FCC out of control  

I don't get this either - don't we all have "v-chips" now. Also, don't most cable/sat boxes and even DVD players have parental controls built in? Perhaps instead of trying to control the source, they should make parents aware that they have choices at home.

I couldn't believe it - briefly caught Rush Limbaugh talking about how he finally watched Sex In the City because of the hype and couldn't believe it - they were having sex on TV right during prime time. Hey Rush - it's HBO - they play R rated movies on there, you shouldn't be shocked by it - you subscribe to it - if you don't like it - don't subscribe - duh!.

Feels like an election year. Do your part.

I have NO problem with "cable" channels NOT being constrained by indecency laws - if you don't want to watch it - CHANGE THE CHANNEL ! If you don't want you kids to be watching that when you're not there - LOCK IT OUT !

It seems because of the superbowl Janet Jacksons split second flash the FCC is out of control. My question is hows it feel that the FCC/GOV'T is tightening the reigns on all aspects of media?Clear channel pressured to drop Howard Stern.This a dangerous slippery slope!I feel that it will eventually trickle down to the movie industry.What do you think?In my opinion Michael Powel got to go anyway.Is he really doing anything to push HDTV forward?Thanks J.H.

Most media distribution channels are not OTA anymore, so it won't matter much.

BTW- Who's this coming from?

uhh,

Better be careful, the black helicopters might come and get you.... :)

I think it is quite resonable to expect to not have to see Janet Jackson naked during a "family" event. I also think it is very resonable to not have to listen to profanity or sexually explicit/sugestive material on the radio. I don't want to have my children exposed to that type of thing, and I believe that it is within my rights to not have them exposed to it.

There are plenty of channels/options avaliable for people that want to watch "adult" oriented programing. And you know what, I have no problem with that, I can easily setup my programing so that my children don't see that programing. If my wife and I want to watch it, that is fine.

I am not in favor of censorship, but you do not have the right to subject me to something that I conside offensive without warning me before hand. (i.e. TV rating family for the superbowl).

-Dan

If you think the FCC and Government are out of control you will probably think that disrespecting a woman in primetime is funny. In my opinion last nights Survivor was worse than Janet Jackson’s semi-exposed boob and CBS should be fined for each station that broadcast this crap. There was a short warning before the show starting that it was not suited for young children. Frankly what Richard Hatch did is not suited for any age and CBS should not have shown that short segment or should have taken immediate action to remove him from the contest. Instead the other player had to take that action.

I can accept that she gave his nudeness Richard little room to get around her without making skin contact.

http://www.nabs.net/cwatson53/Survivor1.jpg

However, it was pure disrespect for Richard to circle her once on the platform and then dry hump her butt. It was even more disrespectful for CBS to air that part.

http://www.nabs.net/cwatson53/Survivor2.jpg

The FCC just fined ClearChannel Communications $700,000 causing them to fire the culprit "Bubba the Love Sponge" here in Tampa, FL.

He's syndicated on several other markets and I'm wondering what will happen with him, considering he's the largest market share in the bay area for 18-34 age group and draws a huge crowd for all of his remotes, I can't even imagine how much advertising dollar they're gonna lose on this one.

But do you see whats going on here.The voice of a few are taking away what millions love to listen to.Yes the Janet Jackson thing was stupid on her part but it does not mean scoiciety is falling apart.Eroupe has regular nudity in there commercials.To them and there kids its no big deal.The bottom line is if you hide people/kids from things when they finally do see these things there not ready for it. One of my best friends was hiden from things when we were growing up.Very srtict control over the tv.I was brought up the differently.I watched tv and listened to things with explicit lyrics.when we got out of high school he went crazy with all the things that were out there.I took it in stride.It was no big deal to me.If we all stop hiding things from everyone and explain what this or that is we would all be better off.As with all things in life communication is key. I don't want to offend anyone.i'm just trying to suggest a different approach to dealing with instead of hiding. J.H.

Good post J.H. I've seen what happened to your friend happen to mine. He ended up in jail... so much for a strict upbringing.

Dan, I agree with you about some of those radio shows, but tell me... what exactly is going to happen to your children or what bad thing will they go and do after seeing one partially nude breast on TV? (No offence, it's your family.)

* HD programming content alert * ;)

I think the FCC is tightening lately. Evidence the ABC Monday night movie Fast & Furious (made for teenage boys) which was heavily edited (bikini scenes cut out) yet there is no nudity! :rolleyes:

I wouldn't count those chickens just yet:

FCC's Martin Ponders Indecency

A number of political comments have been deleted. This topic is not really HD related, except in a peripheral sense, so it's moving to another forum. Good bye and good luck.

Please keep political chat from the thread. It is not what the site is for as you know. You can 'debate' on the topic, but do not attack over it please.

Thanks

I wonder what will happen if the FCC alienates the film-makers and the producers so much that they have nothing left to create. Show "ti*s", show a"s$". Show what ever it takes just keep us free to view what we want.

Give the American public what 'some of us' want.. our freedom to choose.

So shocking that you had to post pictures that disgust you?

Don't put words in my mouth!

While it stupifies me that the government/FCC has authority to control and police the airwaves, I accept that that is the current reality and understand somewhat their need to regulate free OTA broadcasts.

When their reach starts to include private transmissions (ala DBS and cable) I personally need to draw the line. No one is forced to have cable or satellite service in their home, and if someone finds the content on these providers objectionable they need only not subscribe.

This is another slippery slope situation. Once the FCC can control what is broadcast on DBS and cable, how long will it be before they attempt to enforce the same rulings on the internet? The pictures posted in this thread alone would result in over $500,000 in fines.

I think people should be allowed to purchase anything they want on cable or sattelite, but the public airways belong to the public which includes children. I don't think that children should be exposed to the same material as adults. I don't believe they should be exposed to homosexuality as a tolerated state endorsed alternative lifestyle either. That should make enough of you mad to torch me here at this forum. I guess I'm just behind the times. 20 years from now if trends continue we'll be discussing lowering the age for minors and legalizing polygamy and bestiality...the tough amswer will be: did the animal consent or not? I'm for alot of liberty, but I'll never be for total liberty!

This is just like the thread I started.FCC TIGHTENING THE REIGNS.This is getting rediculous now.Theres this conservative wind that has hit this counrty that is trying to cater to a few to ruin what millions watch or hear.This is as dangerous as it gets what it comes to free speach and freedom in general.Look at like this.If the Howard Stern show has 200,000 complaints last year and 18,000,000 peolpe listen to the show a day then what gives the minority the right to take it away from the majority.when are peolpe going to get it.JUST TURN THE CHANNEL,TURN THE DIAL.where do you think this will all end up?Whats next to be taken away from the free?Thanks I had to vent J.H.

Why should anybody HAVE to turn the channel? I own the public airwaves just like I own the National Parks. I don't want people to litter in the Grand Canyon. There are laws and regulations against it. Yes it RESTRICTS the freedom to litter..SO WHAT?! I hope they enforce that law--I don't need to be told go to another park that is clean just like I don't need to be told change to another channel that is clean. In the public suqare I think people can legally say ANYTHING! I'm not even very hip on harassment laws or riot inciting laws or slander or liable laws. Just try to make public owned airwaves as clean as you would try to make the National Parks. This argument shows the inconsistency of Liberals who are more concerned with the cleanliness of nature then the cleanliness of man's character. They'll give you excuses such as who can define such cleanliness? Isn't it relative? Absolutely not! If I wish to appear naked in the town square the community of the town square has every right to pass a law where they don't have to be exposed to my nudity. The same is true when it comes to the airwaves. Can the majority of the public square get it wrong and make a wrong restriction? Yes, but they do and should always have the FREEDOM to make such a decision and the minority can protest and try to change that decision, but they are bound by it because they are part of that society. Even if they totally destroy the society they will eventually be bound by the absolute and just limits of the creator whether they wish to acknowledge or conform to him or not!

I totally support the FCC's exercise of some controls when it comes to the public airwaves, but I'm totally against them exercising control over cable or satellite. Is satellite the same as the public airwaves? No! Why? The signals are sent from outer space where I claim that government has no jurisdiction--it's kind of like when in the past governments didn't have any national control of the high seas. Nowadays they do have certain environmental or human rights priviledges even on the high seas, but these powers do not constitute the powers that extend to their own airspace. I say let adults buy anything they want, but the free public airwaves should be as clean as the National Parks--seems to me that liberals and conservatives alike could agree on cleanliness. What do you think?

I'm just going to say one thing and I respect everyones opinion on this subject believe me.Look at the debate over gays getting married.The reason we can't always let public opinion rule is this. If we had taken a public opinion poll back 40 or 50 years ago black peolpe would not be allowed to vote,go to school or eat with all the public.We can't always make law what public opinion says. This is just am example I'm not trying to start another debate because eventually public opinion will open up and change. J.H.

I have merged the FCC Tightening The Reigns thread and the FCC Out of Control thread, since both are related to the same topic.

Again, remember this thread will be monitored closely. Please keep political debates and flaming out of this, or the thread will be closed. Thank You

Don't think that I am giving the FCC carte blanche when it comes to making restrictions. The restrictions should be very very limited and should only occur after much public debate, recommendation from the FCC, and hopefully finally a Congressional vote expressly specifying the specific things that are objectionable, and an individual should always have resort to the courts. If given the choice of too much restriction or absolutely no restriction I would even support no restriction. The post about the majority of people shouldn't make certain decisions is right. The majority at one time was WRONG about slavery and civil rights laws. Basically I'm for the proposition that government can't take away unalienable rights--rights that proceed from the creator. Now of course in this nation we will always have arguments about what exactly these rights are. Even if over 2/3 of the people would support changing the constitution, they should be absolutely sure before proceeding...remember prohibition? So I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority and I even think 2/3 should be very careful--but I do believe that 2/3 can express their wishes. Right now I believe the pendulum has swung too far and nearly everything is OK. If you are liberal don't be afraid of me--I only support the most minor of restrictions to free TV--restrictions that would be agreed upon by much more than 2/3 of the people. I do want to thank the moderators for letting this thread continue and I wholeheartedly respect their limits of speech here because this is a private forum--whether liberal or conservative I can respect either side's political views as long as I feel they have the nation's best interests at heart. I guess that applies to me as well--I must be civil and earn the respect of people who disagree with me. As heated as the discourse sometimes gets at the forum I think if our civil discourse was as respectful our country would be alot better off--we'd even have enough time to argue about video!

Also when peolpe say I should'nt have to change the channel.Thats BS because what do you do when you don't like a particular program for any reason you find one that you like you don't change the programing.Like this I hate CSI but hey I don't call CBS constantly trying to get it removerd from the lineup.I watch something else and respect the fact that lots of peolpe love CSI.Isn't this subject as easy as that.If I can respect what peolpe like why can't everone do the same.To me this is not even an issue.J.H.

In the interest of truth: It was FCC commissioner Newton Minnow in 1960 who declared television to be quote: "A vast wasteland".
He was appointed by John F. Kennedy.

During the sixties and seventies, the FCC dictated to TV and Radio stations the amount of time they must spend broadcasting "public affairs", religious programming and news. It was only in the 80's that the FCC's influence over content was limited.

BTW, I spent from 1959-1986 as a broadcaster in markets from Miami to Philadelphia and am very familiar with the FCC's increasing dabbling into program content during the decades mentioned above.
Tom

Oh give me a break! Most people just don't want to see frontal nudity male or female or hear alot of cursing on free public owned airwaves. It doesn't take a genius to abide by those rules and it isn't tough censorship! You can still have Baywatch and you can have all kinds of trashy shows--I don't think that such minor restrictions when you can already buy anything on cable or satellite is outlandish. If you feel so restrained by restrictions on cursing or nudity then just make nudity and cursing ALWAYS legal! That of course is ridiculous--it's about as ridiculous as the argument that ANY restriction of the public airwaves are by their nature evil...who would make such a lame argument....Satan?!

Your right there has to be some restrictions but its when the restrictions get out of hand.Like the Howard Stern Show which I listen to everyday.He is my opinion being censored all of a sudden.Hes show that day he was yanked by 6 clear channel radio stations was no different than what I heard for 15 years and to be honest it was quite tame that day.Here in New york at the same time as the stern show is Z100 and its very G rated.Why should somebody have power over The Stern show when the very lame Z100 is a good alternative. I hate Rush Limbaugh.I hate just about everyting he stands for but I would never in my life try to have him removed from the air waves because there are lots of peolpe who love him and what he stands for.Why should I ruin there good time.I choose to listen to something else.I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.theres a hundred other channels with all kinds of different entertainment.I choose not to listen to Rush Limbaugh and instead listen to WFAN a sports radio station.Its as easy as that. J.H.

I just remember all of those yearly lawmaking sessions (1980s and 1990s) when the Utah Legislature tried to ban most Cable TV networks, because they brought in "outside ideas".

(BTW......could we stop the "Gays=Beastiality+Polygamy" comments?)