Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

3.6mil FCC fine for orgy scene on CBSFollow

#1 Mar 17 2006 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
... kindly reproduced for you here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xJrymF1r6FU

It'd be NWS if they actually showed anything. Don't click if bras and choppy, overdark footage are verboten at your place of employment.


http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/stocks/media/10274037.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

The episode was broadcast on New Years Eve, 2004 - it took the FCC fifteen months to get around to actually levying the fine.

The FCC is arbitrary in the extreme. Janet Jackson's bare brest caused a $550k fine - this 30 second clip, which features no nudity (though dry humping and underage drinking) scores a fine nearly seven times as large.

At least cable TV and satellite are still deliciously unregulated, eh.
#2 Mar 17 2006 at 1:05 PM Rating: Default
I lik t3h hawt bumsechs on canadian TV :D
#3 Mar 17 2006 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
the moral majority working hard for you! Smiley: clap
#4 Mar 17 2006 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
That's hawt.
#5 Mar 17 2006 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
It looked like an MTV music video.


The FCC is out of control.
#6 Mar 17 2006 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
****
6,760 posts
Another perfect example of why the government shouldn't be regulating video games as well.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#7 Mar 17 2006 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
**
937 posts
I won't claim to know how the US regulates television programming but depending on the stations conditions of licence, the exact time that show aired, and what the V-chip rating of the episode was, could explain while some rather dull scenes got a much nastier slap on the wrist than the superbowl incident.

I know here in Canuck-land, the CRTC can be a righteous pain in the ***.
#8 Mar 17 2006 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
The FCC is arbitrary in the extreme. Janet Jackson's bare brest caused a $550k fine - this 30 second clip, which features no nudity (though dry humping and underage drinking) scores a fine nearly seven times as large.

Well, one could argue that a non-sexual depiction of a naked breast (with its nipple covered, yet) is not as graphic as a very sexual depiction of many half-clothed people gettin' down. The porno music probably didn't help.

Not that I agree with the fines in either case.

I do think the FCC should fine ABC $1 million for showing us Dennis Franz's naked *** though.


#9 Mar 17 2006 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Is that guitar tabliture in your sig?
#10 Mar 17 2006 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
That's where the gripe is with the FCC. They hold the power of censure over indecency on the airwaves. However, there are no hard and fast standards for said indecency - it's a completely subjective process driven largely by consumer complaints.

Quote the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw
bas[/gold wrote:
tards]
What are the statutes and rules regarding the broadcast of obscene, indecent, and profane programming?
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1464, prohibits the utterance of “any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.” Consistent with a subsequent statute and court case, the Commission's rules prohibit the broadcast of indecent material during the period of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. FCC decisions also prohibit the broadcast of profane material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Civil enforcement of these requirements rests with the FCC, and is an important part of the FCC's overall responsibilities. At the same time, the FCC must be mindful of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 326 of the Communications Act, which prohibit the FCC from censoring program material, or interfering with broadcasters' free speech rights.

What makes material “obscene?”
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts); (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

What makes material “indecent?”
Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is “patently offensive.”

In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.

What makes material “profane?”
“Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.


Emphasis added where text is bold and underlined. These bullsh[gold]it wishy-washy terms create a subjective set of criteria for enforcement. Likewise, the penalties assessed by the FCC follow no particular rhyme or reason. For all I know they sit around a giant table while members of the board call out bigger and bigger penalties, each of them ************ furiously all the while. When they reach ****** they use that number for the fine. Fuc[gold][/gold]king Washington.

The FCC holds no regulatory power over movies, cable television, or the internet. They're limited to regulating broadcast media, though they would probably love to have their hands in everything else. More responsibility means more fines, fines mean money, money means power in DC.


Another amusing thing to consider. The FCC reacts to consumer complaints, right? In truth the FCC reacts mostly to complaints from one specific group: the Parents Television Council.

The PTC website has a handy page set up that dispatches a form-letter complaint to the FCC. If you're offended by something, just sign on, fill out a couple of fields, and click 'submit'. The PTC acts a lot like a political action committee, asking their member base to protest various shows or activities, or having large groups of them complain about a given program whether or not they actually saw it themselves. This derails the entire "public complaint" process.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61786
Quote:
According to an FCC analysis obtained by Mediaweek, over 99 percent of indecency complaints filed before the FCC in 2003 came from a single interest group, the Parents Television Council (PTC).

In February 2004, a PTC campaign launched against one TV episode accounted for 88 percent of the total complaints the FCC received that month. (1)

...
(1) On its website, the PTC claimed that its members sent 12,801 complaints to the FCC regarding that TV program. In the same month, the FCC reported receiving a total of 14,480 complaints.




The whole process is stupid. Smiley: glare
#11 Mar 17 2006 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,817 posts
I find this video extremely offensive. There were no naked people in it.
#12 Mar 17 2006 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Wingchild is this year's gbaji.

I'm referring to post length, not post content. I've yet to read one all the way through
#13 Mar 17 2006 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
nah, I'm 35% less right-wing.
#14 Mar 17 2006 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
Wingchild is this year's gbaji.

I'm referring to post length, not post content. I've yet to read one all the way through

Nah, gbaji still gooshes all over the page like a fourteen-year-old. Wingchild spews, but it's the more concise and dribbly spooge of a man with an enlarged prostrate.
#15 Mar 17 2006 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Wingchild wrote:
nah, I'm 35% less right-wing.


So you're only 115% right wing then?
#16 Mar 17 2006 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
***
1,863 posts
Touche', salesman.
#17 Mar 18 2006 at 12:52 AM Rating: Good
***
3,908 posts
It still baffles me that showing people on Tv enjoying themselves and getting along by enjoying sex together is BAD Where as if you can saron gas a entire goverment facility, people puking up blood, showing multiple gruesome deaths, people being shot in the head is just fine. I myself would much rather watch a episode of ***** as Folk as to something like E-wing.
#18 Mar 18 2006 at 12:55 AM Rating: Decent
Mistress DVEight wrote:
It still baffles me that showing people on Tv enjoying themselves and getting along by enjoying sex together is BAD Where as if you can saron gas a entire goverment facility, people puking up blood, showing multiple gruesome deaths, people being shot in the head is just fine.



That's because gruesome death is part of life, and sex is just obscene, if you're doing it right.

Edited, Sat Mar 18 00:59:16 2006 by Barkingturtle
#19 Mar 18 2006 at 3:10 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
These ******** wishy-washy terms create a subjective set of criteria for enforcement.


that's a common gear in the machine in general
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#20 Mar 20 2006 at 12:27 AM Rating: Default
At least our forefathers had the balls to throw tea into the sea when they felt taxed without proper representation. More than likely, all of us will sit on our sofas with a bag of cheetos and a laptop in our laps while the guv'ment rapes us of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
#22 Mar 20 2006 at 11:10 PM Rating: Default
Wow... I remember that episode from like a year ago.
Calenders>FCC
That clip>FCC
Being raped by fourteen unshaven hungarian women<FCC
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 220 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (220)