Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • hm0504
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by John P:
    Can FCC rulings be challenged in court?

    I think that if the FCC attempts to levy a fine, the station or network has 3 options:

    1 Pay it.
    2 Pay it, and then sue the FCC to recover the money.
    3 Refuse to pay, and force the FCC to take them to court.

    I believe CBS has chosen option 3, and they still haven't paid the $500000 fine for the Janet Jackson incident.

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/02/125836.php


    Kudos to CBS, thanks for the update John.

    Leave a comment:


  • John P
    replied
    Can FCC rulings be challenged in court?

    I think that if the FCC attempts to levy a fine, the station or network has 3 options:

    1 Pay it.
    2 Pay it, and then sue the FCC to recover the money.
    3 Refuse to pay, and force the FCC to take them to court.

    I believe CBS has chosen option 3, and they still haven't paid the $500000 fine for the Janet Jackson incident.

    http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/06/02/125836.php

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    sw1sweendog:"how about letting the parents do thier job...not the screwed up, corrupt goverment...."

    Come on dog, that is too simple a solution. That and it seems that parents do not want that responsibility.

    I wonder if they get a lot of letters complimenting them about a certain nude scene, if that would make a difference? Getting 200 complaints vs. 300 compliments, which would they weigh more?

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • sw1sweendog
    replied
    how about letting the parents do thier job...not the screwed up, corrupt goverment....

    Leave a comment:


  • hm0504
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nathan B:
    Bob S and all....there is NO FCC list of "banned words." Section 326 of the rules and regulations forbids the FCC from prior censorship.


    That is true, and disturbing. At least in the Carlin decision we have some guidelines that the rest of us can use in retrospect. But the essential fact remains that the FCC can only decide AFTER THE FACT that your have violated their decency standards, they CANNOT tell you beforehand whether your words will break the law, or even what the law is. In few other areas of law is such ambiguity tolerated.

    And the consequences of violating these unpublished standards has been increased from thousands of dollars in fines against the broadcaster to hundreds of thousands against individuals.

    Several years ago Bono (of U2) used the term "F***ing Brilliant" as a term of praise during an awards show. The FCC ruled that it was permissable because it was not used in a prurient or derogatory sense. But after the Jackson incident they revisited the decision and reversed their ruling.

    Arbitrary.

    This is a law which can not be followed, only avoided.


    -Mark


    Can FCC rulings be challenged in court?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daveinct
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by meredith2kp4:
    It is clear to me that TV networks are much more inclined than in the past to pixilate such things as too-deep cleavage and the ocasional plumber butt. Check out Survivor if you don't believe me.


    Oh, I believe you. Just a couple of days ago I was watching MASH (the movie) on a cable channel. When it came to the scene where Hotlips is showering and the side of the tent is dropped (or raised, I don't recall), they blurred out the very, very brief nudity.

    Ironically, they were doing a "DVD" version, showing interview clips going into commercial breaks, and just after showing the blurred scene, showed a clip with Sally Kellerman talking about filming the scene. During the interview clip, they showed the scene again, but this time without blurring it. Oops!

    BTW, she said that she was a bit nervous about doing the scene, and that when the tent flap went up during the first take, there stood Gary Burghoff (Radar) outside the tent, completely nude.

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • curmudgeon
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    In few other areas of law is such ambiguity tolerated.
    -Mark


    Actually, it's true in many cases of administrative (regulatory) law. The business I work for is regulated by the SEC. They basically refuse to give any guidance as to what will meet their requirements.

    Most people are also unaware that in an adminstrative law court (start with the IRS) you are guilty until proven innocent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nathan B:
    Bob S and all....there is NO FCC list of "banned words." Section 326 of the rules and regulations forbids the FCC from prior censorship.


    That is true, and disturbing. At least in the Carlin decision we have some guidelines that the rest of us can use in retrospect. But the essential fact remains that the FCC can only decide AFTER THE FACT that your have violated their decency standards, they CANNOT tell you beforehand whether your words will break the law, or even what the law is. In few other areas of law is such ambiguity tolerated.

    And the consequences of violating these unpublished standards has been increased from thousands of dollars in fines against the broadcaster to hundreds of thousands against individuals.

    Several years ago Bono (of U2) used the term "F***ing Brilliant" as a term of praise during an awards show. The FCC ruled that it was permissable because it was not used in a prurient or derogatory sense. But after the Jackson incident they revisited the decision and reversed their ruling.

    Arbitrary.

    This is a law which can not be followed, only avoided.


    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • meredith2kp4
    replied
    Nathan B is telling us that the FCC censorship regime is less strict than that of this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nathan B
    replied
    Bob S and all....there is NO FCC list of "banned words." Section 326 of the rules and regulations forbids the FCC from prior censorship.

    Regarding the F and S word Bob, both have aired on local and network radio and television with no fines as they were used in proper context.

    The FCC can, after the fact, issue a forfiture if, based on community standards, they feel the broadcaster used the language improperly or outside of the "safe harbor" for children.

    Again, these rules and regulations only apply to broadcast services, not pay serivces like cable or satellite radio.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    I doubt they want to go back to the two-bed parent family, nacktman. But I do understand what you are saying. They do definitely want to push things back.

    This goes back to the role of the parent and TV in the home. Parents are there to monitor what their kids do. That is number one in the job description of the parent handbook. But today's children are growing up in front of the TV, too many having TVs in their bedrooms. The same arguments are made for computer use and parents (at least some) are now wising up and figuring out what their children are doing online. Although a 16-year-old US girl recently travelled to Jordan to meet someone she met on MySpace, much to the shock of her parents who did not know about the conversations.

    TV and computer content can easily be monitored by parents. All they have to do is open their eyes and gradually give their children the chance to earn certain privacy priveledges.

    meredith:"How is the policy of this forum of protecting our sensitive eyes from the sight of the four-letter words that we are all very familiar with any different from what we are worried about on TV?"

    George Carlin, in the 70s (I think) had a comedy bit about the words banned from TV. Of them (were there seven?) only two are still banned, s**t and f**k. B***h is now allowed on daytime TV. Interestingly, A** is allowed, but a**hole is not. pi**ed off is allowed but pi**ed on is not.

    note: I censored all words myself. I hate writing them).

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • meredith2kp4
    replied
    You can speculate all you want about the possibility of nudity appearing on telelvision bacause we believe that it is not "indecent." Some of the indecency complaints have objected to the very limited nudity on programs such as NYPD Blue and this is something that the Parents Television Council gets very agitated about. It is clear to me that TV networks are much more inclined than in the past to pixilate such things as too-deep cleavage and the ocasional plumber butt. Check out Survivor if you don't believe me.

    Another related thing: How is the policy of this forum of protecting our sensitive eyes from the sight of the four-letter words that we are all very familiar with any different from what we are worried about on TV?

    Leave a comment:


  • nacktman
    replied
    Bob, you're correct the Hays Code was the most destructive element to rape the film industry and the broadcast media until a more realistic "code" was adopted less than 20 years ago.

    It is a return to the Hays Code and even further ... even more draconian measures that is being pushed by the RRR.

    I mean I remeber the "bad" old days when a married couple on TV had twin beds seperated by at least three feet and at least one foot of the actor(s) had to be on the floor at all times and the catatonic shock the USA went into when Fred and Wilma dared to share a double bed during primetime.

    That's what the RRR is trying to revert to.
    No one in their right mind believed married couples slept like they did on TV except 2 year olds back then and today not even a 2 year old does.
    I wonder just what that says about the mentality of those pushing for the return of those days?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    Albinus:"And no doubt the BDEA (should be short for "BaD idEA") will help them choose not to do so."

    That's why I added my statement that broadcast TV simply chooses not to show nudity on TV. It is the fear of reprisal from the FCC and the increased fines. It was why, in the wake of the Janet fiasco, NBC opted not to show the exposed breast of en elderly patient on "ER".

    Ultimately, I think the broadcast stations are more worried about the complaints than the potential for fines. They are all competing for ratings and can't afford to turn anyone off (as if their shows don't do that anyways)

    But at least the FCC rules aren't as draconian as the Hays Code as discussed here previously this past year.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • meredith2kp4
    replied
    Quote:
    "Indecency is too ambiguous a term. All that is needed is one complaint and the station in question gets fined.

    "As for the poster who made the "Religious Right" comment, do you have any evidence it was the religious right trying to censor. Before you make a straw man, I would suggest you take a look at how univerisity campuses have hushed political dissent."



    Something like 99.9% (sic) of complaints about "indecency" on television come from one organization, the Parents Television Council. It employs people to count numbers of references to sex and body parts and uses such tabulations as the basis for its complaints.

    As for squelching political speech on campus, I know of no evidence that there is substantial suppression of the expression of unpopular ideas. I personally oppose speech codes, but debate should be done in a personally respectful manner and, as a free speech purist, I think people should have a right to use disrespectful epithets, but I also think that they should not do so.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X