They are just writing letters because that's what the group is rallying against this week. The kind of people who write letters to the FCC aren't the ones who stay up late to watch pay cable.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    14. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: HBO's budget for an episode of GoT is way higher than a typical TV show, and it doesn't have ads to subsidize it. All those people not paying for HBO brought in 4.9 billion dollars for HBO in 2014.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    15. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya stealing something and than complaining about it, logic...

    16. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yes and no. HBO also sell content to other broadcasters - like Sky in the UK - which are funded by advertising.

      For example, BSkyB have a 275 million GBP deal with HBO over 5 years, and I doubt they're the only ones. Similarly, the BBC supplements their funding by selling their shows.

      http://www.theguardian.com/med...

    17. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The social pact is some bullshit you just made up who's nebulous definition only exists in your own mind.

    18. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure that the majority of people who complain about it never saw it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    19. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Oh but we are. That thought you just had, sick. We will be filing an injunction to prevent you from having it again. Expect a call from our lawyers.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    20. Re:If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But these people, these taxpayers, they desire to use violence against those whose message is not one with which they agree with. How are they to force people to live the way they feel is best.

      Need to have FCC start controlling the internet. Maybe IP address could be licensed. Internet access is a privilege. Cable broadcasting is a monopoly back privilege. License for all.

    21. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, Ayn Rand.

    22. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people complaining have never watched it. They are just writing letters because that's what the group is rallying against this week. The kind of people who write letters to the FCC aren't the ones who stay up late to watch pay cable.

      Here's their blog.

    23. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by Frankzy · · Score: 1

      Based on? Someone could always be at the wrong place at the wrong time..

    24. Re: If you don't like it, don't watch it. by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Third article on that link: "Should You Be Concerned About “Game of Thrones,” Even If You Don’t Get HBO?"

      Bottom line: "So yes, we should be concerned about Game of Thrones, even if there’s a 0% chance your child will see it, because it’s influence will be felt throughout primetime in very short order."

      Sounds like it's time to start writing some letters.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  5. Did I miss the BDSM? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

    I don't see a link between "open homosexual sex acts" and "sensationalised cruelty".

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:Did I miss the BDSM? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You should update your parser to support CSV.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Did I miss the BDSM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't see a link between "open homosexual sex acts" and "sensationalised cruelty".

      Forget the link between them, I'm looking for the link to them!

  6. Great advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GoT is killing it on this viral media advertising thing. 1) It was reported as the most pirated TV show ever. 2) They leaked the first 4 episodes last season and made headlines. 3) This story.

  7. the FCC is not a cable channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    thank you.

  8. I sort of skip around by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I stopped reading certain characters in the book.. and as soon as certain people are on screen, I fastforward.

    if something happens, I'll know about it from tyrian's perspective.

    There is a lot of stuff that is as.. wait.. more repulsive than "Human Centipede 3".

    The boobs are nice.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:I sort of skip around by mjphil · · Score: 2

      The HBO VP of Boob Display thanks you

    2. Re:I sort of skip around by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the VP of doing terrible things to people and making up horrific ways to die (some of which exceed the book from what I hear.. which is pretty damn hard) doesn't.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  9. I just got bored of the bloody thing by Malc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The explicit violence just doesn't seem necessary. It detracts from the story more than anything - what's the point of it? Are the producer simply just trying to shock people? They could just cut the content by 75% and focus on the character development and the plots (i.e. The story), and they would have a way better show.

    1. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      as one who has thoroughly enjoyed reading the books, and generally enjoys the show, i'm hardly unbiased. i'm also not going to argue for historical accuracy or realism, since, obviously, it's a work of fiction. but in the sense of depicting a time/place where people were generally assholes, and sometimes did terrible things to each other, i find the sometimes-very-graphic depictions of those things perfectly acceptable.

      i also acknowledge that it's HBO, and there's a fair bit of pandering to people's baser demands for entertainment (T&A, blood&guts). that point means some of it is gratuitous, sure, but it's not in strict conflict with the artistic desire to "accurately" depict a very brutal world.

      YMMV

    2. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe I'm just silly but it's probably because it's in the fucking book. If you want to watch a soap opera that "focuses on character development and plot" they are on in the afternoon.

    3. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

      they would have a way better show.

      You really should get your ass to Hollywood. They're having a hard time coming up with hits, and you already know how to make a hit show WAY BETTER!

    4. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they would have a way better show.

      You really should get your ass to Hollywood. They're having a hard time coming up with hits, and you already know how to make a hit show WAY BETTER!

      Companies don't care about making the product good, they care about making money. Bad tv sells, and that's what matters.

    5. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

      The explicit violence just doesn't seem necessary. It detracts from the story more than anything - what's the point of it? Are the producer simply just trying to shock people? They could just cut the content by 75% and focus on the character development and the plots (i.e. The story), and they would have a way better show.

      Some people like the fantasy themes, over the top violence, sex and nudity and political and literal backstabbing, etc. They like it enough to keep paying for it and watching it.
      Fortunately, that's all we need, the show will continue as it has an audience.

      It doesn't matter how many people dislike it or have a problem with it - they don't need to like it or watch it or pay for it or have any involvement in it, as there's enough others who do like it pay for it and watch it.

      Sure if it was public access, or run by a company that would be damaged by the reputation of showing such type of shows (conversely, HBO only benefits from the controversy) or funded by taxpayer dollars or something like that, there'd be a little weight to it, however this is being produced by a private company and sold for profit, which is no different to Disney making mickey mouse shows or .. (not looking one up at work, I'll invent a title) 'back door bondage sluts IV' or whatever 'offensive' X rated (but totally legal) content there is a market for.

      OTOH, I'm pretty sure if they (assuming it would be possible) managed to generate 2 versions of the show - The awesomely successful one they have now, and a PG censored one that cut all the language violence and.. well, whatever you were trying to describe above - they might find they have a big enough market of those people to make more profit with a second version. That's a pretty big risk to take, however, and probably not their most promising avenue of increased income, so I doubt it'll happen unless some fans manage to generate it.

      tl;dr: cutting content by 75% and focusing on character development and plots (which, honestly, is what 75% of GoT content already is - following the story as written by GRRM) will result in losing their large (one of the largest?) happy paying consumer base.

      BTW, assuming it doesn't exist, feel free to steal this idea: YouTube channel showing PG edited version of the show - I doubt there'd be copyright infringement issues cause you'd be showing less than 10% of the show I guess - could be hilarious, and I doubt there'd be enough 'story' left to follow at that point.

      --
      "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
    6. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      as one who has thoroughly enjoyed reading the books, and generally enjoys the show, i'm hardly unbiased. i'm also not going to argue for historical accuracy or realism, since, obviously, it's a work of fiction. but in the sense of depicting a time/place where people were generally assholes, and sometimes did terrible things to each other, i find the sometimes-very-graphic depictions of those things perfectly acceptable.

      For some reason, I was very strongly reminded of work.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    7. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hitchcock knew that implied violence is more effective long term than overt gore. You can't become desensitized to your own imagination. GRRM's books are stories first, not gore & boob fests. He made you imagine the boobs and gore while showing you the story. Why do the GoT TV writers show you all the boobs and gore while making you imagine the story? I'll tell you why. It's because ...

      *Sunglasses*

      ... it's titillating.
      YEAAHH!!!

    8. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      The explicit violence just doesn't seem necessary.

      Have you seen The Pacific? It's way gorier than Game of Thrones, and from what I have heard, not anywhere near as cruel or gory as the actual events depicted. Toning it down would be a lie.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      Ha. If I want to think of work in my off-hours, I'll just re-watch "Brazil".

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    10. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      Companies don't care about making the product good, they care about making money. Bad tv sells, and that's what matters.

      Yes, just look at Big Brother

    11. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it's titillating.

      Heh, heh. He said "tit". *snigger*

    12. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Given that the show is based on a series of books, I don't see how they could trim 75% of the content and also maintain the story.
      I think the violence is integral to the character development, especially when it comes to the villains. The "sensationalized cruelty" is a clever plot device by the author. He's taken characters that most readers would be inclined to hate and then put them in circumstances where it's easy to feel sympathy for them. That's also an essential element of the story and the development of particular characters.

    13. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      So a written medium that relies on imagination translated to the moving image should forgo the very substance of the book because you can't imagine it like you did in the book? Are you serious?

      If you want to imagine the book you read it. If you want to see a representation of one persons interpretation of the book you watch the movie/tv show. There are a lot of people that would argue that by sticking to the actual plot of the books instead of changing it, the directors and producers of GOT are doing the right thing.

    14. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Are you serious?

      Perhaps you missed the CIS:Miami meme/joke at the end of my post. The serious tone was a necessary counterpoint.

    15. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't seem to understand the post you are replying to. It isn't about not having sex and violence in the TV BDSM fest, its about how that BSDM is *presented*. And GP made the well established point that it is *more* effective to be suggestive than literal. Now, when I say "suggestive" I don't mean the horrible fake sex scene where the girl rides the guy two feet to high for there to be any sexual contact and the camera focuses on her tits hoping you won't notice the cheat. No. What I mean is *effective* depiction which requires a good director. Which is probably why you don't see it on GoT.

      Further, when you make a movie of a written work it is either far far far far far too long, or you cut 90% to 99% of the material. So what you choose to retain is very telling. The fact that they omit character development and relegate the story to the space between BDSM is very telling. It might as well be one of Anne Rice's BDSM novels they are "adapting".

      I realize from your post that you really get off on watching BDSM and can't take any criticism of your favorite show for this. But be honest with yourself and admitting that you get off by watching the BDSM. A lot of people do. And, hey, this particular show isn't even labeled pornography so you can get your fix without feeling that you must be perv for liking it.

      Get over your prudish inhibitions, admit what you like and stimulates you, and recognize that it is made to be a BDSM flick rather than be a drama where story matters.

    16. Re: I just got bored of the bloody thing by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      BDSM and "good story" are not mutually exclusive. GOT has managed to combine them exceptionally well.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I agree that the violence is essential to the story, but there's different ways to portray it. From what I've heard, it's far too graphic for me (I'm not going to verify this for myself), whereas there could be a version that presented the violence less explicitly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:I just got bored of the bloody thing by Malc · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Implicit rather than explicit often leads to a better story.

      Funny: they banned public hangings in the UK because they were too popular! I guess this programme appeals to the same kind of people.

  10. Keep your regulations off my non-broadcast shows by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Get over it! If you don't like it, don't watch it. And if you have children, it is YOUR OWN FAULT if you allow them access. And if you didn't KNOW it was going to offend you- get a life and read reviews first.

    Yeesh

  11. Tough titties by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's on a cable network you have to pay to get, it's not on OTA broadcast networks, so if you don't like it, then don't watch it, but for fuck's sake stop complaining, and stop trying to impose your spiritual/religious/whatever values on the rest of the world!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Tough titties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop trying to impose your spiritual/religious/whatever values on the rest of the world!

      That's exactly how many on the right feel when the left tries to impose socialism and collectivist economic values on them. It's not pleasant to have something imposed upon you is it? It doesn't matter if that thing is health insurance or somebody's idea of censorship. In my experience people don't like to be told by others how they ought to be living their lives or what choices they ought to be making. We need to let people make their own choices on things, enjoying all of the benefits or suffering all of the consequences, even if we don't like those choices and even if those choices kill them. That's the price of a free society, but very few people are prepared to concede it and so we have the culture wars instead.

    2. Re:Tough titties by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Listen jackass: This isn't about any of the shit you just diatribed about, it's about a fucking TV show that nobody is forced to watch, and you're using this as a springboard for your political commentary/agenda? Fuck off.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  12. Dangling participle error in title by steveha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Today's grammar lesson: dangling participle

    As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction...

    Oops... the FCC is not a cable channel. Suggested rewrites:

    As a cable channel, HBO is pretty much not under the jurisdiction of the FCC.

    As HBO is a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over it.

    P.S. I really enjoy a good dangling participle. "Landing at the airport, our car was visible in the parking lot."

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Dangling participle error in title by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You beat me to it. Actually it's dangling participle twice over, as "HBO's content" is also not "a cable channel". So maybe I'd rewrite it as:

      "As HBO is a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over its content."

      Of course, if you have jurisdiction over a cable channel then you also have jurisdiction over its sensationalized content.

    2. Re:Dangling participle error in title by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Today's grammar lesson: dangling participle

      As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction...

      I really hate to interrupt a good pedantic grammar rant, but a "dangling participle" needs... well... a participle, i.e., a verb form that modifies another word.

      The phrase "As a cable channel" has no verb and no participle. If it instead said "Being a cable channel,..." then you might be more justified in your complaint about a dangling participle.

      But "As a cable channel" is a misplaced modifier or a dangling modifier, specifically a prepositional phrase. No participles were harmed in the creation of that sentence.

    3. Re:Dangling participle error in title by Woeful+Countenance · · Score: 1
      Yes, that was painful. I would have written, "Because HBO is a cable channel, the FCC has little jurisdiction over its content."

      That gem was then followed by a more-common grammatical error, pronouns with unclear antecedents: "That doesn't stop people from complaining to them about them ...." Evidently, "people" are complaining to somebody about themselves. "That doesn't stop people from complaining to the FCC about HBO's content ...."

      I prefer to avoid dangling my participle, or my modifiers, in public.

      "Throw the baby out the window a cookie."

  13. If I hadn't watched it, I would now. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    How on earth can a premium, subscription cable channel program that you have to pay to watch become the latest thing to offend the unwashed masses?

    Sensationalized Cruelty?

    I was born a Lannister of Casterly Rock. Things are expected of me.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  14. You ignorant puritan motherfuckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is paid, subscriber-only television. It isn't broadcast over public airwaves. It does not even appear as an option in your home unless you are paying HBO for content like this.

    If the show offends you, cancel HBO. Hell, cancel cable outright, I don't care. Just shut the fuck up with your hurt feelings and your offended sensibilities. You are paying for this content. That is where your power lies, stop paying for it. The FCC has no jurisdiction and it's not the government's business.

    YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!

  15. "open homosexual sex acts"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sucks!

  16. Oh no! I am clutching my pearls! by sinij · · Score: 1

    Oh no! I am clutching my pearls! My gentle sensibilities were insulted! Scandalous!

  17. Spartacus: Blood And Sand by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    Re: the aforementioned, how many complaints were received by the FCC regarding the open pansexual acts performed on this show?

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  18. Too much like the real world? by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In fact, Game of Thrones is arguably even less depraved that what is going on right now in the real world in any number of places. South Sudan, Syria and North Korea just off the top of my head. Compared to the perps running amok in those places, the horrible people depicted in Game of Thrones are just a bunch of lovable kittens.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Too much like the real world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is game of thrones shows people doing those things. Nobody cares when the dark competition does it.

    2. Re:Too much like the real world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be more accurate to say that the popularity of Game of Thrones shows us that we actually enjoy such things, politically correct platitudes against notwithstanding...

  19. Inaccurate by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

    "As a cable channel, the FCC has little to no jurisdiction over HBO's content"

    Not entirely true. The FCC holds the licensing to let HBO use satellites. The FCC could easily revoke those and force HBO to go online-only.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The FCC could easily revoke those and force HBO to go online-only.

      Not "easily". As long as HBO isn't misusing its spectrum (in a technical sense), FCC has no reason to revoke the license. HBO is essentially using the satellite as a private line, it isn't broadcasting. In fact, its signals (like most other pay TV channels) are encrypted, you have to go out of your way to watch them.

  20. Re:Keep your regulations off my non-broadcast show by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    I think the complaint isn't, "This shouldn't be on the air!" but a "I should have some idea of what is going to be shown!"

    Not necessarily unreasonable.

    Pretty much everything on HBO has a Content Rating. Note that they mention "Strong Sexual Content" and I'm sure Game of Thrones triggers that.

    The complaint, I suppose, is that they don't have a category for "Depravity."

  21. Its ways nicer than current evemts by RichMan · · Score: 1

    Current worldwide events and history is full of way worse stuff. Our various human cultures have all sorts of weird taboos. On US TV it is okay to show multiple people getting killed, but verboten to show 2 people making love.

    We need more exposure to the pain and suffering of the world, just ignoring it and thinking it is not there is wrong.

  22. no homo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no gay activity in the book, I have not watched much of the series yet, but did they really add gay stuff in it? That is horrible.

    Dose anyone care what the FCC says? Just being a government agency makes me hate them.

    1. Re: no homo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not correct. Cersei goes down on some woman whose name I forget, then banishes her. It's implied that Renly was gay. Ser Loras too. Etc.

    2. Re: no homo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahahahahaha. You think that renly in the books isn't gay? Dude, learn to subtext! I mean his knights are the rainbow guard, come on.

    3. Re:no homo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      disclaimer: I haven't read GoT, I don't need that kind of vile, vulgar crap. My father thought it was the best book series ever, however, and kept trying to get me to read it (and later to watch the HBO shit).

      There is gay activity in the books. At least, as long as man-on-man sexual activity is considered gay. Not sure (see disclaimer) if it was graphically described in the novels, but it was definitely there. I don't think much of the author (I haven't read anything by him that was worth the time spent reading it), but he is a competent writer and it is well within his means to establish a gay character without stepping the reader through the process.

  23. Wouldn't it be better... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... if instead of complaining about it, they didn't bother watching it in the first place, and didn't try to sensationalize it, effectively creating a boost in its popularity?

    Of course, it's also possible that this is a plot by the show's creators to inflate its own popularity by creating controversy.

    Just sayin'....

  24. Re:What is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, the hipster who pretends to not know what other people think is cool. How contrarian of you. Back under your bridge.

  25. Regulation needed ? by Kohath · · Score: 0

    Why shouldn't the FCC regulate HBO and address these citizens' complaints about Game of Thrones? Regulation is good, isn't it? HBO (Time Warner) is a huge corporate machine. These citizen have complaints.

    Slashdot government fans want regulations on everything else. Why not this?

    1. Re:Regulation needed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only want "good government" regulation. That means if they don't like you they want government to regulate you out of existence and leave them alone. In other words they want a dictatorship run the way they would run it.

      Big government people hate democracy and freedom of speech and will say you are intolerant as they call you names a sailor wouldn't have come up with.

    2. Re:Regulation needed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only want "good government" regulation. That means if they don't like you they want government to regulate you out of existence and leave them alone. In other words they want a dictatorship run the way they would run it.

      Almost all people who vote want their own personal idea's and beliefs to be put into government. That's why we should all vote, so the super crazy hopefully doesn't bubble to the top.

    3. Re:Regulation needed ? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Almost all people who vote want their own personal idea's and beliefs to be put into government. That's why we should all vote, so the super crazy hopefully doesn't bubble to the top.

      That's two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

      Rather than government hurting whichever group has the minority of votes every year, government power should be decreased so they don't hurt people when it's not absolutely, critically necessary -- and then only with due process, with an absolute commitment to do the least harm. But that idea won't be popular with a certain sort of people who want to use government to get stuff and to stick it to people who aren't like them.

  26. I work for the cable company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And believe me.. there are seriously a lot of people out there who spend their days flipping through channels, to find *ANYTHING* to complain to the FCC about.

    One example complaint: 2am on the Public Access Channel, the show was talking about an art gallery opening, and a painting that was in the background for literally 2-3 seconds had a bare breast!!! OMG, what if little jonny would have seen that!?!?!?!

    Get a f*cking life... first, it's a painting, second, why would your little precious be up at 2am?

    1. Re:I work for the cable company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once saw a woman's breasts and it caused me to go an rape a woman. If only I hadn't seen those breasts then that woman would not have been raped by me.

  27. No HBO Go on Xbox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the other comments made me laugh, but to block a service based on a device does seem like unfair content blocking to me.

  28. Touché by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    No mod points atm, and posted all over this thread, and there's no 'touché' mod up option anyway.... but nice post :)

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
  29. Cable TV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I vaguely recall that thing. I thought that was for toothless people whether due to old age or being rednecks. Why the hell does anyone here care whether a show gets yanked from cable?

    I'm pretty sure HBO could easily exist without cable TV these days. I actually don't know anyone who pays for HBO through their cable companies. Everyone I know just watches over the net and HBO cuts out the middleman to do it.

    Tell you what... I wish all content providers would just cut the cord already. It seems it would solve many problems.

  30. Re:What is by vux984 · · Score: 1

    What is Game of Thrones?

    Its one of those phenomena that almost everyone in the civilized world knows about. Like Baseball, Star Wars, Justin Bieber, Coca-Cola, Donald Trump, and Lord of the Rings.

    If you don't like it, that's fine. But if you don't know what it is... its because you've failed to be part of society, and aware of the world around. That's on you. Go look it up yourself. We have an Internet now.

    And why should I care?

    Caring is up to you. Or do you expect strangers on the internet to make all your decisions for you? Would you like me to make a list of the breakfast foods you should enjoy too?

  31. It is depraved, that's true by davide+marney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    GOT celebrates all the ugly things people can do to each other. I watched it for a little less than a season, until I understood that the point was to just be as horrible as possible.

    I don't need to seek out ugliness in my life, the real world is full enough of it as it is.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:It is depraved, that's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. Why fill your life with smut.

    2. Re:It is depraved, that's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You made the choice not to continue watching it, because you didn't like it.

      That's how it's done.

      You don't run around complaining about it, trying to force everyone else to also stop watching it, instead leaving the choice for them to make on their own.

      That's - again - how it's done.

      I respect your decision to not watch it.

      I'll continue watching it, because I do like it.

      Everything is as it should be.

    3. Re:It is depraved, that's true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think that, then you are painfully shortsighted.

  32. Donald Trump's favorite book of the bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See interview transcript here.

  33. complete and utter apathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This stupid show is as easy to ignore as that stupid walking dead show. and star warz.

  34. Re:Keep your regulations off my non-broadcast show by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The complaint, I suppose, is that they don't have a category for "Depravity."

    Sure they do: CSPAN

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  35. Re:What is by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    And why should I care?

    I have heard of people skipping ads, but asking to have them repeated? Must be the Superbowl.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  36. No government fans here? by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Come on. Answer the question. Why shouldn't the FCC regulate this?

    I know the answer can't be "free speech rights", because the government fans told me corporations like Time Warner aren't people and therefore don't have free speech rights.

    Citizens seek regulation of this corporation. Are government fans taking this corporation's side against the people?

    1. Re:No government fans here? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Most Slashdot readers are of a libertarian bent, so they don't like regulations.

      Those who do are generally smart, and they know there is no basis for regulation here.

      But, indeed, many of us don't think Time Warner has free speech rights, just like it can't vote. I've seen no consensus on exactly how that would work, though.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    2. Re:No government fans here? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If they "know" there's no basis for regulation, they should be able to explain why these citizens' complaints don't matter while they're sure other citizens' complaints do.

      Unless they base their opinions on their day-to-day feelings -- and thoughtful people should all be able to agree that day-to-day feelings aren't a wise or just basis for government to regulate and police (and hence bully and punish) anyone.

    3. Re:No government fans here? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      The FCC appears to have no jurisdiction. That doesn't stop people from complaining, but it sure ought to stop any FCC action. Congress might try to do something, and might even succeed, though I think it should be unconstitutional.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  37. the immorality of Kevin Bacon by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    On the plus side, there was no dancing featured in GoT.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  38. So... by StrangeBrew · · Score: 1

    So... a fictional show is being criticized for Sensationalized Cruelty, but a reality show like Toddlers and Tieras is somehow ok? I give up on this world.

  39. George Carlin said it best by dkman · · Score: 2

    Like George Carlin said, you are aware that there are two knobs on the tv - one to change the channel and one to turn it off. If you don't like it go F yourself.

    I may have paraphrased that a bit. And I'm aware that your TV likely has no knobs. So if you were going to whine about that you can definitely F off.

    The Theon scenes were disturbing, and they were meant to be. Nothing about torture should be appealing. Nothing from those scenes was simply made up or sensationalized, those were all torture or psychological warfare that people have done in the past. History is filled with cruel things that people have done to each other. History also shows redeeming factors that can restore faith in humanity.

    Nothing in GoT should make anyone say to themselves "Hey, let's go rape/torture/poison/etc someone today." If you're claiming that a show is sensationalizing something, you would think that the show was making it seem OK or at least less bad. I don't think GoT is doing that at all.

    I notice they're not complaining about GoT's depiction of homosexuality as buggery and bad.

    As the AC said above YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED!

    --
    I refuse to sign
    1. Re:George Carlin said it best by sectokia · · Score: 1

      Australians have a right not to be offended. We literally have a law banning something that is likely to cause offense That is where the left is headed as well.

  40. The FCC should only have one rule: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC should only maintain the free flow of information on the Internet without it being throttled or censored.

  41. Drones killing civilians is okay but GoT goes too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's ridiculous to me that it's okay with Americans that we use drones to violate the air space of sovereign countries, not to mention killing a LOT of civilians, but GoT is just going too far. I can't think of sufficient insults for these people.

  42. Re:Keep your regulations off my non-broadcast show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, thank you. While I don't watch it, I have this to say. As long as they aren't lying regarding their Content Rating, it should be fine.

    However, I do notice a problem. With Comcast On Demand, I don't see anything specific. Like TV 14 and TV MA. I don't see the SSC descriptor mentioned when hitting info. I wonder if it would show it in the info for a "live TV" episode. Do they mention it at all in the show? Let' see.

    Played the beginning of one. I see briefly (hard to pause), GV, N, AC, and something else. I think it's AL. They really should stay up longer than that.

    Well, as long as they aren't miscategorizing. I imagine the sex scenes deserve SSC. Anyone know if they aren't labeling them properly?

  43. SuperBowl by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    I always send a complaint to the FCC each time the SuperBowl is on TV. What else is that than glorified violence paired with explicitly sexual public display (aka cheer leaders)? So far I never received a response. Same when I complain about boxing or ice hockey (as if there is a difference!). But oh jolly if a bare breast is on TV for a total of 0.032 seconds, all FCC hell breaks lose. Since then US live TV is on 5 second delay, just like in open and forward thinking countries as Saudi-Arabia or Qatar.