Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: Anyone care about the latest resurrection?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: Anyone care about the latest resurrection?

    Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: Anyone care about the latest resurrection?

    More here:
    http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=ind...-Industry+NewsNews-3

  • #2
    Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: Anyone care about the latest resurrection?

    More here:
    http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=ind...-Industry+NewsNews-3

    Comment


    • #3
      not me..iv'e got sirius.....

      Comment


      • #4
        The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act screams one word to me: censorship. As a filmmaker, I think that this drastically limits what you can do on the air - and that limits creativity.

        I believe that we Americans need to relax, take a deep breath, and realize that what the FCC and Congress are doing punishes those of us with original ideas.

        Comment


        • #5
          quote:
          Originally posted by sw1sweendog:
          not me..iv'e got sirius.....


          The BDEA is only the attempted next step; the religious right aims to censor everything including satellite radio.

          Comment


          • #6
            The bill does not define what is indecent. Could be interesting how it is interpreted. Will simple nudity always be indecent?

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              Originally posted by Michjoe:
              The bill does not define what is indecent. Could be interesting how it is interpreted. Will simple nudity always be indecent?


              Simple nudity will never be indecent -- in the real world. In the world of the religious right and "decency" legislation, simple nudity will always be indecent.

              Comment


              • #8
                I am supportive of this,to a point.

                In terms of language, there has been a trend recently where obscene words (and variations thereof) have become common on television.
                This suggests to viewers that this is fine to use in everyday conversation. Its not.


                In terms of nudity-if the scene is a violent, attacking approach like the instance where Justin Timberlake grabs at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe"; then the Act should prohibit this and any such actions should carry heavy fines. (this would apply whether "Janet" was aware the event would happen or not.)
                Nudity shown on TV should not be an aggressive, violent event.

                However, if the nudity involved, is at the sole decision of the actor or actress-such as showing the relaxation and clothes-freedom benefits of being nude; then this could be shown on TV at anytime without chance of financial penalty.


                Okay, I am done with the rant, I will climb down off the soapbox,and get back to some work I should do this afternoon.

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:
                  Originally posted by Nu:
                  ...
                  In terms of nudity-if the scene is a violent, attacking approach like the instance where Justin Timberlake grabs at Janet Jackson's "wardrobe"; then the Act should prohibit this and any such actions should carry heavy fines. (this would apply whether "Janet" was aware the event would happen or not.)
                  Nudity shown on TV should not be an aggressive, violent event.

                  However, if the nudity involved, is at the sole decision of the actor or actress-such as showing the relaxation and clothes-freedom benefits of being nude; then this could be shown on TV at anytime without chance of financial penalty.

                  Okay, I am done with the rant, I will climb down off the soapbox,and get back to some work I should do this afternoon.


                  As it happens, I actually saw the Jackson-Timberlake duet for the first time on TV last night (on CBC's The Hour) where I think George S. was discussing the topic at hand. Though it is not my type of music, I would hardly have called it a violent act -- looked like he was basically reaching over and pulling off her breast covering.

                  Also, coincidentally I was going through old video tapes this morning and found a taping of the film Aida by the Swedish Opera which contains lots of topfree women (for historical accuracy) who, with their male counterparts, going through all sorts of violent experiences (though maintain their beautiful singing voices throughout). I guess Aida too would have to be defined as the sort of nudity you would want to see restricted.

                  Don't get me wrong. I think people should make intelligent choices about what they watch on TV. However, when one looks at censorship in the U.S. compared to Canada and Europe, it would appear that governments make very unintelligent decisions when it comes to censorship.

                  It might also be remembered that freedom of speech is the basis for democracy in the first place; this is not just a matter of what's good TV or not.

                  Ergo, the government should seek to minimize censorship legislation, not supersize it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are you speaking of U.S.Public Broadcast Television or including cable, and satellite services, and content you pay a premium to see?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I assume the current BDEA is only for Broadcast. Nonetheless, the interest groups behind it have made it clear, they want those rules applied to all delivery channels.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The same Government agency [FCC] is trying to figure how to tax and censor the WWW WORLD WIDE Web on each Email sent and multi-media content in general if wireless, microwave, WiFi, or Satellite, and any RF Radio Frequency transmission is involved in getting internet content to U.S. households, commercial business, and Government recipients.

                        Let them get a foot in the door and they will walk all over you without recourse!

                        .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Quote from above:
                          "In terms of language, there has been a trend recently where obscene words (and variations thereof) have become common on television.
                          This suggests to viewers that this is fine to use in everyday conversation. Its not."

                          This is the "monkey see, monkey do" argument, which can be used to censor almost anything anyone thinks is socially undesirable. I learned the four-letter words my first day of school at age five (in 1935). So-called "obscene language" is a matter of social custom, not morality. Why are the words '****' and '****', which are of Anglo-Saxon origin, "obscene," while their equivalents of Latin origin, 'defecate' and 'fornicate' are not?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Qoute from above:
                            "In terms of language, there has been a trend recently where obscene words (and variations thereof) have become common on television.
                            This suggests to viewers that this is fine to use in everyday conversation. Its not."

                            This reply is partly an experiment. First, the quote above makes the "monkey see, monkey do" argument, which could be used to censor anything anyone sees as immoral or undesirable. Therefore I don't think it is an acceptable argument.

                            Second, use or avoidance of so-called "obscene words" is a matter of manners or esthetics, not, in any sense, morality. With respect to the children argument, I'll point out that I learned the taboo four-letter words my first day of school at age five.

                            Third, the taboo on their use applies only to word of Anglo-Saxon origin. In an attempted post yesterday, I mentioned the Anglo-Saxon words together with their equivalents of Latin origin to illustrate the absurdity of the taboo. The post was rejected because of the inclusion of these words. Now I'll see if this post is accepted with the words 'defecate' and 'fornicate.'

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              quote:
                              Originally posted by NakedGary:
                              The same Government agency [FCC] is trying to figure how to tax and censor the WWW WORLD WIDE Web on each Email sent and multi-media content in general if wireless, microwave, WiFi, or Satellite, and any RF Radio Frequency transmission is involved in getting internet content to U.S. households, commercial business, and Government recipients.

                              Let them get a foot in the door and they will walk all over you without recourse!

                              .


                              Agreed. Moreover, the new proposals would like hit popular, but non-profit or low-profit sites very hard.The great thing about the Internet is it is very democratic and equal. And it should stay that way.

                              Here's a good commentary:
                              http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/new...net/index.html

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X