A Look At Indecency Complaints To The FCC
from the roller-coaster-ride dept
The FCC refuses to detail its rules for what's "indecent" on TV, even as they've been handing out a lot more fines over the last few years. They claim to do so would be akin to censorship. Instead, they simply respond when people complain, and then determine (afterwards) whether the broadcast was technically indecent. Of course, as has been pointed out in the past, that's a problem when many of the claims of indecency are generated by web-based forms on the sites of certain "family-friendly groups" who urge their followers to complain, even if they haven't seen the video. In some cases, the vast majority of the complaints are from these form letters. Ironically, if the people sending in these complaints have seen the offending video at all, it's often because some of the "family groups" post them to their own websites to stir up the outrage. So, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise to see Matthew Lasar look through the stats on FCC indecency complaints and note that it's quite a roller coaster ride, with periods of time when the FCC gets almost no complaints, to times when suddenly over 100,000 come in. Of course, you could point out that the data alone does not prove that someone's "stuffing" the complaint box, since there probably isn't an equal distribution of content on television that people consider indecent. However, when combined with the other reports that have shown that nearly all, if not all of the complaints are based on the same form letter, it really does make you wonder what the FCC thinks it's doing. Considering that some studies have shown the vast majority of Americans think the FCC has no place censoring TV, it seems like maybe the FCC should focus on more pressing issues. Otherwise, we just get a chilling effect as affiliates refuse to run certain programs just in case groups gang up on them and the FCC declares the video indecent.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Alternative
Do we want to live under the tyranny of a sexualized culture instead, demanding constant obedience to reptilian instincts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
Well, I'd certainly start watching TV again.
Sounds great! You, sir, are a true visionary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
Do we want to live under the tyranny of a sexualized culture instead, demanding constant obedience to reptilian instincts?
Um... Yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
Just because someone doesn't find the airing of DOGMA to be indecent, doesn't mean that something truly indecent would be tolerated.
You are the classic example of why people think religion is the "opiate of the masses". Think for yourself you retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
its legal to produce and distribute playboy, obviously that means (by your logic) that all magizine and print will be smut and pornography!
you have the V-Chip, cripple your own TV. STOP trying to decide what everyone else gets to have.
The single phrase that can keep me from voteing for ANY candidate is "We have to do this for the children." That phrase (and its kin) are all the basis a poliece state needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
For that particular Superbowl, the FCC allowed all the other acts to go on, including Kid Rock dancing around in an American Flag and more crotch grabbing than Michael Jackson on the "It's a Small World" ride. That's not to mention the fact that the entire "family friendly" event was sponsored by beer and erectile disfunction ads.
Tired answers, true -- but it's the same answers asshats who believe it's the FCC's job to prevent accidents. The FCC can't even do their REAL job which is to enforce and make decisions in line with their earlier rulings. They are a perfect example of a goverment agency that has failed their purpose. Thankfully, FCC's handling of Janet-gate was nothing as devastating as FEMA's reaction to Katrina. Keep things in perspective -- you're just trying to enforce your taste and tollerance. A quaint notion, but in a representative republic, tell it to your congressman. I know my congressman has an earfull of my views on such wastes of effort and energy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
If we want children to be raised by their parents, we need to make it economically feasible for the parents to be home when the children are home. Technologies like the V-chip are a poor substitute for supervision by attendance. A V-chip cannot keep the child home, preventing him or her from watching a friend's television, when the parent is away.
Supervision means overseeing what happens and discussion what did happen to help train acceptable behaviour. This cannot be properly done without parents being home to raise their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ugh
Another few years and the religious nutbags in this country and their allies at Fox and the GOP will have instilled enough fear and created enough phantom enemies to ruin the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incest Marathons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CENSORSHIP SUCKS(and not in a good way)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Complain!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Book on FCC and Decency
For those who are interested in this subject, please check out "The Decency Wars: The Campaign to Cleanse American Culture." I am the author of "The Decency Wars," which is a history of the battles over decency in American history. Included in the book is the story of how the FCC started, how it came to police indecency, and how (and why) religious groups have tried to use the power of the FCC to promote a particular moral agenda.
The book can be obtained at local bookstores or online. If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
Regards,
Fred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New Book on FCC and Decency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New Book on FCC and Decency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get serious people...
I think that if 100,000 people complain about the content of a TV show (i.e. Dan Rather saying "F*CK YOU, George Bush) then they themselves are not a small special interest group. They are a small sampling of that group that:
1. Has internet access.
2. Is a subscriber to Focus on the Family.
3. Read the "call to action".
4. Took the time to respond by filling in their details.
You can be sure that there are MANY MANY MANY more peopel in that group than a mere 100,000.
But lets get back to the main issue. What is indecency and how many Americans need to be offended before anything is done?
By the way Mike, I have been coming here for years. I enjoy your writing and I love the site. I a disappointed that you took the side that you did in this debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get serious people...
Here's a more interesting question: If I issued a "call to action" to DEFEND an inoffensive show, would you help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get serious people...
spambots
Prove to me that 100,000 people submitted 100,000 seperate forms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get serious people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same people that get insulted by a nipple on TV or an ass crack are the same ones that at the first chance would suck on one for pure lust.
I vote for more nakedness on TV and less violence and "killing people" movies.
As far as I am concerned, there has one been one sexless/un-spermed birth in the history of the human race and even that is debatable. why the heck is it that in USA we have such stupid censorship laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is going on?
"I vote for more nakedness on TV and less violence and "killing people" movies."
Do you realize that when you "vote" for more nakedness and less violence, that you are doing exactly what the other side is doing? Everyone has a right to declare what they want....to 'cast their vote' for the side they feel is right. For you, it seems less offensive to view nudity instead of violence. For another individual, it is the opposite. If you have the right to express your views, shouldn't they be afforded the same right?
" If you think about it, erotic scenes should not only be allowed but also encouraged."
Unless I am mistaken, every person in this country (over 18) has the freedom to view as much erotic and naked content as they want. You have dozens of avenues to fulfull your lustful desires....like the internet, premier cable, video purchases and rentals. Censorship of television does not restrict your right to view whatever you want. It simply protects the rights of those who do not wish to view those things.
Of course it would be very easy to argue that "if you don't want to see it, use the 'power button' on the tv", but why should i be forced to not watch television if i don't want to see sex or nudity? Why cater only to those that want to see that content, especially when they have so many other avenues to go see it?
It just seems like a group of people can't get enough so they want their personal pasttimes to bleed over into mainstream television. Not only is that unnecessary, but it's unfair to those that don't wish to view those things, but still enjoy watching television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is going on?
Wow, I am really confused on what censoring television means then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is going on?
Well, that might work except I do NOT see more nakedness and less violence on TV no matter how much I vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is going on?
1 - you live in a congressional district where you are the minority. Therefore, your congressman/woman does not represent your voting preferences.
2 - you live in a country where you are in the minority. Therefore, you must engage in debate to change the minds of others to bring your views into the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is going on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nipples
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Floating standards
Nothing will be said about that (hopefully) due to the context.
Ban form letters!
Require handwritten signatures on complaints.
or
Charge "special interest spammers" a fee for accepting electronic form letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 10
If Dan Rather told Bush to fuck off *I* might think that's good TV. Hell, I thought Bush flipping the cameras off and swearing at a campaign event was great TV. Those 100K already have a voice in the system; it's called the channel changer.
The fact that they are organized into a narrow minded avenue with an agenda does not mean they are the voice of the country. They want you to think like them because they think their way of thinking is better than anything else.
Humbug.
But let's get back to the main issue. What is indecency and how many Americans need to be offended before anything is done?
The answer: Zero. Freedom of speech is the backbone of this country. If you are offended by something then either fight or flee. However, fighting what you deem offensive does not mean you get to hide it from everyone else. Stop watching the program, boycott the advertisers, make your own show stating how silly that other show was if you like, but don't tell me what I can or cannot say.
I can't stand Howard Stern, but he's still out there for a reason. I don't like him and I don't listen to him, but bless the 1st Ammendment for giving him and his audience their narrow minded avenue to cruise down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship and why?
There are a few reasons why I think censorship is a good thing on public TV. One, I wouldn't want something like that to show up while watching with my kids or parents, even worse grandparents. Uggh! Secondly, it may be that fact that public TV is a government enforced (owned practically) entity. I know some Anonomous Coward is going to say, "Uh, the government doesn't own public TV," but we all know that they do. Why should they provide that sort of content and be responsible for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NUDITY IS NOT WRONG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NUDITY IS NOT WRONG!
If the networks - run by men - really felt that nudity was OK then both sexes would be EQUALLY undressed. The nudity we are being exposed to is sexist and demening to women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real issue
Who would have a problem if they watched a television program that showed in explicit detail a woman having sex with a man?
Now answer this question: Who would have a problem with it if the woman was a 4 year old girl and the man was 45?
The thought is sickening to most people, and understandably so. Most people in the country, no matter how depraved they are, will recognize that there are moral limitations in this world. Certain things deserve to be respected and some things just should not be encouraged. The real question, then, should be what to censor....and how.
There are really two issues to consider with the FCC: their methodology, and where they draw the line for censorship.
It is generally understood that the FCC censors television, so refusing to set decency standards under the pretense of it being "akin to censorship" is silly. Also, why are the networks the only ones being held responsible for the 'indecency'? If someone hosts a website where libelous material is posted, the website isn't held accountable...the poster is. Why should different rules apply to television?
Secondly, where should the FCC draw the line on decency? What is appropriate and what isn't? An individual's freedom stops where it begins to infringe upon another person's freedom. So, someone can't knife another person in the thigh simply because it's a free country. At least, if they do, there will be consequences because everyone has the right to walk down the street without the fear of being knifed in the thigh.
So the real question is what is the best balance between the rights of the person who wants to view erotic, violent or vulgar content vs. the rights of the person who doesn't? Who can say.....but i'm just tired of everyone behaving as if their side is the only side that matters. Both sides are entitled to be heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real issue
This argument is idiotic - A. It would be illegal for a man who was 45 to have sex with a 4 year old girl - Therefore if it happened the person who filmed it would be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the act. There have already been several rules about how, where and what can be filmed where children are involved.
I doubt you can find many people, if any, arguing that illegal acts should be filmed and distributed over network TV. As for the rest, as someone said already, you can always change the channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the real issue
Exactly. But why is it illegal? Because when we landed on American soil the native americans told us that was the case? Nope. It's because the majority said it should be illegal. The argument is valid. I simply stated that most people would argue that censorship is important to some degree - illegal activities included. Too many people see censorship as a bad word that completely contradicts American ideals. I wanted to point out that this is not necessarily the case, although censorship should be done wisely or it could go too far. So, my original question remains: Where should the line be drawn?
"As for the rest, as someone said already, you can always change the channel."
If they only had the content we've been discussing on a Vice Channel, it would be a simply matter to change the channel. But we're not discussing whether to allow premier cable to offer channels dedicated to such content. We're discussing mainsteam television. If every station is allowed to air vulgar content, changing the content is fruitless because it will only be more of the same. I therefore declare your argument "idiotic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: the real issue
Now, you'll probably retort that the same can be said about the developmentally disabaled (ie, mentally retarded, but we're trying to be nice about this, right? Not that I see what's wrong with the term). In fact, that same argument /has/ been used in cases where a personal with mental retardation has had sex with another persion. Successfully used. As unfortunate as that might seem, there are reasons for everything, and they are not always censorship.
In the context that we are speaking of, censorship is the denial of the transmission of ideas or information that some might find offensive. Someone, I believe it was you or Dorpus, said that it isn't censorship if we can view the material in another medium. Cable TV or internet, for instance, and yet not everyone has either of those? And who the HELL are you to tell me I can't watch what I want on my television? Oh, no! I might /enjoy/ watching homosexual acts as much as heterosexual acts! I must be a terrorist or a morally corrupt person! Maybe I just happen to enjoy sexuallity in all its forms? Maybe I enjoy watching a couple dozen bad guys get blown to hell in some drama?
The point? Simple. Censorship of media should not take place. Not at the urging of any group, no matter how large or small that group might be. Don't believe like I do? That's fine. Just don't go shoving your beliefs down my throat. There's space in the airwaves for about 100 broadcast channels. Want a channel that caters to you? BUILD IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the real issue
First, what does it mean for something to be illegal? For an act to be considered illegal, it must violate the legal code of a given country or governing body. For there to be a law added to the legal code in the United States, Congress must vote to institute the law. In order for the Congress to vote, a majority of Americans (broken down by congressional districts, of course) must vote to put the Congressmen/women in office. Hence my argument that the illegal act of statuatory rape is made illegal by the will of the majority of Americans. It's important to note here that i did not say that we voted to make it immoral. I didn't claim that a 4yrold is incapable of making sexual decisions simply because we said so. Rather, I pointed out that we simply voted to make it against the law. Presumably, our moral views should direct how we vote, and will ultimately determine what is illegal, but they are not one and the same. This may seem to be purely semantics, but it's still an important distinction to make.
Secondly, my point was that censorship already takes place in various ways, and that most Americans appreciate that censorship. In other words, because it has been made illegal to participate in statuatory rape/child pornography, it inhibits a network from airing anything of this nature. It's really a fairly obvious argument, but it is simply meant to point out that censorship is not necessarily at odds with American Ideals. Also important to note is the fact that censorship in excess can be completely at odds with American ideals. But, the potential for evil does not negate the good that censorship offers when practiced wisely and in moderation. Many people forget that to the detriment of their argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real issue
One of the central themes of Techdirt seems to me to be to allow market forces to regulate business. Personally, if I saw child molestation was going to be present in a television show, or saw it while watching a program, I wouldn't watch it (as, coincidentally, I'm sure that the majority would likewise do), and therefore shows that display extreme content like that wouldn't attract a large enough audience to attract big money advertising, and wouldn't continue to be on TV (not to mention the fact that that kind of sexual deviance is illegal).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the real issue
So, the question is, should the market dictate the content simply by tuning out, or are more proactive measures acceptible if viewers already know they do not want a certain type of content to be displayed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real issue
Most of the interest viewers have in this is in seeing the envelope pushed. After all, if there is no line to cross anymore, the incentive will disappear as well.
Ultimately, people want good quality programming. And advertisers want eyeballs for there ads and the sales that it brings.
So, (using another common Techdirt theme) "vote" with your purchases. If there is a negative (or at least no positive) effect to buying advertising spots on "indecent" shows, then companies won't buy ad spots, and TV stations won't make shows with that content.
By proactively policing content, it costs *a lot* of taxpayer dollars with very little benefit (and it opens the possibility of future censorship). Growing up, my parents always pre-viewed any potentially questionable content before letting me view it. By crowdsourcing it to parents, it saves a lot of money and does not require the government to protect our children.
We need to protect our own children, instead of abdicating the responsibility to the government, and blaming them for our failure to protect our children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the real issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sexual tyranny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Form Letters
TV is indecent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clear something up?
It seems the arguement against censorship means that the footage cannot be censored, regardless of what happened to the participants.
Or, do we not allow it to be shown? Censor it, because it's an illegal act? So, censorship is permissable in certain circumstances? Now we're back to "who decides those circumstances?" You? Me? George Bush? Howard Stern? Anthony Scalia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clear something up?
But to answer the question....i believe the child pornography laws are going to extend to all media, including television. So that means that 'we, the people' decided to censor child pornography through our election of representatives who voted to ban (or censor) such content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try thinking of others for once
From the Bible it clearly states that God gave clothes to mankind.
For the minority claim:
100,000 complaints + how many who would of but didn't complain because they did not see or hear about it (I am one OF MANY WHO DIDN'T)
For all those who think uncensored feeds are OK:
The societies where there is some form of unmitigated access to drinking, gambling, and prostitution have the most problems.
Drinking and drug problems in Europe.
Gambling problems in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, etc.
In the world there are decency laws it is not just a US issue!!!
Decency issues have plagued mankind from all eras of man.
Julius Ceasar made the Roman empire strong by strengthening the family through decency laws!!!
Learn things ... search answers ... and give some thought ... to your opinions and your way of life (a 5 second opinion is worth just that much)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try thinking of others for once
Quote FACT not OPINION. The bible is not the instrument I want informing public debate. It was written by men and intrepreted by men -- and is as much a tool of governance by supposed supernatural authority as anything else.
Family friendly = you wanting someone else to raise your children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Try thinking of others for once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try thinking of others for once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who find other types of material offensive do not have official recourse to complain to the FCC.
Also, some guy filed a FOIA request for indecency complaints after the Superbowl incident, IIRC, and found that not only were there only three discrete complaint letters submitted to the FCC over the incident, but also found that many of them were counted multiple times. So even if you count every instance of a forwarded form letter as a complaint, the number was still grossly overinflated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOR THE RECORD:
---"Be better parents and control your kids"... Good parenting doesn't involve the micro managing of children. It involves creating and nuturing a positive enviroment for children to grow in as well as teaching them right from wrong. That is exactly what parents are doing by complaining and standing up for their rights to complain. The fact that they use form letters is irrelevant. The complaint is the same. They are good time mangers and are trying to raise their children in accordance to their beleifs.
---No one is burning books. No one is going to jail. George Bush does not run the FCC. Stop citing the argument that getting violence and sex off tv will somehow lead to political oppression, the "slippery slope" is a well known fallacy.
---No one is going to show a 4yr old having sex on tv because the act is illegal and videotaping it is proof of guilt. Even if you fake it, most people would not want to witness it and find it in bad taste.
---Dorphus, keep up the good work. This is a lively thread started by your inflammatory comments. I haven't had this much fun since the last time you posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Look At Indecency Complaints To The FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I applaud
However, we live in the world of cable and satellite, wherein specialty networks appealing to the thinnest and strangest elements of society seem to find purchase, it is possible that some networks might not have the morality that prohibits showing child pornography. And, as I said I understand that it's illegal to produce it and the makers would be liable for appropriate punishment, but should it permitted to be shown? The couple of posts are along the lines of "the market won't allow it to be shown" however, the same could be said for "Adult Swim" on the cartoon network, or the Playboy Channel, etc 40 years ago.
So, the question remains, should child pornography be censored from any/every broadcast?
If yes, does that mean any/every illegal act should be censored from broadcast?
Thus begins the slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Specialty networks
Now that those falacies have been addressed either the FCC needs to publish clear guidelines (censorship) or stop trying to be a moral regulator. This is the only way to prevent the chilling effect of forcing broadcasters to guess what will be acceptable or not. Keep in mind that stations will try to distinguish themselves and project a specific image to make themselves attractive to an audience and to advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we have laws stating that it is illegal to have sex with a child. we also have laws that state it's illegal to kill someone. however if you watch law and order, or csi, or any action show, you will see someone get murdered. well, should they be arrested for "killing" another person. or do i sound like an idiot because i didn't realize that's just a Fictional tv show.
the same can be said about the child sex show. just because the "tv shows" it, doesn't mean it actually happened. think about it. anime porn has some underage sex in it, and yet there is no laws being broken (but i'm sure japan has sex laws as well) but we all know that it is just a show. and that's it.
to the bible naked adam and eve:
the last time i read the bible, god created adam and eve in his image, and they were naked. this is shown by the fact when adam ate from the tree of knowlede, he realized he was naked and hid when got came to talk to him. he was embarased and whished to be clothed. so obviously, a&e were naked, and by disobeying god, they realized they needed to be clothed. so we are to be naked.
to the minority issue:
100k is a minority. 1million is a minority, 100 million is still a minority here (our pop is about 300 mill, right? unless my math is off..) the whole "people who didn't send in" argument is flawed. we have a solid statistic of what people did. the question, is of what percentage is that? there is no hard evidence to say that sampling is xx%, so we must take that statistic at face value, and by that, 100k is a minority.
and to the rest of you:
what is offensive to one may be pleasurable to another. so this issue will be debated for ages, only because we are argumentitive and greedy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to file a complaint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want to file a complaint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are the one creating phantom enemies.
--The GOP has been around for hundreds of years and it hasn't ruined the country yet.
--The country was founded by religous nutbags, you are ruining their country.
-- Fox is a news channel (assuming that you are citing the Democratic propaganda) and you are naive to beleive that somehow Fox news is more biased than any other news source simply because it isn't biased in your favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-FCC regulated broadcasts (cable, etc) are free to distribute and censor as they see fit.
#56's dismissal of broadcasting the 4yo scenario due to aiding and abetting clauses is wrong. Therefore, the arguement still stands. If I'm a billionaire industrialist and get my rocks off broadcasting that kind of trash, should I be permitted to do so on my own cable network?
Instructing the FCC to simply publish clear guidelines is a no-starter. Guidelines issued today might be trumped by the actions of another network tomorrow. It's like everyone complaining about congress not keeping up with technology in terms of law-making. The laws are deliberately vague in order to allow flexibility in the absence of action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More specifically.....who should be held accountable when the FCC enforces the vague laws? The networks? The offensive show/actor/producer? The streaking sports spectator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about all the beer commercials with bikinni girls? what about the adds for erection pills and the sexual suggestive nature of them?
godaddy.com commercial?
remember the underware bowl, or whatever it was a few eyars back?
all sexual. hell, it was almost REQUIRED that you see nudity after all the sexual suggestion.
so, i don't see how the superbowl is a "family" event when the commercials talk about sex and alcohol. and remember, quite a few, if not the majority, of people watch the superbowl JUST FOR THE COMMERCIALS.
so....there to janet's nip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obviously there are enough people for the stations to keep producing them. if "families" don't want to wath these shows, why do they have high ratings?
if the need for family programing is in such high demand, why isn't ABC's family station a huge seller? we don't hear about the ratings for shows on there.
so, i guess sex sells. and i'm sure those people claiming that they don't want "sex smut" shoved down our throats on tv, will sit and watch desperate housewives or what not w/o batting an eyelash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't want to watch that stuff so I don't watch TV.
Period.
But then I guess I'm one of the few who don't.
I gave it up because there was too much that was against my personal moral beliefs, and I saw what it was doing to my daughter. And don't spout that crap about being a real parent and controlling what my daughter watches.
1) I am a single parent
2) I have to work for a living so I am gone most of the day and can not guard the TV
3) I can not afford a new TV with V-Chip or parental controls
So my only option was to cut it out completely since I can not trust what the broadcasters chose to offer us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Society vs. anarchy
We exist in a society that is quickly becoming schitzophrenic, in that many want there to be no rules or limits, but yet have a reasonable society in which to live.
No limits equals anarchy.
The two can not co-exist.
For those who wish to have no rules or no limits, you are expecting the rest of society to absorb the conflict, friction, and consequences your desire produces. You can not have your cake and eat it too.
One does not have to be a religious "nutbag" in order to appreciate that for our society to remain intact, that some level of responsible, moral, ethical limits must exist.
If you think that our society can survive a successful no limits, no responsibility agenda, think again.
With freedom comes responsibility.
You were granted freedom, now be responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wayback machine..
really? do ya got that new-fangled Color Tv? remote Control? cable input on the back, counts up to at least 90-odd channels without needing a special box? odds are that it has some form of parental control/TV rating limiter/LOCK. and you never even read that on the box on in the manual when ya got it home.
dont blame TV. blame yourself. dont want the kids seeing evil scary things? cut that Cable/Satelite bill And insure that your children are only watching FCC approved mind-deadening content.
(and in a few months of savings, you will have saved enough for a new tv, with a manual your going to read this time!)
you can control what your kids see, to a degree..
but more importantly, you should be controlling how they see the world! (in a positive way) Talk to them every now and then. about morals, about what you feel is wrong and right. about People, and what they do. about how war is a terrible thing. the old birds and the bees talk. encourage Not watching Tv. watch it Together, Talk about the things you see in an inteligent manner!
form-letter writers are zombies, under the beck and call of small minded, Nasty hearted people who feel thay need, no, Deserve the power to control what you see. and do. and think. and feel.
and the FCC has No place censoring Tv. knee-jerk responses to "concerned citizen groups" is putting control the wrong places, while avoiding any Real progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
War a TERRIBLE thing?
War is not a terrible thing when it is done to remove a tyrant for killing tens of thousands of people that disagree with that tyrant.
War is not a terrible thing when you are removing an "elected president" that to make sure he stays in office by having anyone who runs against him killed.
War is not a terrible thing when you are fighting against countries that support terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Desparate Networks I mean Housewives
What you fail to point out is the fact that the show on ABC directly before DH is higher rated and has ZERO sexual content. Extreme Makeover Home Edition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
collect the names and home addresses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]