I don't think we can post it here, due to obvious reasons:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273602A1.pdf

Assuming this is not some "hacking" of the FCC site, I would say he was a bit angry.

If it's real, it's not very professional of the Chairman.

He comes off sounding like the political toady that he is...

~Dan

I was expecting a quote from Martin calling the ruling a "f***ing travesty", or something along those lines. :D

To sum up, Martin disagrees with the court ruling that f*** and sh*t - at least in the context used by Cher and Nicole Richie in separate incidents during primetime - are offenses for which the FCC can issue fines.

This is one of the rare cases where I agree with the FCC. The court cited the V-Chip and other technologies that parents can use - however, Martin correctly pointed out that those are worthless if the rating given the program is incorrect.

They should be able to drop the hammer on any network that broadcasts material that exceeds the rating for any program (including these two incidents). The flip side is that the networks should be insulated from any fines if the material is properly rated. If it is a live show, they can rate it TV-PG, implement a 7 second delay, and take their chances with the mute button - or rate it TV-MA and don't worry about it.

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to. If we do, there's no reason that a broadcast network shouldn't be able to broadcast unedited Sopranos episodes rated TV-MA at 10pm.

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to.Then the answer is simple. Parents should get their own home 7 second delay. That way they can delete any word they find objectionable such as hell, damn and liberal.

One would think in this era of digital broadcasting that a viewer selective method could be developed to enable/disable the deletion of objectionable language. OTH, the largest fines have not been handed out for language or objectionable images such as hand gestures or nudity, but rather for content. "Without A Trace" is the king at over 3 million dollars for a scene depicting group teen sex. From this article (http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-withoutatrace-fccfine,0,3825541.story):

"All 4,211 complaints that the CBS affiliates examined under a Freedom of Information Act request were generated by the PTC or American Family Association web sites. Of those, only two mentioned actually having watched the scene in question."

Perhaps the court's decision is in part a backlash to the commission's pandering to these two groups.

Censorship in the US is laughable. The FCC is so very strict on language but less restrictive on violence. You can't say "$hit", or, God forbid, drop the "F" bomb on TV, but showing somebody get shot in the head is OK. I wish the FCC spent more of their time and money on curbing violence on TV than eliminating bad language.

This is one of the rare cases where I agree with the FCC. The court cited the V-Chip and other technologies that parents can use - however, Martin correctly pointed out that those are worthless if the rating given the program is incorrect.

They should be able to drop the hammer on any network that broadcasts material that exceeds the rating for any program (including these two incidents). The flip side is that the networks should be insulated from any fines if the material is properly rated. If it is a live show, they can rate it TV-PG, implement a 7 second delay, and take their chances with the mute button - or rate it TV-MA and don't worry about it.

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to. If we do, there's no reason that a broadcast network shouldn't be able to broadcast unedited Sopranos episodes rated TV-MA at 10pm.
I don't disagree with what you've said here, but that's not really what this is about, it's about the FCC over-extending it's reach into areas of First Amendment issues. When the FCC was given the power to issue fines, etc, regarding indecency it was for a very specific manner in which certain words were used. This all goes the back to the George Carlin "filthy words" case. It is the way the words were used that's important to consider. For example, if Richie had said " I want to f*** you" with the clear intent meaning to have sex, then that would have been a clear violation. The word(s) in this case were not used in that manner and that is what the court is taking issue with. The FCC is arbitrarily deciding that the mere utterance of the words is a violation regardless of their context, and that is a First Amendment issue. The FCC was granted a very narrow definition of what constituted indecency and they have over-stepped and/or redefined that definition on their own accord.

The below is an excerpt from the June 4 ruling on the petition, an interesting read which gives a lot of background. The full PDF can be found at the link below.

With regard to ‘indecent’ or ‘profane’ utterances, the First Amendment and the
‘no censorship’ provision of Section 326 of the Communications Act severely
limit any role by the Commission and the courts in enforcing the proscription
contained in Section 1464. The Supreme Court’s decision in FCC v. Pacifica
Foundation, 46 U.S.L.W. 5018 (1978), No. 77-528, decided July 3, 1978, affords
this Commission no general prerogative to intervene in any case where words
similar or identical to those in Pacifica are broadcast over a licensed radio or
television station. We intend strictly to observe the narrowness of the Pacifica
holding. In this regard, the Commission’s opinion, as approved by the Court,
relied in part on the repetitive occurrence of the ‘indecent’ words in question. The
opinion of the Court specifically stated that it was not ruling that ‘an occasional
expletive . . . would justify any sanction . . .’ Further, Justice Powell’s concurring
opinion emphasized the fact that the language there in issue had been ‘repeated
over and over as a sort of verbal shock treatment.’ He specifically distinguished
‘the verbal shock treatment [in Pacifica]’ from ‘the isolated use of a potentially
offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast.’

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/
US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

If the PDF doesn't come up try the below link and choose Docket # 06-1760

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/
US Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

Then the answer is simple. Parents should get their own home 7 second delay. That way they can delete any word they find objectionable such as hell, damn and liberal.

One would think in this era of digital broadcasting that a viewer selective method could be developed to enable/disable the deletion of objectionable language.

The rating method we have now, combined with the V-Chip can handle all of those objections.

Censorship in the US is laughable. The FCC is so very strict on language but less restrictive on violence. You can't say "$hit", or, God forbid, drop the "F" bomb on TV, but showing somebody get shot in the head is OK. I wish the FCC spent more of their time and money on curbing violence on TV than eliminating bad language.

That's the problem with sex and violence on TV...

There's too much violence and not enough sex!! :)

The rating method we have now, combined with the V-Chip can handle all of those objections.I thought the V-vhip would block an entire program based on rating. What I meant was allowing unexpected language, such as on an award show, to be allowed or blocked by the viewer. Besides the debate of whether the language is acceptable or not, one has to wonder what the Fox S&P button boys (or girls) were doing at the time two years in a row.

The V-Chip means nothing if parents don't take the time to learn about it and use it. And, according to a recent survey, the vast majority of parents don't.

I don't think we can post it here, due to obvious reasons:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-273602A1.pdf

Assuming this is not some "hacking" of the FCC site, I would say he was a bit angry.

Until someone shows me how anyone, of any age, hearing a word that we have deemed to be a "bad" word, is somehow hurt or damaged, this stuff about words is just silly.

I have a 3 year old. If he hears an f bomb or the s word, I think he will live. People need to focus on the important things -- not who hears a word on TV during certain hours of the day.

The FCC should not even be involved in this nonsense.

The V-Chip means nothing if parents don't take the time to learn about it and use it. And, according to a recent survey, the vast majority of parents don't.However, that's solely can completely their own fault.

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to. If we do, there's no reason that a broadcast network shouldn't be able to broadcast unedited Sopranos episodes rated TV-MA at 10pm.

Why? What is the harm if some child hears a word deemed to be "bad". What exactly is the problem?

I fail to see the problem other than some adults feel embarassed. These regulations are, in reality, protection for squeamish adults, not children, done under the guise of "protecting" children - - who are not being harmed.

If adults know how to talk to their kids and explain things, hearing words or seeing images will not change their life, make them immoral, bad people or effect them in any way whatsoever.

I have a 3 year old. If he hears an f bomb or the s word, I think he will live. People need to focus on the important things -- not who hears a word on TV during certain hours of the day.Apparently it's mainly American children who seem to be venerable to this language. Must be something in the water.

Apparently it's mainly American children who seem to be venerable to this language. Must be something in the water.

I'm American and so is my child. He has yet to explode when hearing an F word or the S word -- or any word for that matter. I also have not heard any reports or children exploding or becoming blind when viewing nudity.

These laws are a minority of people enforcing their prudish views on others -- under the guise of "protecting children."

Children are fine for the most part -- and if they need protecting it has nothing to do with words or images on TV.

The FCC should get out of the indecency business altogether and just handle licensing and technical broadcasting issues.

We don't need the nanny state.

We use a Chris Rock live performance tape for the censors to practice with. If they can mute all the non-broadcastable words in that, then they should have a good shot during a live broadcast.

However, that's solely can completely their own fault.

Exactly. If they are provided with a means to protect their children, and choose not to, they forfeit their right to complain.

Well, they'll still complain, but they should forfeit the right to any remedy.

Why? What is the harm if some child hears a word deemed to be "bad". What exactly is the problem?

Because you, or any other individual, does not determine what is moral or acceptable for everyone elses children. Having one definition of "morality", even if it is a loose definition, is precisely how we get into crap like this.

The V-Chip allows parents to determine what is acceptable for their children, and it has no impact on anyone outside of their home (or even outside the room with that particular TV). You have the option of allowing all language and sex and cap the violence at anything above a G if you choose to do so.

Like so many other things in the US, if we would just enforce the crap that already exists - there'd be no reason for additional action.

Because you, or any other individual, does not determine what is moral or acceptable for everyone elses children. Having one definition of "morality", even if it is a loose definition, is precisely how we get into crap like this.

The V-Chip allows parents to determine what is acceptable for their children, and it has no impact on anyone outside of their home (or even outside the room with that particular TV). You have the option of allowing all language and sex and cap the violence at anything above a G if you choose to do so.

Like so many other things in the US, if we would just enforce the crap that already exists - there'd be no reason for additional action.

Words do not constitute morality. There is no need for a nanny state or even a v-chip. There is a cost to consumers for a v-chip too, as part of the cost of the TV set. We need neither the FCC nor the v-chip -- just parents with common sense.

If the adults in the room don't react weirdly to a word, how will my 3 year old know its a "bad" word?

This is one of the rare cases where I agree with the FCC. The court cited the V-Chip and other technologies that parents can use - however, Martin correctly pointed out that those are worthless if the rating given the program is incorrect.

They should be able to drop the hammer on any network that broadcasts material that exceeds the rating for any program (including these two incidents). The flip side is that the networks should be insulated from any fines if the material is properly rated. If it is a live show, they can rate it TV-PG, implement a 7 second delay, and take their chances with the mute button - or rate it TV-MA and don't worry about it.

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to. If we do, there's no reason that a broadcast network shouldn't be able to broadcast unedited Sopranos episodes rated TV-MA at 10pm.
I completely agree with you.

Then the answer is simple. Parents should get their own home 7 second delay. That way they can delete any word they find objectionable.

Right. Today's parents have the time to sit down and watch every program their children are watching. This kind of statement is totally divorced from the reality of todays time stressed parents.

Rick R

If Nickleodeon wants hardcore porn, thats OK.
If CNN wants to show beheadings, thats OK.

Cable is a pay service which does not go through public airways, therefore I beleive any and all Government censorship is unconstitutional. Only broadcast channels may be regulated. A parent has the responsibility to decide what a child watches, not the government. And on top of it, parents should stop being such *******, our nation is breading a generation of ******* whos childhoods have been scripted, planned, and completely stripped of anything that allows them to grow as human beings.

Violence is accepted, yet stylized violence, our children are never exposed to real war, only fake glorified war. This is so dangerous and it makes me sick. Parents think they are sheltering their kids, yet in reality giving kids a false sense of what violence is leads them to beleive that violence really isnt that bad, and has few consiquences. Bloodless stylized violence should only be for adults, as it is a very hard concept to understand, where as bloody real war footage should be for all ages, as the consequences are apparent enough for a child to understand.

Our society beleives a child is more hurt by words than by actions, that movies about gangsters and criminals are ok as long as no one says an naughty words. What a ****ing ass backwards society we live in. ****

If the adults in the room don't react weirdly to a word, how will my 3 year old know its a "bad" word?
I don't think that's the answer either, I think that would foster a degree of ignorance. The child needs to learn what is socially/morally acceptable behavior. If the parent doesn't react, or make comment, the child won't learn that the word f*** is socially and morally unacceptable in certain situations. I'm not talking about a parent forcing his/her definition of morality on the child, I'm talking about the parent explaining the issue of using such words in a way the child can start to form his own thoughts/behavior regarding such words.

As TVOD alluded to earlier, it's certainly possible with the digital TV age upon us that we could devise software to edit the dialog of a TV program, much the way AVS "*"s out certain strings of characters. That, the V-Chip and the parent(s) themselves are the key to educating the child. What we don't need, and so far the court has agreed, is some govt agency deeming what is and what isn't indecent and/or vulgar.

If the FCC wants to be able to control such things then they should have Congress pass legislation, be sure that legislation passes Constitutional muster, and then they can pass out their fines, sanctions, etc.

Never should the FCC be allowed to have 5 people decide arbitrarily what is decent or indecent for you, me, and the next person, especially not Executive branch appointees.

The V-Chip allows parents to determine what is acceptable for their children, and it has no impact on anyone outside of their home (or even outside the room with that particular TV). You have the option of allowing all language and sex and cap the violence at anything above a G if you choose to do so.

Technical question, CP...

Is the V-Chip data continually streamed with the program, or only at the beginning of a sequence, when they show the TV rating icon?

A continuous stream would be cool, because then nudity/sex/expletives could be shown in their entirety, and blanked by the V-Chip at the opportune moment...

The real problem is live broadcasts. We not only get the two incidents cited in the present court case, but the Janet Jackson boob incident as well. Oh, and every NFL game has plenty of spicy language...

~Dan

Aren't we really just arguing about what happens during unscripted non-cable shows?

And the .00001% of the time that it happens?

Seems like the FCC should be limited to acting only when a pattern of negligence or abuse happens. And maybe any individuals who are being paid for being on the show should be fined for contract violation.

With all of life filled with these nasty words, a 100% FCC control would still be of negligible value. Except to those clueless parents who think their kids never hear them.

Right. Today's parents have the time to sit down and watch every program their children are watching. This kind of statement is totally divorced from the reality of todays time stressed parents.I see, we need more government intervention into our private lives instead of personal responsibility. BTW, the 7 second delay comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek as it's obviously impractical.

The main issue with this case is whether the FCC made a 180 degree turn on its policy regarding isolated or fleeting expletives without giving a satisfactory reason. This court decided they did, but it might be up to the Supremes to decide if that's true.

Aren't we really just arguing about what happens during unscripted non-cable shows? And the .00001% of the time that it happens? Seems like the FCC should be limited to acting only when a pattern of negligence or abuse happens.Absolutely. There is no public good to be derived from pursuing these issues as some would have the FCC do. One thing I would like to see is the ability for the v-chip to differentiate live programming from recorded programming, and thereby parents having the ability to decide that their children simply cannot watch live programming, to preclude them hearing or seeing anything that might inadvertently be presented due to the live nature of the program.

Just a note
Do not confuse Morals with Mores. ****, ****, Ass, Bitch are not immoral in any way, they are merely socially unacceptable and considered rude, but morality is something more definate and concrete than something constructed in the minds of people. TV is a business, the market place should deam what is acceptable or not, and publishers and broadcasters should always be pushing the limits, except in extremities, but the government has no role is deaming what is and is not socially acceptable.

OMG, did you write **** and **** ??? Holy **** !!!

Should we blame the government? Or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV?

Heck no, blame Canada.

Worried that little Timmy might hear the f-word on TV? Or happen to witness Jack Bauer shoot someone in the face? Or, even worse, witness Janet Jackson's floppy boob on live TV for about a second (considering boobs are the first thing any breastfed kid sees/touches/puts in his or her mouth post-birth--well Titty-Gate was a total joke)

And are far too time-crunched to actually stay on the ride that the ticket you bought when you became/got someone pregnant gets you? You want the govt to do your job for you?

How about throw your (FCC-banned expletive here) TV out the (2nd FCC-banned expletive here) window. Or stay on top of what the kids watch. And maybe stop being a bunch of prudish pansies.

It's not the govt's job to be the morality police, as much as the religious right would like 'em to be. Something on TV, radio, whatever is eventually going to offend someone.

The FCC should stick to what they do best....prevent Christian Slater from broadcasting his pirate radio show!!! (Pump Up The Volume, anyone......anyone?)

If we somehow got rid of any and all potentially offensive materials in the media.....well...wouldn't we cease to be a "free country"?

Sorry to jack this thread with a little rant. Couldn't help myself.

At least I kept the heavily politics (and Bush-hating--everything bad is his fault, AFAIC) out of it. ;)

Should we blame the government? Or blame society? Or should we blame the images on TV?

Heck no, blame Canada.

:D :D :D :D

What what what!!?!?!

Did he say the "s"-word?

THE "F"-WORD?!?

Heck no, blame Canada.Indeed...

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7134/southparkterranceandphijp6.jpg

If we don't strictly enforce the V-Chip ratings, we won't be able to argue that parents have control over what their kids are exposed to. If we do, there's no reason that a broadcast network shouldn't be able to broadcast unedited Sopranos episodes rated TV-MA at 10pm.

Just a couple of points. A 10:00 pm broadcast would fall within the safe harbor provisions of the rules. There is nothing that would prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at that time.

Second, the FCC can certainly adopt rules prohibiting a rating that is misleading. The problem, of course, is that every network would then automatically rate live programming as TV-MA or whatever it is to avoid legal problems. So then parents are back at square one -- turning off the TV.

Personally, I think the violence not the language is the problem with Prime Time programming. Also, if indecent includes the description of excretory functions (such as showing someone vomiting on TV), then why not enforce that. I can't stand it when they show someone puking their guts out on tv. Makes me sick.

The main issue with this case is whether the FCC made a 180 degree turn on its policy regarding isolated or fleeting expletives without giving a satisfactory reason. This court decided they did, but it might be up to the Supremes to decide if that's true.
Exactly, this particular issue has nothing to do with little Jack and Jill and what they might have heard on the TV. It has to do with the FCC overstepping it's bounds. There was a very specific reason, and very specific language in the Pacific Radio decision aimed at exactly this type of situation.

Second, the FCC can certainly adopt rules prohibiting a rating that is misleading. The problem, of course, is that every network would then automatically rate live programming as TV-MA or whatever it is to avoid legal problems. So then parents are back at square one -- turning off the TV.

That's not a problem at all. So the few live broadcasts are rated TV-MA, no biggie. If a parent wants to override the V-Chip so their kids can watch the Academy Awards, or football - that's the price they pay for the ability to control the material coming into their home.

Just a couple of points. A 10:00 pm broadcast would fall within the safe harbor provisions of the rules. There is nothing that would prohibit the broadcast of indecent material at that time.The problem CBS ran into was the central and mountain time zones airing one hour earlier than the east and west coast. That also leaves out all the prime time on Fox. They should move safe harbor to 9P as it is in the UK.

The problem CBS ran into was the central and mountain time zones airing one hour earlier than the east and west coast. That also leaves out all the prime time on Fox. They should move safe harbor to 9P as it is in the UK.

No they should move it to the parallel universe Rose is stuck in!! Doctor please save her from family life!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

I read through the FCC letter a few times, and if it's legit, then Martin is a moron. Or at least he's trying to pull a fast one on the readers.

He's trying to use two instances where potentially obscene words were spoken on broadcast television to push ALC on cable/sat subscribers.

WHAT?!?!?!? Does he think that no one is paying attention?

How does indecent speech on an OTA broadcast have anything to do with ALC offerings for premium TV services? I hope he realizes that even if ALC had existed when the Billboard Awards were broadcast, it would have done NOTHING. This is because even with ALC, all cable subscribers would still have had the channel in question (must-carry rule).

Martin's argument is so fundamentally flawed, that it's not even funny. This guy has a real future in Washington. Watch Out!

ft

It was a LIVE BROADCAST! How can networks be responsible for everything that they can't even control themselves? Like the time they were considering a fine for Fox because a NASCAR driver said "****" when his car malfunctioned during a race.

It's the world upside-down. Conservatives (as I am) are supposed to be common-sense people wanting limited government intervention, not the opposite and wasting taxpayers' money investigating this!

It was a LIVE BROADCAST! How can networks be responsible for everything that they can't even control themselves? Like the time they were considering a fine for Fox because a NASCAR driver said "****" when his car malfunctioned during a race.

It's the world upside-down. Conservatives (as I am) are supposed to be common-sense people wanting limited government intervention, not the opposite and wasting taxpayers' money investigating this!
I too consider myself a conservative (with slight liberal leanings on a few social issues). I am for smaller government and the FCC is flying in the face of true conservatives.

Anyway, as for live broadcasts, they could have put the show on delay and bleeped out the offending words. Ever since the Janet Jackson incident, just about all live events are on a delay, right? If not, then they should be.

ft

... and there are some that want broadcast standards applied to cablenets. :rolleyes:

... and there are some that want broadcast standards applied to cablenets. :rolleyes:Not me brother. I want my "gritty", "racy", "cutting-edge" shows.

ft

I want the FCC to be able to fine ratings violations because if the rating system is fully utilized, there won't be any arbitrary, subjective FCC or court rulings that are constantly trying to redefine the television landscape.

I'll live with a 7 second delay on live programming if it means that broadcast and cablenets are free to program whatever they want as long as they rate it appropriately.

Cable is a pay service which does not go through public airways, therefore I beleive any and all Government censorship is unconstitutional. Only broadcast channels may be regulated.

That is already the case today

Is the V-Chip data continually streamed with the program, or only at the beginning of a sequence, when they show the TV rating icon?

It is sent continuously throughout the program, so it is there no matter when you tune in.

The ratings are not in effect if you are using a DLP projector in a home theater, ratings streamed continuously or not. As always, the regulators forgot something.

The assigned ratings are laughable most of the time, with great variation and inconsistency from program to program, network to network and absolutely no recourse for parents for a false rating assigned to a program. And how many times have the networks just simply blown off placing ratings descriptors with the ratings?

Everytime the issue of "objectionable content" comes up, many decry how violence seems accepted while language and sex are more taboo.

Try this: in a public setting, use profane language with everyone you speak to, punch people, and have sex with your significant other in full view of others.

I suspect you will find that all three behaviors are deemed unaccpetable.

Now, consider that we learn behaviors in our childhood years more than any other time, and we do not start out with knowledge of societal mores. We are taught about them, through "parental guidance" or mere observation. Parents have demanded some help in this area, given the window opened up via the television. You can say they just have to deal with it themselves, but the government has answered their calls for help and given recourse through the FCC, as well as tools like the V-Chip, to provide an alternative answer to "just turn off the TV."

But what about the perceived "bias" in the restrictions? Violence observed by children with healthy minds is far more likely to be recognized as unacceptable than is sex (which is not inherently unacceptable, though it's wrong to have sex in public or with non-consenting partners, which includes all children younger than a societally-determined "age of consent"). Understanding the nuances of when sexual activity is acceptable is much more difficult for children than understanding that you don't commit violent acts against others.

Worried that little Timmy might hear the f-word on TV? Or happen to witness Jack Bauer shoot someone in the face? Or, even worse, witness Janet Jackson's floppy boob on live TV for about a second (considering boobs are the first thing any breastfed kid sees/touches/puts in his or her mouth post-birth--well Titty-Gate was a total joke)

And are far too time-crunched to actually stay on the ride that the ticket you bought when you became/got someone pregnant gets you? You want the govt to do your job for you?

How about throw your (FCC-banned expletive here) TV out the (2nd FCC-banned expletive here) window. Or stay on top of what the kids watch. And maybe stop being a bunch of prudish pansies.

It's not the govt's job to be the morality police, as much as the religious right would like 'em to be. Something on TV, radio, whatever is eventually going to offend someone.

The FCC should stick to what they do best....prevent Christian Slater from broadcasting his pirate radio show!!! (Pump Up The Volume, anyone......anyone?)

If we somehow got rid of any and all potentially offensive materials in the media.....well...wouldn't we cease to be a "free country"?

Sorry to jack this thread with a little rant. Couldn't help myself.

At least I kept the heavily politics (and Bush-hating--everything bad is his fault, AFAIC) out of it. ;)

Exactly!

1. stop worrying about what a kid hears or sees (it doesn't matter in the long run).

2. if you are worried (but you shouldn't be) , handle it yourself and leave the gov't out of it.

Parents have demanded some help in this area, given the window opened up via the television. You can say they just have to deal with it themselves, but the government has answered their calls for help and given recourse through the FCC, as well as tools like the V-Chip, to provide an alternative answer to "just turn off the TV."



What parents demanded this? A few religious groups, pretending to speak on behalf of all parents everywhere?

No parents "demanded" this. It is adult busy-bodies using "children" as an excuse and "helpless" parents as an excuse.

That's ridiculous. Television has gotten well beyond what is considered acceptable for small children by most parents. You may allow your children to watch Nip/Tuck , The Shield or The Sopranos - but most parents appreciate a way to block that programming. Only the most extremely indescriminate parent would suggest that children need absolutely no filter on their television viewing.

If you want to complain about "busy-body parents" who are trying to impose their values on everyone else - focus it on the ones that want to shape all programming because they are too lazy to avail themselves of the technology that allows them to put whatever restrictions they desire on their child's viewing.

The V-Chip doesn't promote censorship, it is what allows us to nip calls for censorship in the bud.

That's ridiculous. Television has gotten well beyond what is considered acceptable for small children by most parents. You may allow your children to watch Nip/Tuck , The Shield or The Sopranos - but most parents appreciate a way to block that programming.

Only the most extremely indescriminate parent would suggest that children need absolutely no filter on their television viewing.

Children self filter. My 3 year old would not watch the Sopranos if I displayed it in front of him. It would be too boring.

Its only older children (and young teens) that get curious about other stuff out there.

If they see the Sopranos at 11 years old and see some boobs at the Bing and hear the F bomb, they'll live. I don't think they will be irreparably harmed in any way.

Parents just need to relax -- most are way too uptight. If they don't make a big deal about it, they kids won't either. Moreover, if you hide things or make them mysterious they just want to see it more.

If they see it, they'll get it out of their system. They'll watch it a few times, then go back to MTV.

I bet my kid will be more worldly, less curious about curse words and sex and better adjusted to the real world than those that shelter their kid from words and images.

It's the world upside-down. Conservatives (as I am) are supposed to be common-sense people wanting limited government intervention, not the opposite and wasting taxpayers' money investigating this!

quoted for great truth

The ratings are not in effect if you are using a DLP projector in a home theater, ratings streamed continuously or not. As always, the regulators forgot something.

Really? I think you need to rethink that statement.

A projector monitor doesn't, that is true, but ANY KIND of a built in TUNER, or a STB TUNER, or CABLE STB or SAT STB DOES. That is the law. No loop hole there unless your project uses osmosis to get its signal from stations.

It is adult busy-bodies using "children" as an excuse and "helpless" parents as an excuse.
ceasar, you seem to think that there are "busy-bodies" out there who care what you or other adults may watch on television. If so, I think you are incorrect about that. But there are many who care about what children watch, and they're not "busy-bodies" for having that concern. Consider that their concerns do not diminish your ability to display any show for your kids.

ceasar, you seem to think that there are "busy-bodies" out there who care what you or other adults may watch on television. If so, I think you are incorrect about that. But there are many who care about what children watch, and they're not "busy-bodies" for having that concern. Consider that their concerns do not diminish your ability to display any show for your kids.

Some may be concerned about what children watch -- my point is, that concern is mis-guided. (and many times is falsely expressed concern done to mask a political or religious agenda of the adult). Indeed, until someone shows clear concrete proof of the actual physical or mental harm ever caused to anyone (regardless of age) by occasionally hearing what some people deem to be a "bad" word or seeing some nudity, there is no valid reason for the alleged concern.

Moreoever, when really analyzed - the concern is really about the parent. Why? Cause if you ask a parent what's wrong with the kid seeing something, they have trouble fully explaining it. But when probed further, it comes down to the fact that it is the parent that has issues with the words or images displayed.

Since the parent is embarressed or otherwise flustered by the image or words, the parents transposes that to the child. Because the parent can't handle it, or doesn't want to deal with talking to their kid about real life things that may be a little uncomfortable, the parent prefers the ban it approach to the subject.

So deep down, many parents or adults are really talking about protecting themselves, when they purport to think that or say that, they are talking about protecting children.

Ironic that you complain about "busy-body" parents, yet you seem to be the one that wishes to force your moral agenda on everyone else.

Let the networks develop whatever programming they feel is marketable, and let individual parents decide what they feel is appropriate for them or their children.

Ironic that you complain about "busy-body" parents, yet you seem to be the one that wishes to force your moral agenda on everyone else.

Let individual parents decide what they feel is appropriate.

When did things get turned around so that the opposite of applying restrictions means you are applying an agenda. Making everything available to all is not an agenda. It allows all to pick and choose what they want when they want.

No, I am not forcing any agenda -- since my agenda would not limit or restrict anything. It would allow total freedom. People can still have their religious programming channels on the public airwaves (which are highly offensive to me, but I dont' complain to gov't about them).

If people dont' want to hear bad words or see nudity, they can watch the cartoon or religious or shopping channels -- or g rated movies only.

Doing nothing to restrict or censor is not the same as censoring or restricting and it is not applying a moral agenda. Viewers would be free to apply their own moral agenda by choosing what they want to watch and knowing that an R rated movie wont' have words cut, bleeped or dubbed.

No, by proposing that parents should not be able to limit what their children watch via the V-Chip, you are absolutely trying to force your moral judgement on everyone else.

"Total freedom" includes having the ability to decide what is viewed.

No, by proposing that parents should not be able to limit what their children watch via the V-Chip, you are absolutely trying to force your moral judgement on everyone else.

"Total freedom" includes having the ability to decide what is viewed.

I never said parents shouldn't be able to use the v-chip. I disagree with the fact that our gov't said it had to be put in my tv manufacturers. I'm all for less gov't intrusion -- not more.

But if its there, they can use it all they want.

And there are other ways to control or decide what people watch without a v-chip.

1. tell your kids they can only watch in your presence.

2. cut power to the TV unless you are around

3. trust your child to make good decisions about what to watch after speaking with them.

4. Realize that TVs are in friend's homes, so its silly anyway. (My mother wouldn't let me watch TV after school as a kid -- not till after dinner she said. So I just mainly went over friend's homes after school (instead of having them over my house) and watched there. The result is my mother had less supervision of me and my friends, and I probably watched more TV then I would have otherwise. I suspect V-chips may cause similar results.

The kids will hang out at the non- v-chipped home.

I never said parents shouldn't be able to use the v-chip.

But you did say that there was no need for it - it was just a handful of vocal parents using their kids to get it done.

You are free to not use the V-Chip, but if you get rid of it, you'll have no response when government steps in to censor television programming. Because eventually they will - you are 1 in 1000 (at best) of parents that feel that kids should be able to watch anything at all - so there will be a call to do something.

You are free to not use the V-Chip, but if you get rid of it, you'll have no response when government steps in to censor television programming. Because eventually they will - you are 1 in 1000 (at best) of parents that feel that kids should be able to watch anything at all - so there will be a call to do something.

Unfortunately, you are probabably right. Since we now live in the United States of Hysteria and fear over everything.

... if you ask a parent what's wrong with the kid seeing something, they have trouble fully explaining it. ...
I explained it here, and I'm not even a parent. Your arguments have no factual or logical basis, but are based on your feeling that total freedom is an absolute good without any unintended consequences. Were your feelings consistent with reality, then anarchy would successfully replace all forms of government--you should consider why that is not the case.

...we now live in the United States of Hysteria and fear over everything.
Here you do have a point; considering what's happening relative to "global warming," I find it hard to dispute your characterization.

I am sick of hearing about this. This shouldn't be the issue at all. We have so much
**** going around the world and this makes into the news and for what? Because of
idiots trying to stir up something. Sex, violence, and cussing is not just in the TV, it's
part of your life whether you like it or not. The only way you can dodge this is by
living underground by yourself. Censorship and all that crap is just to slow down the
process of learning this. FCC and rating system are spending million of dollars but for
what? To help lazy parents discipline their own child. There are so many sick children
out there that 1 dollar is a big impact in their daily lives but America is spending to
much to control all that crap that is unnecessary. We created ratings and V-Chip yet
parents are to lazy to imply that. It's not about the fact they care about the youth,
its about total control and domination and making yourself look good to others.
Soldiers are dying everyday to give us the rights that we don't exercise. Think what
you want to think.

I explained it here, and I'm not even a parent. Your arguments have no factual or logical basis, but are based on your feeling that total freedom is an absolute good without any unintended consequences. Were your feelings consistent with reality, then anarchy would successfully replace all forms of government--you should consider why that is not the case.

You talked vaguely about observing and things like that.

Nothing that clearly demonstrates harm or any other reason that words or images should be restricted from children by the broadcasters or the gov't -- as opposed to by the parents themselves (should they wish to), by simply parenting, and not expecting the gov't to act as the big nanny for all the lazy people out there.

It is not anarchy to present things the way they were intended to be seen and heard. All it takes to counter act what some deem "inappropriate" is:

1. having discussions with your children and talking to them about what they might see or hear, and/or,

2. getting rid of all TVs in your home and/or

3. supervising kids while watching TV in your home

The focus on words and images is mis-placed and allows parents and others to re-direct issues and problems and blame it on TV.

As far as freedom in broadcasts causing harm or "unintended consequences", I have yet to see any of the European kids explode upon hearing or seeing images that are not allowed in the U.S. They show alot more in Europe then they do in the U.S. of silly prudes.

Parents have demanded some help in this area, given the window opened up via the television. You can say they just have to deal with it themselves, but the government has answered their calls for help and given recourse through the FCC, as well as tools like the V-Chip, to provide an alternative answer to "just turn off the TV."


"Parents have demanded", to be clear it's actually a very, very small amount of parents that have asked for help, and that is really what this decision is about. The FCC was granted very specific guidelines about how they could implement control over indecency on TV/radio. It's "the tail waging the dog" situation we have now, whereas the mere utterance of a word, in whatever context, triggers the FCC to issue fines/sanctions, and that is what the court objected to, the all inclusive notion that the FCC seems to be operating from. The current situation is treading dangerously close to First Amendment issues.

Indecency on TV is certainly something that should be addressed, either by legislation from Congress, a decision by the courts(which they have already done by the way but the FCC has taken their own direction on the issue), or leave it to society as a whole if the legislation method is objectionable to them.

As far as freedom in broadcasts causing harm or "unintended consequences", I have yet to see any of the European kids explode upon hearing or seeing images that are not allowed in the U.S. They show alot more in Europe then they do in the U.S. of silly prudes.
I agree in principle here, this whole situation is looked upon as being quite ridiculous by many other western nations and rightly so, somehow we have let the narrow-mindedness of the few dictate what should be socially acceptable to the many. Again, that is what the court objected to, I know I seem to be repeating that mantra, but that is something that many here seem to be overlooking.

Nothing that clearly demonstrates harm or any other reason that words or images should be restricted from children by the broadcasters or the gov't -- as opposed to by the parents themselves (should they wish to), by simply parenting, and not expecting the gov't to act as the big nanny for all the lazy people out there.
We have some common ground here, Caesar. I agree that the responsibility for determining what children see and hear at home lies with parents and not the government. I do also decry the "nanny state" that builds dependency on big government for those too lazy to do for themselves. (That's one of the primary reasons I'm "conservative," by definition.)

However, I think it is perfectly legitimate for the government to provide help to parents who want to restrict certain content from their children until those responsible parents deem it appropriate. That "help" currently includes "broadcast standards" (not at all unique to the United States, BTW), television programming ratings and V-Chips. If the standards are rendered useless by lack of enforcement by the FCC, then the help diminishes.

Ironic that you complain about "busy-body" parents, yet you seem to be the one that wishes to force your moral agenda on everyone else.

Let the networks develop whatever programming they feel is marketable, and let individual parents decide what they feel is appropriate for them or their children.
Again I am 100% in agreement with you.

Rick R

While I don't think parents can hide such words from their kids, they need to teach them that there are times and places where such words should not be used. Otherwise they may use such language in inappropriate places, such as the Senate floor. CSPAN might need an MA rating.

All this talk of profane language has me wondering: how did certain syllables come to be known as profane or obscene? What was the point of such words, in terms of what they could communicate to a listener? The origins of profanity are truly ancient, but mysterious to me.

Why is it that Oprah can openly and bluntly talk about issues with hers and other women's "va-jay-jay"s at 3-4 pm on broadcast TV but no one can call someone a dick or a c*nt during primetime?

Technical question, CP...

Is the V-Chip data continually streamed with the program, or only at the beginning of a sequence, when they show the TV rating icon?

A continuous stream would be cool, because then nudity/sex/expletives could be shown in their entirety, and blanked by the V-Chip at the opportune moment...

The real problem is live broadcasts. We not only get the two incidents cited in the present court case, but the Janet Jackson boob incident as well. Oh, and every NFL game has plenty of spicy language...

~Dan
It's transmitted continuously along with CC data. Technically, any rating could be sent at any time throughout the program. In the case of taped programming, it would have to be encoded onto the tape prior to air. In the case of live programming it would be sent live.

The problem is, the system isn't very accurate. I don't mean the type of rating, but how it's transmitted and read. There's actually a bit of a delay from when it's sent to when a TV at the viewer end reacts to it. As a result, even a 7 second delay might not be enough to allow time to change the rating. That's why some networks turn off the TV-MA rating on a show just before the end if a lower rated show comes on seamlessly after it. Otherwise, the beginning of the next show may be blocked in the time it takes for the TV to detect the ratings change.

The problem is, the system isn't very accurate. I don't mean the type of rating, but how it's transmitted and read.

Especially if the playback is from DVCPro 25.. which is notorious for CC issues..

Again... anyone care to challenge this statement?

The assigned ratings are laughable most of the time, with great variation and inconsistency from program to program, network to network and absolutely no recourse for parents for a false rating assigned to a program. And how many times have the networks just simply blown off placing ratings descriptors with the ratings?

Foxeng: I use a HTPC with a HiPix HDTV card. No V-chip. I was one of the original forum members back when we had a couple hundred people here. Also one of the original DLP projector users.

I appreciate the thoughts about this coming from all sides. But someone still needs to address the inconsistencies and downright false labeling of programming. V-Chips are unusable until this is fixed.

Ahow did certain syllables come to be known as profane or obscene?


For a full explanation, see second episode of the 5th season of South Park titled "It Hits the Fan".

In the case of a live show, how is the V-Chip going to help? The rating is typically TVPG-L. The shows are delayed, but there's still no guarantee that every word can be caught. How about lip reading? I've seen some networks block the video if the word can be close to lip read. It's really gotten this bad. It's amazing that Americans survived the expletives that leaked out in earlier years.

The bottom line is that most of the complaints are a result of letter writing campaigns from two organizations, and most of the people complaining didn't watch the shows. If improving the accuracy of the ratings keeps the FCC off the network's back, then it should be a huge incentive for them to do so. Maybe as much as peanuts.

I am sick of hearing about this. This shouldn't be the issue at all. We have so much
**** going around the world and this makes into the news and for what? Because of
idiots trying to stir up something. Sex, violence, and cussing is not just in the TV, it's
part of your life whether you like it or not. The only way you can dodge this is by
living underground by yourself. Censorship and all that crap is just to slow down the
process of learning this. FCC and rating system are spending million of dollars but for
what? To help lazy parents discipline their own child. There are so many sick children
out there that 1 dollar is a big impact in their daily lives but America is spending to
much to control all that crap that is unnecessary. We created ratings and V-Chip yet
parents are to lazy to imply that. It's not about the fact they care about the youth,
its about total control and domination and making yourself look good to others.
Soldiers are dying everyday to give us the rights that we don't exercise. Think what
you want to think.

Some great points brought up in your post...

Especially on the language/sex and violence.. kids are going to be exposed to this anyway. The only way to avoid any of this... is like you suggested is to live "underground".

The ratings are not in effect if you are using a DLP projector in a home theater, ratings streamed continuously or not. As always, the regulators forgot something.

If that is a concern for you get a TV. You should also complain that your computer monitor does not have a v-chip.

Again... anyone care to challenge this statement?

The assigned ratings are laughable most of the time, with great variation and inconsistency from program to program, network to network and absolutely no recourse for parents for a false rating assigned to a program. And how many times have the networks just simply blown off placing ratings descriptors with the ratings?

I appreciate the thoughts about this coming from all sides. But someone still needs to address the inconsistencies and downright false labeling of programming. V-Chips are unusable until this is fixed.

I agree that they should be required to rate programs properly. As for programs with no rating you can configure the v-chip to block out unrated content.

Foxeng: I use a HTPC with a HiPix HDTV card. No V-chip. I was one of the original forum members back when we had a couple hundred people here. Also one of the original DLP projector users.
I think ratings are broadcast with PSIP so it should be possible to detect ratings.

The bottom line is that most of the complaints are a result of letter writing campaigns from two organizations, and most of the people complaining didn't watch the shows. If improving the accuracy of the ratings keeps the FCC off the network's back, then it should be a huge incentive for them to do so. Maybe as much as peanuts.

Kind of like the protests from Christian groups that have been lobbed at films like:

THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

DOGMA

and yes, even MONTY PYTHON'S THE LIFE OF BRIAN back in the day.

Films these protestors never actually saw before deciding that seeing them would be a Hell-worthy sin.

jwebb, I think your post (#81) reveals some bias on your part that would be difficult to defend factually. At the very least, the groups you decry in that post can hardly be singled out as the only type of such lobbyists. You may recall a certain Mel Gibson movie received similar protests from other groups based solely on the perceptions of its content and message, by many who would never watch that movie. The ridiculous "controversy" generated was significant enough that this very forum was affected--discussion of the movie was banned outright.

jwebb, I think your post (#81) reveals some bias on your part that would be difficult to defend factually. At the very least, the groups you decry in that post can hardly be singled out as the only type of such lobbyists. You may recall a certain Mel Gibson movie received similar protests from other groups based solely on the perceptions of its content and message, by many who would never watch that movie. The ridiculous "controversy" generated was significant enough that this very forum was affected--discussion of the movie was banned outright.

Wasn't trying to single out any group with that comment. Just an example of A group (or groups) of people that condemmed those particular films without generally ever having seen them and relating that to what TVOD was saying in the post I quoted.

I attended a Catholic school from 3rd thru 8th grade. Although I basically stopped going to mass after 8th grade, I and my family did remain friends with one of the priests from that parish. He actually saw LAST TEMPTATION during it's theatrical run and actually went against the grain in terms of the "controversy". Felt that if anything, the film actually affirmed faith in Christ.

As far as DOGMA....Kevin Smith (a devout Catholic) actually received death threats from some groups-incl. The Catholic League. I think his DVD commentary comment said it all, in terms of it's controversy. "If anyone protesting this film had actually seen it, I think once we got to the rubber poop monster, it'd be apparent that such controvery is irrelavent" (paraphasing this).

And any protestor who lobbed hate towards LIFE OF BRIAN? Chances are they were not a Python fan in the first place. I do feel that Brian's line in the film--when reluctantly addressing his misguided followers--to "Think for yourselves"---would have passed over the heads of most who jumped on the bandwagon and decried that film without seeing it.

And yes, I remember the Gibson-haters who complained about a certain bias his film had in their eyes. They too, mostly, had likely never bothered seeing that movie--or ever would have. Just went along like "sheeple" and cried out how horrid a person Gibson must be.

Of course, his DUI rant months later didn't help his case, either.

I don't think ANY group (religious, parental, whatever) should make blanket negative statements about any film, TV show, music, etc. without first actually seeing/hearing for themselves why it is apparently so "bad".

Look at what the media was shoving in our faces post-Columbine. The 2 a-holes responsible for that horrible event were obviously led to do so by violent video games and movies or by Marilyn Manson.

What did Manson or DOOM or THE MATRIX have to do with the fact that these two teens were loading up on weapons @ gun shows and stockpiling ammo and explosives in their parents' garages? Blame Mommy and Daddy for not doing their jobs, not games, rock music or action films. And, as sad as it is to admit since they were among the victims, you could throw some blame at the jocks in the school who had appaently been picking on these kids (and other "outsiders" like them) in the first place. You can also blame the school system. There were reportedly plenty of warning signs that these 2 were obviously mentally unstable, yet no one (school administration, parent, etc) bothered to intervene?

I had a PSYCH class in college a few years back. We had a guest speaker on day who was a full-on post-op transsexual (male to female). She spoke about her high school days (when she was a "he" and felt out of place and was often picked on/bullied). Talked during her speech about hearing the news about Columbine. She obviously felt horrible about the tradgedy, but at the same time felt "It was about time" in terms of someone being picked on/bulied to the point of lashing out violently. She emphasized that she did not condone such a horrible action (the tradgedy did sicken her as it did the rest of us), but she understood what was likely the real motivation behind it. And that motivation had NOTHING to do with games/movies/music.

Or the kids who apparently were led to suicide simply by listening to Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest records? Pul-leeze!! As Denis Leary so brilliantly put it, "If that's the case, can I sue James Taylor for making me a P***Y back in the '70s? Between him and Dan Fogleberg, I didn't get a bl****b until 1983!"

In terms of the FCC/V-Chip agrument here---I have no issue with V-chips or the FCC regulating indecency rules for broadcast TV (as long as it doesn't go overboard into total "puritan"-ification). But at the same time, in terms of what sensitive folks and/or one's kids can and might witness on TV, well...should that really be a major job of the govt? Or should the indivdual decide what gets displayed on their TVs.

Kids are gonna see violence and boobies/hear potty language in lots of places outside of the home. Do you have to protect little Timmy/Tina from ALL forms of "offensive" material? No. You talk to your kids about such things. Kids often aren't given credit for being as smart as they often--but not always--are. If talking to your children about such subjects isn't the route you wish to take (which equals sucky parenting, IMHO), better dig yourself a nice, deep bomb shelter or build a cabin deep in the wilderness, stock it full of enough supplies so that you can all survive until your kid's 18th birthdays, make sure there is no TV signal to be found and lock the doors!

In terms of the FCC/V-Chip agrument here---I have no issue with V-chips or the FCC regulating indecency rules for broadcast TV (as long as it doesn't go overboard into total "puritan"-ification). But at the same time, in terms of what sensitive folks and/or one's kids can and might witness on TV, well...should that really be a major job of the govt? Or should the indivdual decide what gets displayed on their TVs.

That's the beauty of the V-Chip. It takes the FCC interference out of the equation if the rating system is abided by. The programmers deliver their offering of shows and parents filter or unfilter whatever they choose. The FCC shouldn't have a say in the decency of that programming.

That's the beauty of the V-Chip. It takes the FCC interference out of the equation if the rating system is abided by. The programmers deliver their offering of shows and parents filter or unfilter whatever they choose. The FCC shouldn't have a say in the decency of that programming.


Exactly. Which is why I don't see a problem with the technology. It's there for one's use if they want it. If they don't want to use it (like I do not), it doesn't have an effect on my TV viewing.

And sorry for the length of my drifting rant last post. In one of those "soapbox" moods, I guess. :)

Why is it that Oprah can openly and bluntly talk about issues with hers and other women's "va-jay-jay"s at 3-4 pm on broadcast TV but no one can call someone a d*ck or a c*nt during primetime?From the FCC website (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw)

"In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors."

It's obvious they believe that some topics do have a place on television even if they might make some of us squirm.

Also, it should be noted that while Oprah may talk about "va-jay-jays," language like "c***" or "d***" still gets bleeped, if it's used at all. The more frank shows are rated TV-14, and depending on the topic she will verbally warn parents that some of the material may not be suitable for their children.