How Kevin Martin Got Over A Million People To Look At A Woman's Naked Buttocks
from the indecent? dept
Since taking over the FCC, Kevin Martin has supposedly been against regulations -- except in two areas: the cable industry and "indecency." He's been a strong proponent of cracking down on whatever he considers indecent programming, and much of his support for a la carte cable is based on how it might block indecent content. The latest crackdown on indecency has a number of people shaking their heads. It involves fining ABC affiliates $1.43 million for a brief clip of the TV show "NYPD Blue," that aired in February of 2003, and included images of a naked woman from behind. Of course, if Martin really was trying to protect people from viewing such indecent content, perhaps he shouldn't have issued this fine. After all, it was shown on TV nearly five years ago. By now, most people would have forgotten about it... unless, of course, the FCC were to bring the clip back into the news, getting someone to put it on YouTube, and driving well over a million viewers to watch the video since the fine was announced.
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
Filed Under: fcc, indecent, nudity, streisand effect
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slut
I am a Christian and I stand up for what I believe in. This is nothing but sick stuff. This was nothing but what they call "light" porn. It had no need to be in the show. The ONLY reason it was there was for sex appeal. PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Nudity/sex is meant for private marriage not on tv. It was ONLY on tv for sexual arousal of the people. Junk....That was the worst dirtiest show on tv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
Christians' have committed more Atrocities, Murder, Torture, and genocide than any other organization in the history of the world.
A search for Christian Atrocities on google returns over 3 Million results just like the following page.
http://dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm
You support Murder, and Torture but you are against 10 seconds of nudity ?
Get your priorities strait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Lets get something straight.If someone who calls themselves a Christian and then goes against what the Bible says then I do not support what they do nor does God. Read the Bible my friend and you will see what some of these people who call themselves Christians are not doing what God says to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
Yes, like stoning homosexuals (Lev 20:13), all christians should do it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
Furthermore, it’s just as unfair for you to assume the woman is a slut for filming a nude scene as it for me to assume you are a fat, pious, bull-dyke simply because you’re offended by said scene.
This is the USA, Zoni. We believe in individual freedom, including the right to make up our own minds about what we watch on TV. Censor what's on TV in your own living room. But, stay the F*CK out of mine!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Results to cussing and it does nothing but make him look like he failed language class.
You may not know this but cussing does not explain very well how a person feels. Its a shallow form of conversation. There are much better words to describe something.
What right do you have to make sure your kids do not put their fingers in the socket or play in the road? Its there free will remember why should you be able to take away their freedoms?
The simple answer is for your protection. This stuff is just dirty and should not be shown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
Also the "attracting more flies with honey than vinegar" quote fits here. If you want to attract more people to Christianity then you probably want to tell the about what you believe is wrong with their lifestyle without coming across as 'holier-than-thou'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
It's people like you that DON'T need to be watching TV -- or deciding what should or shouldn't be on it. And judging by your comments here, if you had it your way, TV as we know it wouldn't even exist -- and neither would films, videogames, or books (outside of the Bible, of course; I mean, after all, there's NOTHING potentially offensive about a book filled with stories that describe incest, genocide, murder, adultery, slavery, bigotry, nudity, and hatred of various different varieties...no, NOTHING AT ALL).
You want to make the world a better place? Then follow these three simple suggestions as they pertain to good moral values: Raise your kids with some, stay true to your own, and QUIT WORRYING ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE'S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Dude what I do in PRIVATE is one thing this was in public.
Get the idea?
Taking a shower does not make you a slut but getting naked on tv or in public makes you slutty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
You don't like naked women? Fine. You don't like naked women on TV? Fine, too. You want to deprive everyone the opportunity to see a naked woman? NO. You may think the female form is sinful and evil and all that other signs-of-being-brainwashed crap, but I happen to think the human form (male or female) is a beautiful thing that no one should be ashamed of. As far as the broadcast networks go...well, as long as the show airs after the main primetime hours (in other words, starting at 10PM EST) and they make sure to advertise that the show's not for minors/rated TV-MA, I don't see WHY a little nudity shouldn't be acceptable.
By the way, um...ever hear that phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself"? Yeah, you're judging the woman who got naked as a slut...and I would find the irony delicious is that woman was, herself, a Christian (like you claim to be, despite the very un-Christian leanings you've been showing off in your posts -- I thought Christians were supposed to be about forgiveness, redemption, understanding, and love, not judging people to be sluts and demanding they control what everyone should be able to see, think, say, or do on television).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
Such as John 8:2-11 (King Jame Version)?
You, know . . . the part where Christ says, about the woman caught in adultery, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Do you understand that He was saying mind your own business, pay attention to your own sins before making a public noise about what you think are the sins of others, have compassion, forgiveness, judge not, etc. ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
What did you just do? Was that judging? Yes, it was. Hmmmm.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slut
P.S. Judge away, this was a comment meant for judging...
judge...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
You have to stand up for the problems in the world. You cant let sin run wild and just not care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Naah. Wrong person. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
Another reason to adore Gene Simmons, even when he got kicked off of celebrity apprentice. He's my new hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut
In private but not in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
If a buttock upsets your delicate sensibilities, don't read the bible too closely. You'll be shocked at some of the stuff that's in there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut by AZ on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:33pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slut by AZ on Jan 28th, 2008 @ 8:33pm
Everyone has free will to make these choices bad or good but if they are bad we can warn them of what they do wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and your point ... (was slut)
But I digress ... I may or may not have seen the show when it aired, but I would not have noticed someone's butt as being exceptionally noteworthy. By levying the fine it has become newsworthy and the clip is played - out of context - ad nauseum ... So ask yourself who did the devil the bigger favour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
--
Does the 2nd amendment apply to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
Yeah, very, very sad that fundamentalist christians hellbent on censorship have any right to speak of porn at all. How about checking out that "holy" bible of yours before throwing your stones. Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible, that book you guys fear so much despite having never read it, doesn't have 1% the sex and violence of your so-called holy book and yet you are worried about a little nudity.
Or, you're just a clever troll. Same thing basically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
Supposedly, he is technically inclined, yet he doesn't have the ability to think "freely". AZ (assuming it is a he) is far too quick to condemn those who do not agree with the exact same things as he does, and doesn't understand that nudity, sex and love are not sick, but instead a beautiful thing, even in a scientific way.
At the risk of just ruining the junk I just wrote, want to bet he screams "Oh God" at the apropriate moments?
At any rate, like most of the other "free thinking" and technically inclined here, if you don't choose to see the nudity, change the channel, as I do when Pat Robertson's face is on my screen. We can't all agree on everything, and condemning me for looking at a fine piece of ass is the same as my condeming you for reading a different version of the bible. Besides, who died and made you God?
We have gone too far away from the ability to make choices for ourselves and have a society that looks to people like AZ to make choices for us. There are huge groups of people who meet in huge buildings every Sunday to have someone like AZ to tell them what is right and what is wrong. AZ, you are just one more of the sheep, and my friend, you are being lead to the slaughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slut
I'm a christian too, and I can discern between natural beauty and sex. Why can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: slut
Either way, enforcing your religious standards on others seems very un-American to me. If we went by the strictest religious standards, she should be wearing a burka or be stoned to death. I prefer the "change the channel if you don't want to see it" method. Also, why hide God's beautiful creations (unless those are fake boobs)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AZ Slut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's a legal thing!" she says. "We need to fight this injustice!"
When will we wake up and realize it's all a political dance to win the hearts and minds of our "better half"?
Men, take care of your women. They need protection from this evil Hillary.
Read the history books, you'll learn that many empires were built on vices, but I'm not saying that vices are bad, because they are. But if you take a few sociology courses from Philip Zimbardo, you'll come to realize that man needs an outlet from woman. Blogs will soon be illegal thanks to Bull Dozer. What's next? Will paint ball is too dangerous?
If you want a better frame of reference, consider "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a hint...if what's on TV offends you so much, turn it off. There's no legal requirement that people have to watch 20 hours of TV a week. If the choice is between taking your 8 year old to a rated R movie and not going to the movies at all, do you take your kid to the rated R movie? No. But if you're such a screwed up parent that you couldn't even figure that much out without someone telling you then I have no hope for your children. They're already doomed by your stupidity.
Still, in case you haven't noticed the entertainment market is CRAWLING with "clean, decent programming" aimed at families and children. There's the Disney Channel, the Family Channel, Nickelodeon, any number of religious-affiliated channels that not only DON'T show nudity, but will help you brainwash your children too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who let's their kids stay up that late and watch an adult drama that features shooting and grizzly situations..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who let's their kids stay up that late and watch an adult drama that features shooting and grizzly situations..?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
geez lou'weez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone remember that other shower scene with the old cop and his wife? Can't remember if you saw both their asses in that scene or not.
Anyways, thanks AZ for reminding us that the loudest Christians are hypocritical bigots. If I had to take a breath for every time I get reminded, I'd be hyperventilating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After she moves to the shower, the problem there for me is that they panned the camera down - simply not needed at all.
The frontal shot with her covering herself is also a bit too graphic, but it might have squeezed by if the show carried one of those "the following show contains... mature audiences..." disclaimer that they issue at times.
Overall, I would have reprimanded them as well - the thing should never have made it on air in its current state.
I'm not an opponent to nudity if done tastefully or artfully. This was neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more learned, appropriate approach would be to point out his error, and kindly remind him that his views to not reflect the teachings of Jesus, not to attack him or his character, as you know nothing of him/her. This is how heated religious debates get nowhere.
I do not condone this type of action by the FCC or by the shows creaters. I think it is just gratuitous, designed only to get views. And I think its sad becuase is shows how our culture and values have devolved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Impartial Wisdon
As Haelian mentioned earlier in this thread, sex is a natural part of life. In fact, every one of us in this discussion forum came into existence as a result of a sexual act sometime in the past (perhaps not by your parents but somewhere back in the lineage two people definitely got their groove on). All species (including human) have an innate, programmed desire to procreate. Procreation is necessary to perpetuate the species. If people stopped having sex, people would go extinct. Why then is perhaps the most natural human act considered shameful and something that must be confined to the most private and secluded portions of life?
Third, I will take on the "protect the children" argument. I have a sad but true fact about parenting to everyone out there with children and everyone considering children: you can't be with your kid 24/7/365 ever. Period. I will repeat that in case you did not hear me the first time: you cannot be with your kid every hour of every day of every year. At some time you have to work, you have to sleep, your kid will grow up. These are facts of life. Now, because you cannot be everywhere with your kid at every time, you also cannot control everything that the kid will be exposed to. And therein lies the rub. Since you cannot be everywhere with your child at all times, and therefore cannot control everything that your child will see, how then can you make sure that you have done your job as a responsible parent and ensure that your child will grow up "properly" with "good morals"? If you answered, "well, this is where we need decency and other laws to ensure that everything on TV is appropriate for all", you answered incorrectly since no governmental body can EVER speak for EVERY person under its jurisdiction and therefore what is labeled as "inappropriate" by the government standards body, may be deemed perfectly appropriate for the next door neighbors' children and therefore the government has just trampled their freedom so that Billy's mom can sleep at night knowing that Billy can't see bare bottoms or nasty Hollywood explosions. Instead of setting hard and fast rules of "appropriateness", parents should just try talking to their kids. The fact of the matter is that kids are eventually going to learn "the facts of life" including the "birds and the bees." Parents should then just talk to their children about these things in an open supportive manner rather than pushing them aside and out of view. But, I forgot, that actually requires work...
Finally, I want to once and for all quash the argument that the USA is somehow now (and was founded as) a "Christian nation". inside the two foundational documents of the United States (the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) there is not a single reference to the name Jesus Christ to explicitly to God even. The Declaration of Independence mentions a "Creator" and "Nature's God" but one cannot infer that Creator == God in the sense of the biblical omniscient and omnipotent God by these words alone since they are used in very generic context. In fact, if one reads through the entire text of the Constitution, one will not find so much as a mention of the word "God" or anything even resembling a reference. There are two places however that seem to clearly contradict the notion of "Christian nation" within the text of the Constitution:
In closing, since America is NOT a "Christian nation" by its own creation, why then should Christian morality be forced on its citizenry and constrain our available choices? If anything, we are founded on the ideal that every person is free to make their own choices for themselves and not to be told or limited in what those choices are. Even in the case of children, parents should trust that each child will make the best decision they can rather than control the menu of choices available to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impartial Wisdon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WOW
So as the story goes, we were naked until she was seduced by the snake. Then tempted man to eat from the tree of knowledge. Then we covered ourselves knowing our deeds. God asked why we covered ourselves, and he abolished us from the garden. Damn Snake! I think it's all covered in The Book of Genesis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once Said
Morality is a great thing but must develop naturally...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trollbait Simpletons
You fool.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trollbait Simpletons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trollbait Simpletons
I just found this immensely amusing. It's a textbook example of a zealous religious person jumping to conclusions about something they know absolutely nothing about :)
If you're really that Christian you should know that you're supposed to warn us mindless sheep when we're straying off The Path, but you have no right to ban our right to stray. That's what free will is all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AZ is a christian
so stop it now before she tells on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then why is it when someone supports the RIAA or MPAA or patent enforcement, they get jumped on, called a shill or worse?
Face it, you are for free speech as long as that speech fits your own personal agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're for the RIAA, MPAA, or whatever, I may not like your stance, but I'll let you get your opinion out in peace. Free Speech is built upon the idea that almost all speech (save for specific content, such as speech that incited violence) is protected and should not be oppressed/censored just because it's a viewpoint people don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, news for you AL
Know what else? Your daddy put the thing he pees with in your mommy's gloryhole. Many times. Honest. That's what he did.
Guess your mom's worse than a slut. And only God knows what your father is.
I know this is more than your mind can stand. You should sell your devil-spawn TV and computer and get thee to a nunnery so that you can spend the rest of your life doing pennance for the horrible sins committed by your mommy and your daddy. Google can help you find a place to go.
Best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How horrible.
/facepalm. Gotta love the Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News for you Al
So, you asked what his father was? I believe we'd call it his Uncle in Arkansas, his brother in Tennessee and he'd be his own Grandfather in Kentucky. Of course in Kansas, he'd just be created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few things
Second, we, as Americans need to grow up. Why is there such a big deal about nudity? Europeans have TV shows with nudity and some countries even have commercials with nudity!
My god, think of those European children who grow up seeing naked people on TV. They'll be scarred for life!
Third, doesn't this whole issue create a sense of "forbidden fruit". Any TV show with the hint of nudity (or even a "this show contains mature issues" warning) becomes a top-viewed show by people hoping to catch a glimpse of "something naughty".
We're not talking about porn, after all- this is tasteful nudity as part of the plot... just like shows such as The Sopranos, Weeds, The Tudors, etc.
Fourth, as some posters mentioned, why is it that some people get all upset about nude buttocks, yet erectile dysfunction drugs are advertised like crazy? Where's the outrage against these commercials?
Personally, if I was watching TV with my children, I would find it easier to explain why a woman was naked while taking a shower than to explain that Cialis is for men who want better sex. (You can argue all you want about how Cialis, Viagra, etc are drugs for ED, but based on how many times the commercials are run, ED seems like the biggest epidemic since polio.)
(As a side note: shame, shame on the Elvis Presley estate for allowing the use of "Viva Las Vegas" as the Viagra song, "Viva Viagra".)
And, of course, as is the usual argument for TV shows: if you don't like the show, turn it off. If enough people turn off a show, the network will see that no-one's watching and will take it off the air themselves.
Why do people complain to the government about shows they don't like (and why does the FCC listen)? Why do people feel the need to impose their morals on other people?
Personally, I thought The Sopranos had too much violence. Should I have complained to the FCC and gotten it off the air? Or should I have let it go so it could win numerous Emmys... just like NYPD Blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs Kevin Martin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]