How The FCC Got Millions To See Charlotte Ross's Naked Behind... And Then Lost In Court
from the nice-work,-FCC dept
We had just discussed how two separate appeals courts were trying to determine whether or not the FCC's indecency fines over "fleeting nudity" on TV were legal. The case involving Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" is just beginning, but the other case, involving Charlotte Ross's bare behind being shown on NYPD Blue has now concluded with the (not surprising) decision to toss out the $1.43 million fine the FCC issued against ABC. This wasn't all that surprising, given that the courts had already struck down FCC fines over "fleeting expletives," and had suggested that fleeting nudity would fall under the same analysis. Even the FCC had admitted that under the ruling concerning "fleeting expletives," the NYPD Blue fine was probably a goner. It's still appealing the original ruling about fleeting expletives, however, so it's not over yet.Of course, the history of almost all of these cases all tracks back to the infamous Parents Television Council (PTC), the group that is famous for flooding the FCC with bogus "complaints" from its members who never actually saw the content in question, but were urged on by the PTC to send complaints. We recently had noted that PTC was coming under some serious scrutiny concerning some of its more questionable practices.
However, what we still found most amusing about this particular case is the fact that when Kevin Martin (who headed the FCC when the original fine was issued) decided to pursue this fine over Charlotte Ross's nudity, all it really did was drive a tremendous amount of interest in people seeing what the clip was about. In other words, in trying to fine ABC for "indecency," the PTC and Kevin Martin helped to publicize the video, which for a while was apparently the most popular video on YouTube. And now, not only did the PTC and Kevin Martin help millions of people learn about ways to see Charlotte Ross' bare behind, but the FCC got absolutely nothing for it, given this latest ruling.
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: charlotte ross, fcc, fines, first amendment, free speech, indecency, tv
Companies: fcc, parents television council, ptc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If the new Republican Congress really wants to make cuts they should get the government out of the job of morality cops. Of course that won't make some parts of the party happy, but it would be refreshing to see the party truly return to its small government ideology.
While they are at it they could stop DHS from being a wholly owned subsidiary of the MPAA. That would save money, protect democracy, get DHS back to doing what it is supposed to be doing, and poke a stick in Obama's eye all at the same time. That ought to appeal to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the checks from the corporations and lobbyists stop clearing, then they might changes their positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So there's an agency left in government (besides the military) that is looking for conservative votes? I don't think so. I think its more like the FCC is looking for ways to justify its expansion (the FCC was originally a very small part of the government) and that small sector of conservatives that did the letter campaign was a useful tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"If the new Republican Congress really wants to make cuts they should get the government out of the job of morality cops."
I wasn't referring to a government agency. I was referring the aforementioned Republican Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think that the FCC had to take the cases to their logical end to get a solid judgement to work from. No matter the outcome, it is important to have a final decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1076268/charlotte_ross_in_shower
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While on the surface, this may seem ironic, I don't think it really is. This situation isn't that the FCC didn't want anyone to see Charlotte Ross's ass, but ended up actually prompting millions more people to see her ass than would have. This would be ironic. But that's not what happened. The FCC didn't want anyone to see Charlotte Ross's ass on network television.
Now, to be clear, I couldn't care less about nudity, fleeting or otherwise, on network TV. I find it very strange that people freak out about their kid seeing a tit far more than someone getting shot on TV. But if you focus on just this particular situation, then I don't really see any irony here. It's about context. You can go to the beach wearing almost nothing and it's OK, but if you show up to your office in the same clothes, you'll be escorted out of the building. At least ostensibly, the FCC didn't care about whether or not a bunch of people saw a naked ass. They just had a problem with that ass being shown via a medium that doesn't traditionally show that kind of content. I don't know much about the PTC, but I get the sense that they don't want anyone to see an naked ass anywhere, but this isn't the official stance of the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you dig a bit, it's clear the PTC is a "Christian" organization--whose members are apparently too busy to take any responsibility for their child's education and find it easier to harass broadcasters than raise their child themselves...
But, yeah, no logic there. Tits are apparently bad--go figure.
(from their site:)My reponse, of course, would be "what the hell are you letting your kids watch? What's wrong with you? Have you tried turning off the TV? F@cking dolts..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like another commenter above, I find it more offensive to see someone killed than to see nudity. It's a common thing to see in some of the European countries on tv. Not sex shows but common flashes of nudity. That is after all real life. To make make believe that mommy and daddy had just enough sex drive to make Little Johnny and then it all disappeared is BS.
No wonder kids in the US have such psychological trauma growing up. First they find out Santa isn't real, then they find out that their parents have lied to them as well. Worse that the whole country is in on the lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's put it this way: if you have a child who is a boy and if he has, or knows ANYONE who has an older brother or an older friend, then your child knows ALL about sex.
Do you guys really have a problem with a display of violence? Violence is also part of reality. Is it that *you* can't tell the difference between what's real and imaginary, so you presume others have the same problem? Or is this just some sort of moralistic fascism? Because if you believe that violent imagery on television affects a person's psyche, then you'd have to agree that sexual imagery on TV would also affect a person's psyche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right, in one case ppl go out and start shooting other ppl, in the other case ppl go out and start f****g other ppl. Guess what's gonna have a more positive impact on society?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What About Dennis Franz's Ass?!
In fact, I think I'd appreciate some compensation for having *that* image burned into my mind for lo these many years. Maybe Tipper Gore can get on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What About Dennis Franz's Ass?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i wouldn't let my with our without these shows with our without the ass shots, if you dont like it, don't watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the new Republican Congress really wants to make cuts they should get the government out of the job of morality cops. Of course that won't make some parts of the party happy, but it would be refreshing to see the party truly return to its small government ideology.
While they are at it they could stop DHS from being a wholly owned subsidiary of the MPAA. That would save money, protect democracy, get DHS back to doing what it is supposed to be doing, and poke a stick in Obama's eye all at the same time. That ought to appeal to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]