http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11847422/

Quote :

"The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday renewed its efforts to eliminate "indecent" television content by fining broadcasters millions of dollars for violating rules. The move includes $3.6m in proposed fines for more than 100 CBS stations for airing a programme depicting a teen orgy. ... Mr Martin on Wednesday said the number of complaints received by the FCC had risen year after year, from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. "The number of programmes that trigger these complaints continues to increase as well. I share the concerns of the public - and of parents, in particular - that are voiced in these complaints." Last year the FCC received more than 230,000 complaints. Under his predecessor, Michael Powell, a Republican like Mr Martin, the FCC imposed a record $7.9m in fines for violating indecency rules. The issue has become politically charged as religious christian groups, in particular, fight to uphold higher standards and family values. ... The largest fine imposed on Wednesday was $3.6m against 111 CBS stations for airing a 2004 episode of "Without A Trace" about an investigation into a possible rape. The programme showed teenagers engaged in sexual activities. CBS said it would "pursue all remedies necessary to affirm our legal rights.""

Agree or disagree?

3/15/2006 9:05:15 PM

bullshit fines

3/15/2006 9:08:39 PM

I hate censorship.

3/15/2006 9:10:37 PM

all the parents have to do is turn it off

if nobody watched it wouldnt be on tv

3/15/2006 9:11:15 PM

^ [/thread]

Why do they even make commercials teaching parents how to use remote controls? They clearly don't understand how to use them.

[Edited on March 15, 2006 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ...]

3/15/2006 9:23:20 PM

Quote :

"The move includes $3.6m in proposed fines for more than 100 CBS stations for airing a programme depicting a teen orgy."

Did any of you guys tivo this? PM me.

3/15/2006 9:39:20 PM

And for the record, CBS regularly dries its hands with $3.6 million.

3/15/2006 9:41:04 PM

OMF WE MUST CENS0R THESE OFFENSIVE FOOLS! WE CANNOT ALLOW ANYONE TO BE OFFENDED! AND WE MUST UPHOLD "DECENCY" AND "MORALITY," BECAUSE WE CLEARLY KNOW WHAT IS DECENT AND MORAL AND THEREFORE HAVE THE RIGHT, NO, THE DUTY, TO CENSOR EVERYONE ELSE AND MAKE THE WORLD A SAFE, CLEAN PLACE FOR TEH CHILDRENZ!

[/knee-jerk response rant]

3/15/2006 10:22:42 PM

jlphipps, what's your opinion on this matter? (Don't forgot the ONLY picture you have in your gallery right now.)

3/15/2006 11:01:11 PM

3/15/2006 11:03:43 PM

broadcast stations should just cut out the OTA programming and only go through venues the gov't can't regulate

3/15/2006 11:11:01 PM

^^^ Hmmm... hard to say, really, cause I'm anti-TV in general. I think TV is a waste of time and resources and negatively affects society in general. So, I guess that ultimately I'm glad that they are trying to fine broadcasters who show material that might be offensive in a family setting, but my own values say that no family setting should have a TV in the first place...at least, not one with cable or satellite or an antenna. I'm cool with a TV existing for Tapes/DVDs or whatever. So, in a way, I feel that the family has a responsibility to not expose themselves to this tripe, but at the same time, since they DO expose themselves to it, maybe the broadcasters should be more responsible with what they show.

I guess I don’t have a well-formed position at the moment, but the above is where I’m coming from.

[Edited on March 15, 2006 at 11:13 PM. Reason : Carrots are good for your eyeballs]

3/15/2006 11:12:46 PM

you must be one of those pseudo-intellectual nutjobs.

3/15/2006 11:14:54 PM

I hate to sound like I'm defending the fine, but I need more info.

Was there a tag before the show began? What time of day was the show aired? What's the rating on the show? Does it break any actual, written rules?

My guess is that it wasn't a big deal at all and they don't deserve the fine, but I don't agree that making sure children don't see inappropriate things counts as censorship in its evil form. If it was pretty late (after 8 or 9) had a parental advisory tag and was rated at least TV 14, the FCC can fuck themselves. Otherwise you have to play by the rules if you don't want to be fined.

3/15/2006 11:19:28 PM

Quote :

"i'm glad that they are trying to fine broadcasters who show material that might be offensive in a family setting"

says the girl with the picture of the bloody fetus

Quote :

"but I don't agree that making sure children don't see inappropriate things counts as censorship in its evil form"

evil or not, it ain't the gov't's job to keep your kids from watching this
that is why they are your kids

3/15/2006 11:28:19 PM

Woodfoot, surely you don't think that its their job to watch everything their children do for 14-15 years until they can handle most everything in a mature fashion. Especially on something like non-cable television and radio which is freely broadcast at all times.

How about this: What about full, graphic nude covers of porn magazines available at the grocery store. Would you have a problem with that because its more overt than turning on the tv or radio or would you think the parent should have kept them from looking because they knew the magazine aisle had that?

3/15/2006 11:39:58 PM

Quote :

"says the girl with the picture of the bloody fetus"

Touché.

We have to ask ourselves what it is that is inappropriate in a family setting, and this may be different for every family. I think that in general, sex and violence are commonly considered the big no-nos.

Granted, I have a picture of an aborted fetus in my gallery. In a way, you are right, I am broadcasting it and it may be offensive to some. Any kid could come along and see that. But, to me, based on my personal values, the positive effect of that picture outweighs anyone else's being offended by it. If one person is swayed to think about the humanity of a fetus by seeing that photo, I feel that its presence is justified. At the same time, I’d probably say that a documentary broadcast on television showing real-life (not Hollywood) violence in, say, war, may be justified if it causes someone to think about the horrors of war and be swayed by it. I guess you could call it a sort of justification by activism. The problem is that most violence and sex on TV has no other motive but to ‘entertain.’

But, again, I haven’t fully fleshed out my thoughts on these matters.

3/15/2006 11:41:19 PM

Quote :

"Woodfoot, surely you don't think that its their job to watch everything their children do for 14-15 years until they can handle most everything in a mature fashion. Especially on something like non-cable television and radio which is freely broadcast at all times."

Yeah, that's exactly what you're supposed to do. It's not that hard to block access to certain channels and television shows.

3/15/2006 11:47:03 PM

How about responding to the question about the magazines Bridget.

And I can't believe you really think you shouldn't let your kid out of your sight for 14-15 years.

I mean for crying out loud, there's a difference between monitoring your children's behavior and watching every waking moment to make sure that 40 year olds can freely watch porn in the daytime.

Again, I have no problem with teen orgies on television provided the rating was sufficient to cover the material. That was my first post on the subject. I'm simply defending the idea that the FCC could/should have standards at all.

3/15/2006 11:50:06 PM

if your kid watches shit on tv you dont want them to see it means you're a bad parent.

3/15/2006 11:50:33 PM

I'm not sure I know of anyone who would qualify as a good parent in that case, except the ones with no tastes/boundaries.

3/15/2006 11:51:41 PM

^In response to your magazine question, no, I don't think hardcore porn should be openly displayed in the grocery store. But, even then, maybe some grocery stores should be allowed to have porn on display with a warning out front or something and it's up to the public to decide whether or not they will frequent that grocery store. But anyway, to compare the TV to the porn mags is silly because we all need to shop for food (we can't avoid it), but we can avoid crappy TV.

AND AGAIN, WHY NOT BLOCK THE TELEVISION SHOWS WITH THE V-CHIP OR SOMETHING?

You set it to only allow your child to watch PBS or whatever and PROBLEM SOLVED!

(Of course, your child still might be exposed to this stuff outside of your home, but you can talk to your child's friend's parents, you know.)

3/16/2006 12:06:16 AM

Quote :

"AND AGAIN, WHY NOT BLOCK THE TELEVISION SHOWS WITH THE V-CHIP OR SOMETHING?"

Absolutely agreed. Which goes back to my whole rating question. If the show got a rating that wasn't at least TV 14 then I have a major problem with it. Otherwise it is the parent's faults.

My stance for decency only includes things like radio or grocery stores that don't have any type of ratings for parents to decide.

On the v-chip thing, we're in total agreement.

3/16/2006 12:08:31 AM

I mean, isn't this exactly the kind of thing they invented the V-chip for? CBS should sue every parent who complained for failing to use their V-chips properly until the full $3.6 million is recovered.

3/16/2006 2:40:00 AM

The FCC should tell the parents to piss-off instead of bowing to their complaints.

3/16/2006 2:49:57 AM

Quote :

"If one person is swayed to think about the humanity of a fetus by seeing that photo, I feel that its presence is justified."

This statement seems to reflect what's wrong with censorship in the first place. Those in charge decide which morals are decent enough to broadcast. Usually, those morals are their own.

3/16/2006 6:38:26 AM

Quote :

"complaints received by the FCC had risen year after year, from hundreds to hundreds of thousands."

as said in the PTV episode of family guy - "we got 6 complaints, and as you know each complaint equals 1 billion people!!!"
seriously, the complaint system is majorly fucked up. Was it the janet jackson thing where they determined over 99% of the complaint letters were just spammed form letter from the Parents Council on TV or something?

3/16/2006 6:42:59 AM

Quote :

"I hate censorship."

its a good thing this isn't censorship then!

3/16/2006 7:39:03 AM

They should be fined for bias news reporting. Good night, and kiss my ass you commies.

3/16/2006 8:08:37 AM

*biased

3/16/2006 8:19:12 AM

anyone else remember the good old days when CBS was the network for old people?

now it's nothing but teen orgies and celebrity nipples

3/16/2006 8:45:44 AM

Quote :

"But, to me, based on my personal values"

What are these, exactly?

Quote :

"its a good thing this isn't censorship then!"

It's making people pay for free speech, close enough.

3/16/2006 8:45:51 AM

I would like to see the teen orgies.

3/16/2006 8:52:06 AM

Quote :

"If the show got a rating that wasn't at least TV 14 then I have a major problem with it. Otherwise it is the parent's faults."

to solve this issue for you. im sure it got a rating and im sure it was at least TV-14. those ratings err on the side of conservative viewing usually.

3/16/2006 9:05:56 AM

Quote :

"This statement seems to reflect what's wrong with censorship in the first place. Those in charge decide which morals are decent enough to broadcast. Usually, those morals are their own."

Maybe you're right. However, I'd like to point out that I also mentioned real war images as part of something that would be legitimate to show to sway people and I'm not anti-war in many cases... however, if someone is and wants to show that it's horrible so that they sway public opinion away from war, I'm not opposed to them doing so.

I think that this whole justification by activism thing runs deeper than personal morals; I think it has more to do with it being ok to show real life violence to some extent, rather than Hollywood violence.

Sex I don't think is appropriate to show on TV. But, maybe someone here can give a compelling argument in favor of it.

And, again, I haven’t really thought about this until now, so my opinions aren’t completely formed yet.

3/16/2006 10:57:25 AM

Until someone can find verification on the show's rating this whole discussion is pretty pointless.

3/16/2006 11:08:15 AM

Boobies hate our freedom.

3/16/2006 11:15:59 AM

Its a friggen TV.

Turn it off.

Its not like this shit comes on at 4pm in the afternoon.

If

3/16/2006 11:20:51 AM

Quote :

"Sex I don't think is appropriate to show on TV. But, maybe someone here can give a compelling argument in favor of it."

Nipples never killed anybody.

And if they did, it was probably a pretty sweet death anyway.

3/16/2006 11:22:44 AM

I FOUND THE ORGY SCENE, AND YES, IT WAS MARKED TV-14.

Quote :

" "The program, which aired in the last hour of prime time and carried a 'TV 14' V-chip parental guideline, featured an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children. The program was not unduly graphic or explicit, and we will pursue all remedies necessary to affirm our legal rights, while knowing that millions of Americans give their stamp of approval to Without a Trace each week," the network said. (True that--the show attracted 20.3 million viewers Thursday, Nielsen's seventh-ranked show for the week.)"

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/eo/20060315/114249270000.html

However, I found another source that points this out:

Quote :

"PTC had to lodge the complaint for its Central and Mountain time zone viewers. The show aired at 9 p.m. there. On the East Coast, the broadcast's 10 p.m.time period is within the FCC's 10 p.m.-6 a.m. safe harbor for indecency."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA496080.html?display=Breaking+News

SO IT WAS MARKED TV-14, CAME ON AT TEN ON THE EAST COAST BUT CAME ON AT NINE ELSEWHERE.

3/16/2006 11:43:30 AM

OH NOES, TIME ZONES TUKK UR DECENCY.

3/16/2006 11:45:03 AM

Quote :

"How about this: What about full, graphic nude covers of porn magazines available at the grocery store. Would you have a problem with that because its more overt than turning on the tv or radio or would you think the parent should have kept them from looking because they knew the magazine aisle had that? "

how about this

how about you come up with some scenario that is in any way related to what we're talking about

when magazine aisles come up with a v-chip system that EASILY only displays certain magazines to children based on their parents' personal desires of what is viewable, then your hypothetical here will have any relevance

Quote :

""The program, which aired in the last hour of prime time and carried a 'TV 14' V-chip parental guideline, featured an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children."

and this proves that they are right

3/16/2006 11:54:14 AM

By the way, there ARE fully explicity porno mags in gas stations all over the country. If you're not watching your kids, they might actually see what a naked human looks like. And after that, they might as well be dead.

3/16/2006 12:01:10 PM

So I pretty much won this thread so far. I pointed out the irony of the bloody fetus first. I owned bgmims on the lame grocery store comparison. He already conceded he's down for the sex on TV if it's marked so, and I found where it was marked TV-14. I brought up the Time Zone issue for those who care.

But let's get into this:

Quote :

"Sex I don't think is appropriate to show on TV. But, maybe someone here can give a compelling argument in favor of it."

For real, jlphipps, we don't have to give you an argument. You have to explain to us why you think sex is inappropriate for television. And I suspect it's because your point of view may go something like this:

Quote :

"Sex I don't think is appropriate"

3/16/2006 12:03:25 PM

ps, only 51% of high school students report not having had sex

that means 49% of high school students have fucked a naked member of the opposite sex

so i'm not sure why its so bad for them to hear the word "fuck" or see a naked person on tv

3/16/2006 12:03:28 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you're right. However, I'd like to point out that I also mentioned real war images as part of something that would be legitimate to show to sway people and I'm not anti-war in many cases... however, if someone is and wants to show that it's horrible so that they sway public opinion away from war, I'm not opposed to them doing so."

root canal pics are gross, ban dentistry.

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ^ i doubt we are worried about high school seniors.]

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 12:06 PM. Reason : bridget is actually right for once, i agree fully]

3/16/2006 12:05:23 PM

Everybody ignore Woodfoot's crappy argument and respond to ME!!!

[Edited on March 16, 2006 at 12:10 PM. Reason : sss]

3/16/2006 12:05:57 PM

Naked old people are gross, ban the elderly.

3/16/2006 12:06:19 PM

Quote :

"that means 49% of high school students have fucked a naked member of the opposite sex"

3/16/2006 12:06:40 PM

^good point

3/16/2006 12:09:05 PM