|
|
Post by MO on Jul 9, 2004 10:59:00 GMT -5
CWA had this to say:
I see the bill as restoring the intended teeth to existing laws already passed by the congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Jul 9, 2004 15:57:39 GMT -5
It was just a nipple though. I'm all for censoring indecency on television or radio and if people are truly indecent, they should pay the price for their acts, but seriously people, it was just a nipple, covered even.
Had "Janet Jackson’s infamous indecent exposure incident" occurred in Europe or South America (Continent with the most Catholics) it wouldnt of even made a front page. In fact it would be in the entertainment section of every newspaper, along with every other part of the entertainment that occurred during the super bowl.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jul 11, 2004 19:00:32 GMT -5
Well there you go peanut. Why aren't we like Europeans? So sophisticated and Urbane. Probably because we are not Europe. We are America. Different values. I don't want theirs. I don't like them. Just a nipple, c'mon, just one little ol nipple. And Next? One lil ol?  ??.  |
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 11, 2004 20:58:20 GMT -5
It wasn't "just a nipple" anyway. Even if I could handle watching aging, surgically enhanced breasts and simulated sex I would still want them fined for trying to pass that crap off as music. (just kidding)
However, focusing in on that one incident kind of misses the point of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Jul 11, 2004 21:40:31 GMT -5
But it's not an incident that needs focusing though. Granted it wasnt attractive (lol, coming from me, what is exactly?)
Maybe some better examples would help this thread along?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 12, 2004 22:02:51 GMT -5
No, individual examples are everywhere and not really relevant. The fact is that congress determined that obscenity is not free speech, and gave the FCC the power to make sure it doesn't exist on the public airwaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peanut on Jul 12, 2004 22:47:15 GMT -5
But what is Obscene? I think what Britney Spears does on stage is alot more obscene then Janet's floppy boob.
I also think it's obscene that Justin Timberlake can get his voice that high without the removal of his testicles.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 13, 2004 11:04:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 13, 2004 16:49:41 GMT -5
This FCC stuff is very dangerous. They're not looking out for you. While the Janet Jackson/Jason Timberlog incident was tasteless, it was just the sort of incident that opens the door for a flood of FCC regulation. Let's keep in mind what the FCC is. Its a government agency. By definition, they'll look for any chance to expand their umbrella of power. I don't care for Howard Stern, but I'll back him 100% in his fight against the FCC. How long till they start cracking down on political speech? Believe me, they'll find a way to label it as "offensive", and its just a matter of time till they set their sights on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others. Commentators of all persuasions; liberal, conservative, or libertarian have a right to voice their views. If you don't like it, turn the channel. Don't go scream to the FCC. Right now its network TV, but tomorrow its just as likely to be talk radio, cable, satellite, and the internet. This is VERY dangerous!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 13, 2004 20:05:02 GMT -5
The FCC was much more involved in recent history. They once looked over scripts and decided if a show could be aired in family hours. They kept I Dream of Jeanie from showing her belly button and made Archie Bunker tone down the language. Your argument is a flawed one and shows how even so called conservatives are headed into social libertarianism. Going after political speech would be unconstitutional. Your argument is much the same as saying the police should stop pulling people over for traffic offenses to make sure they don't do any illegal searches, or commit any police brutality. The free airwaves are public. Nudity on them is the same as running naked through a public park.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 13, 2004 20:27:04 GMT -5
I'm not saying there is no need for the FCC. In its original form it served to protect the rights to the airwaves. There are only so many frequencies and amplitudes on which a radio or TV station can broadcast. The FCC was initialized to protect that resource for those who bought the rights to it, not the content they broadcast on it. Yes, prohibiting political speech is unconstitutional, but so is social security, and we've seen what that has snowballed into. If we start prohibiting "offensive" material we are leaving ourselves to the mercy of the FCC to define what is and is not "offensive", and you're incredibly naive if you don't believe there are activists out there who would try to lobby the FCC to include political speech in that definition. The decision to watch or listen to a particular broadcast should be left to the consumer and the corporations that advertise on those networks. The Jackson/Timberlog issue was an isolated event. CBS is not going to start broadcasting porn in prime time. Sponsors would leave in truckloads. The business will police itself, but if it doesn't, the viewers and advertisers will with their wallets. This is not something government should be involved in.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 13, 2004 21:01:56 GMT -5
I'll continue.
You said that the airwaves are public. For the sake of argument I'm going to assume you believe that because there are a limited number of them. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or at least expand on what you mean by public. However, operating under that assumption, would you also say that all land is public land, and that private property rights and the usage of private property should be subject to the approval of some government agency?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 13, 2004 21:25:03 GMT -5
I'm only speaking of the public airwaves that the people own. I'm not talking about subscriber stations. That is the difference in terms of the law. I do not fear the FCC taking too much power. The truth is, they haven't been doing their jobs for the last thirty years.
It has nothing to do with private property. My analogy of running through a public park, naked, is a much more appropriate analogy in terms of the law. No FCC? Would you find it troubling to have a triple x aired at 4:00 in the afternoon and called "The After School Special?"
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 13, 2004 21:56:14 GMT -5
Yes, airing an after school porno would not set well with me, but it would never happen. You're out of your mind if you think a network is going to air a porno. Like I said, the industry will police itself. They depend on corporate sponsorships to pay the bills. If they start airing primetime porno, they can kiss their sponsorships and advertising contracts goodbye. Network TV has already lost a ton of viewership by airing garbage like "Will and Grace." You are doing exactly what the FCC wants you to do. You are taking an isolated incident and turning it into mass paranoia. This sort of response only feeds the giant, the giant being the FCC. For every person calling their congressman outraged at Janet's boob, there is another person claiming the same about Rush Limbaugh. If conservatives like you and myself begin lobbying the FCC to crack down on shows like Will and Grace, liberals will do the same for programs like Hannity and Michael Savage. And by the way, what we see on the nightly news is much more dispicable than what we see on TV sitcoms. The responsibility lies with the people to regulate what is and is not viewed on TV in their homes. For what its worth, I'd rather my child see Janet Jackson's boob than hear Al Franken anyday.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 14, 2004 18:22:01 GMT -5
Never say never! People wouldn't have imagined the things that go on now in the day's of Ozy and Harriet. Euro trash tv has teen fornication. The industry has a failed record of policing itself while the FCC has been asleep. The obscenity rules are about staying within what a normal person would think is offensive. When the FCC doesn't do its job, those standards spiral downward.
Not at all! The article I posted made a reference to the super bowl. Certainly just one of many offenses. It's not even just the shows. I have a problem with some of the promos for shows. If I can't sell vitamins and say they cure cancer, the networks shouldn't be able to show a risqué promo for a later show during a show that is marketed to kids. Truth in advertising, my friend.
That doesn't make any sense. Political speech is protected under the constitution. Obscenity on the public airwaves was deemed illegal many years ago by an act of congress.
|
|
??. 