Will The Patriot Act Cost Google Business?

Fox Simply Refuses To Pay Indecency Fine

from the or-there's-that-option... dept

Tue, Mar 25th 2008 6:24am — Mike Masnick

With the Supreme Court already agreeing to review how the FCC determines indecency in a case involving Fox, it appears that Fox has taken a rather aggressive stance concerning a different case where it was fined: it's simply refusing to pay the fine. The FCC originally fined Fox $1.2 million for an episode of "Married by America" that apparently included clips of a stripper with the "naughty bits" pixelated out. After Fox appealed, the fine was reduced to $91,000, covering just the affiliates where complaints were lodged (which seems pretty weak, since reports have shown that indecency complaints are usually sent in by those who didn't even see the show in question, but were alerted to it by lobbying groups that are pushing for more regulation of TV content). Either way, Fox has simply decided not to pay the $91,000, while also asking the FCC to rethink the fine. Somehow, given Kevin Martin's focus on indecency issues, one doubts he'll play along with this. Perhaps Fox is just hoping that it can stall long enough for a new FCC commish to come into power.

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, fines, indecency
Companies: fcc, fox

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Matt, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:36am

wooo
About time that someone started to push for free speech, surprising its such a wacky network but it's a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- not on my tv, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:51am
  
  Re: wooo
  It's a sad commentary on our culture that we equate Fox's prime time airing of a stripper (pixelated or not) with speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
  
  The founding fathers would be so proud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:45am

I'm sure the FCC has regulations covering this type of situation... I don't know if they get their license revoked or if the fines just go up or something.

I say throw the book at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:45am

AMEN, 1 FOX FCC 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:47am

I say use rating and show the whole Monty! Since cable is the same as airwaves, this whole censoring crap is just that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:51am

Even if 75,000 people logged a complaint thats only 0.00025 percent of the US population. Good thing such a miniscule amount is resposibile for such a huge unnecessary burden to the rest of us. However, thats always been the case; so, really why am I complaining?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  Yes but your "statistic" doesn't take into account those incapable of making a mature decision, those who don't even have a TV and therefore are unlikely to care and those who simply cannot view TV. So you're probably looking a high percentage.
  
  I think that censorship is a bad idea, but I think that North America should use the watershed system that UK uses (or used?, it's been ten years since I emmigrated!)
  
  I'm sick of having to check the previews at 5pm for gory/scary/raunchy content when my kids are watching perfectly harmless shows. Before anyone goes off on a "that's the parent's responsibility", I agree. I don't let me kids watch certain shows or channels but when you're getting ads for Las Vegas (tits, coke and fist fights) in the middle of 'Reba', it makes it very hard to regulate.
  
  So - put in place a system where anything goes, after 9pm. By then most children under the age you'd care about should be tucked up in bed, or you know that now you really have to start paying attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - EVIL_BASTARD, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:16am
    
    Your kids watch too much TV
    If it's that much of a burden for you to check out everything they watch. Monitor it yourself and leave the rest of us alone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes but your "statistic" doesn't take into account those incapable of making a mature decision, those who don't even have a TV and therefore are unlikely to care and those who simply cannot view TV. So you're probably looking a high percentage.
    
    This is america, if you dont own a TV, we dont care to consider you even exist, therefore we dont even consider you as part of the equation, thus no influence is had upon the resulting outcome.
    
    The point is no matter how well you calculate the actual percentage of complaints, it will never equate to anything more than 1/1000th (0.001) of the people, and to take special exception to this tiny proportion of the whole is a waste of time, resources, and money.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MIchael, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    So... since your to lazy to watch your own children, everyone should suffer? The answer for people like you is simple. Turn off the television. I have four children, and work full time and I never have a problem making sure they aren't watching violent shows, its easy to do its called a password. When I lock out all but the childrens channels they don't see anything they shouldn't. If there is something they want to watch on another channel, they come to me and ask... its called parenting, and you can't make the tv do it for you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - R. H., 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He's not complaining about watching his own children, he's talking about the fact that even during shows that he allows his children to watch there are sometimes commercials for shows that he doesn't let them watch. I've seen things like that too. Sometimes I think that some of the commercials need to be rated too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Haywood, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "its called a password"
      Your kids aren't very creative then. My kids would have hooked up a portable TV with no V chip and watched anyhow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- EVIL_BASTARD, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:12am
  
  tyranny of the masses
  This is a great example, all the Flandererers out there getting all upset and wasting our money on things most of us are smart enough to deal with ourselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liquid, 25 Mar 2008 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Remember that episode of family guy. When the FCC sees at least one person complain about something offensive on TV that one person is equal to 1 million people.
  
  I say fuck the conservatives that think nudity is wrong. What we should be getting rid of is violence in the media just like over in the UK and all of Europe. Just replace that with some good old fashion nudity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:53am

I see full nudal frontity on Nat. Geo. all the time. What's the big deal???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PhilxBefore, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Full Nudal Frontity?
  lmao, thats a spoonerism if I've ever heard one.
  
  I think you mean full frontal nudity!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FCC Itself, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:55am

Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
On a serious note though, WTFuck is up with censorship? I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but the FCC didn't "pork" anyone's mom, so why should they assume the parenting role? Most TV's, if not every single last one of them now-a-days, come with technology to block channels, or even just block programs with TV ratings higher than a set level, example: block all programs with TV-14 and higher, or block Comedy Central... period.

Why let people in suits say "NO! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!", or "HEY! BOOBIES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A TV SHOW!".

Censorship is a load of bull. Think about it, if you want to put some "breasts", or some other "innappropriate" content in your show, be prepared to get a higher rating. Let the parents do what they SHOULD be doing, that being parenting.

|Random|

PS - Way to go fox, you are my hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Parent, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
  Exactly how many children are you the parent of?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PhilxBefore, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
  "but the FCC didn't "pork" anyone's mom.."
  
  Rest assured. The FCC has indeed been screwing everyone of us for a LONG time now..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolf, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:07am

I doubt that a network, who has it's collective tongue up the administrations' ass, will suffer very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ReallyEvilCanine, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:09am

I see a problem here
Perhaps Fox is just hoping that it can stall long enough for a new FCC commish to come into power.
Something which would only happen if a government change Fox clearly don't want occurs. Cake: having and eating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gunnar, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:18am
  
  Re: I see a problem here
  Murdoch likes whoever will make him the most money. His news station made a ton of money bashing dems when republicans held the executive and legislative branches. Dems in power = more people watching Bill O'Reilly and his clones whine about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:19am

FOX .. what a joke channel. So what if they show boobs? No one in the right mind should even be watching that channel. Bush for president!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, Fox is almost as big of a joke as this very blog.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh sage of all knoweldge, please create your very own blog; so us mere troglodites confined to our burrows of iggnorance can digest more than the scraps of intellectual refuse tossed to the wayside by such revered individuals as yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bubba, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      |Burp| ... yeah, what he said.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never know, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:24am

Yes there is regulations covering this issue and yes there is a medium where this type of entertainment can be legally shown, It’s called Cable TV!. With cable there is some kind of control available to the end user. With broadcast TV there is no control, other than that of the network. And we all know how the competition to see just how far they can bend the rules before some one breaks. I wonder how Fox will hold together without a broadcast licance….
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:39am

I see full nudal frontity on Nat. Geo. all the time. What's the big deal???

Aside from the fact that Nat Geo is a cable channel, and thus not under the FCC's mandate, there's a bit of a difference between uhh, privative, for lack of a better word, people in their natural environment and dress, and a stripper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 25 Mar 2008 @ 8:54am

FOX
I think its funny that the US gets all up in arms about breasts (never hurt anyone in the history of man) but its fine to let douchebags like O'Reilly pretend to be journalists... they should pixelate that jerk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:01am

Huh?
I see people murdered on TV every night in the most gruesome ways imaginable. These CSI type shows are out of control, but I can't see a boob?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dick O'Reily, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: Huh?
  No, you can still see a boob, just turn on the fox news nutwork. Even though he's sexually harassed his co-workers, boobs like O'Reily are still on the air.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DCX2, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:01am

Cheering for Fox?
I think hell has officially frozen over; I'm rooting for the Evil News Network...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Zawislak, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:09am

Soapboxes vs. Airwaves
In the US we have the right to free speech from birth, additionally and prohibited by actions of the goverments in the 1st amendment (see enumerated powers). A soapbox speech uses waves in air and has been recognized to be mostly free from regulation, but needs no special devices to receive the sounds. However, in a medium requiring boxes to receive and convert the signals, the FCC seeks to regulate. All the person who might be offended has to do is not watch. There is no right to be entertained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
conspiracy theorist, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:10am

Bush Toady vs. Bush Ally
The Toady will lose.
Fox is the voice of the Neocons. I'm guessing they know that and so they are calling Martin's bluff, because all Fox has to do is pick up the phone to Cheney and the fine will disappear....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Joe, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:26am

Scaring and Scarring.
I've asked before, and never got a response, so I'll ask again:

What happens to a child once they see a naked part of the human body? Mental Scarring? Insta-rapist? I'm just not getting it. (I am not a parent, however, so I'm just speaking as a person with a question.)

That's not even taking into account watching gun battles and/or stabbings on Law and Order and/or the local nightly news. Violence doesn't warp in this country, but nudity and sex does?

It seems to me, again-- not a parent, that either your child is too young to understand what is going on-- rendering the nudity harmless or, in the case where they *do* have some idea what is going on, should immediately be educated to prevent uninformed mistakes. (As opposed to informed mistakes, which will undoubtedly happen in any event short of locking the child in his/her room until they die of old age.)

I'm rambling. Sorry. I'm seriously seeking an answer though. Preferably from a parent who chooses to isolate versus educate.

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Parent, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Scaring and Scarring.
  Become a parent and you will answer you own question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The infamous Joe, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
    Does that include parents in countries that are far more liberal with nudity-- because, it seems like kicking out a baby has different side effects depending on location.
    
    Your reply is uninformative, and illogical.
    
    Try again?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Parent, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
      Your constant question of "What is the meaning of life?" can only be answered by you and you alone. No amount of informative and logical answers will give you even the slightist morsel of a clue as to the answer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The infamous Joe, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
        Ah, I get it, you're a troll.
        
        Nowhere did I ask the meaning of life-- I asked what happens to a child when exposed to nudity that makes so many parents want the government to prevent it from happening for them.
        
        Keep trying, though. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Parent, 25 Mar 2008 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
        And I answered your question. Become a parent and answer the question for yourself.
        
        btw - adoption is an option and traditional methods escape you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCX2, 25 Mar 2008 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
        A parent can no more tell you what happens to their child when they see nudity than anyone else can. Being a parent does not give you special psychic powers to understand what's going on in your child's brain.
        
        And if neither a parent, nor an individual, can tell you what happens when a child views nudity, then why is the government trying to do so? Your response seems to indicate that parents should do the parenting, using tools like e.g. the V-chip.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:54am
    
    Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
    Well, if you have taught your children to not be ashamed about their body, that babies come from vaginas, or use words like penis and vagina, then nothing will happen.
    
    If you are one of those parents who tells their children that a stork brought them, make up words for penis and vagina, or tell them to be ashamed of their body, well, then something will happen.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nasch, 26 Mar 2008 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: Scaring and Scarring.
  I can only speak for myself, but I'm not worried about my kids seeing nudity on TV. Sex I would be more concerned about - call me backwards but I just don't think a 7-year-old needs to know the details. I'm much more concerned about violence, and I watch shows I'm not sure about first to make sure it's OK. Sometimes it is, and sometimes I have to say no.
  
  The only time I would have a problem with a show is if suddenly foul language or sex or violence just came on screen as a surprise, and I don't recall that ever happening. Well, sometimes language I'm not totally comfortable with, but if it happens more than once or maybe twice in a show that my kids are watching, I assume it's going to happen again and switch to something else. Generally though, you can tell pretty quickly what kind of a show it's going to be, and shut it off if it's something not appropriate for your children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mactabalis, 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:30am

Dont feel bad for supporting fox......
....on this issue, Fox is playing both sides remember? Fox news vs Fox network, O'riely vs Family guy, im sure this is the family guy side of Fox, gaining votes from all the young dems, then O'riely will bash fox for its immoralness and gain the votes of all the old Repubs, then both sides will tell us to buy fish sticks, and Rupert will walk away counting his money from both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward (who actually is named that lol), 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:33am

bare bottoms... are they "obscene"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward (who actually is named that lol), 25 Mar 2008 @ 9:42am

bare bottoms... are they "obscene"
oops... hit enter instead of tab...

Anyway, think about, NYPD blue, which by no means is considered a show for children or youngins, was fined for showing an absolutely bare buttocks from the rear, no underwear, g-string, nothing. My question to you folks is:

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE NAKED BABY ASSES IN THE DIAPER COMMERCIALS??

Are they not fined because it is only a baby, or is it because diapers aren't provacative? Why not just show a bunch of the victoria's secret models naked, I mean, come on, bras aren't necessarily provacative, they are support for women, some of which need it, emphasising on the NEED part. Why would that be frowned upon? hmm?

FCC = GHEY

|Random|

PS - they do make good jokes though (referring to the episode of family guy where they try to sensor real life, including peters chin, which looks like a pair of nuts.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cphilo, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:24am

Grandma's point of view.
When my kids were little, I censored for violence, not nudity. I figured that when they grew up, that sex with their partner would probably be a normal part of life, by murder and violence would not be. It worked out. They are now in their 30s, happily married.
What gets me about this story is the fact that FOX refused to pay the fine. Have we become a nation where lawlessness is the norm? That, to misquote Leona Helmsley "Only the little people pay taxes or obey laws?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KC, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:45am

Bleh
If your kids are watching that crap (reality show like Married by America) already, then I guess it's ok for them to see "naughty bits".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CVPunk, 25 Mar 2008 @ 11:48am

I'd like to know if the complaints were from average people or, if it was just the normal bible-thumping, sex through a hole in a sheet fox viewers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro, 25 Mar 2008 @ 12:14pm

Different times
When I was a kid my friends and I used to do whatever we could to get a look at some boobies. If we got our hands on a Playboy, it was like gold. We'd stay up late watching scrambled pay stations for hours. Our parents' strategy was to HIDE swears and nudity from us and it wasn't so hard - we really had to go out of our way to find it (for all you kids out there, I don't think video tape existed until I was at least 10)

These days, adult content is everywhere. You can get it on your computer, you can get it on your TV - you can't even avoid it. How uncomfortable is it to be watching TV with your 9 year old when a commercial comes on talking about sex and 4 hour erections?

Knowing that we live in a different time, I employ a different strategy. I don't try to hide anything from them. In fact, they've been looking at Kate Winslett nude for a long time from the Titanic movie. Fact is, they don't obsess over it because it's never been taboo. Instead of trying to hide swear words and the like, we instead try to teach them why they shouldn't use them.

Let's face it, by the time your kids can read and write, if they want to see boobies, they're going to see boobies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CVPunk, 25 Mar 2008 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Different times
  how dare you, sir. how dare you. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn, 25 Mar 2008 @ 12:52pm

am I the only one who noticed...
but the parentesis in that article were never closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 25 Mar 2008 @ 2:39pm

aww
damnit, i didn't want it to be fox

:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 25 Mar 2008 @ 2:53pm

Some points
With broadcast TV there is no control, other than that of the network.

Poster #13 is absolutely right. Since the mid 1980's, TV's have shipped with no controls to turn the channel or to be turned off. Once you put the TV on FOX, it's stuck there permanently and you, your kids, your grandkids, and everyone you know will be forced (at gunpoint no less!) to watch the show. Since people are unable to turn the TV off (or even turn the channel), the only thing they can do is complain to the government.

I may be showing my age, but I remember the good old days when people simply turned the TV off when they saw a show they didn't want to watch.

On a another point, why are people complaining about a naked boobie on a show like "Who wanted to marry my millionaire bachelor dad"? Shouldn't they be complaining about yet another trash TV show? Why do we even need another "series" like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 25 Mar 2008 @ 7:21pm

Parents: What's going on here???

Female Guest: Little Bobby was spying on me while I was changing my clothes.

Parents: You little brat! You won't sit down for a week!

Female Guest: No, it's ok, I wasn't offended. Being curious about the human body is normal, so I let Bobby look at me.

Parents: Oh my god! What have you done to our son, you filthy pervert!!! Stay right there while we call the police! Are you ok Bobby? We'll get you into therapy first thing tommorow morning so you can start healing the damage that she's done to you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2008 @ 5:30am

showing a baby naked!?!?!? - Should be charged with child-pron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]