Fox Simply Refuses To Pay Indecency Fine
from the or-there's-that-option... dept
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.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
wooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wooo
The founding fathers would be so proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say throw the book at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Your kids watch too much TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 ]
tyranny of the masses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full Nudal Frontity?
I think you mean full frontal nudity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
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 ]
Re: Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Matt you better watch it, we are on to you
Rest assured. The FCC has indeed been screwing everyone of us for a LONG time now..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a problem here
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 ]
Re: I see a problem here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 ]
FOX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheering for Fox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soapboxes vs. Airwaves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush Toady vs. Bush Ally
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 ]
Scaring and Scarring.
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 ]
Re: Scaring and Scarring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
Your reply is uninformative, and illogical.
Try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
btw - adoption is an option and traditional methods escape you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
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 ]
Re: Re: Scaring and Scarring.
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 ]
Re: Scaring and Scarring.
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 ]
Dont feel bad for supporting fox......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bare bottoms... are they "obscene"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bare bottoms... are they "obscene"
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 ]
Grandma's point of view.
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 ]
Bleh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different times
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 ]
Re: Different times
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
am I the only one who noticed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aww
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some points
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 ]
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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]