NYPD Blue fined 1.4 Million $. Come on!
OutOfBreath
Posts: 1,804
FCC Proposes $1.4M Fine Against ABC Stations for NYPD Blue
Feb. 25, 2003, Episode Included 'Adult Female Nudity'
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/25/2008 7:20:00 PM
While the FCC's ability to crack down on swearing and fleeting images may be in limbo, the Federal Communications Commission flexed its muscles Friday in the nudity department after a long hiatus.
NYPD Blue
The commission late Friday issued a proposed fine totalling almost $1.4 million against 50-some ABC affiliates for airing a Feb. 25, 2003, episode of NYPD Blue that included "adult female nudity," specifically a "small portion of one side of her breasts" and a side view of her buttocks, the FCC said, and another scene of her naked from the back. Rather than the fleeting nudity and profanity decisions currently being challenged in court, the FCC said the scene "dwelled" on the nudity and was l"ingering," as well as "shocking and titillating."
The FCC also pointed out that a young boy--it estimated seven or eight--was also in the scene. The commission said it was aware that other ABC affiliates had aired the show, but would apply the fine only to those markets where complaints had been received and in the central and mountain time zones where the show aired out of the 10 p.m.-6 a.m. harbor for indecent broadcasts.
The fine is the $27,500 maximum (at the time of the airing) for each station. The current maximum fine has been raised more than tenfold to $325,000.
ABC defended the show and said it will fight the fine on behalf of its owned stations cited.
"NYPD Blue, which aired on ABC from 1993-2005, was an Emmy Award-winning drama, broadcast with appropriate parental warnings, as well as V-chip-enabled program ratings from the time such ratings were implemented," ABC said Friday in a statement.
"When the brief scene in question was telecast almost five years ago, this critically acclaimed drama had been on the air for a decade and the realistic nature of its story lines was well known to the viewing public," the network added. "ABC feels strongly that the FCC's finding is inconsistent with prior precedent from the commission, the indecency statute and the First Amendment, and we intend to oppose the proposed fine."
ABC had argued in defending the show that there weren't many complaints filed against it, but the FCC said that did not matter. ABC argued that the buttocks were not a sexual organ. The FCC rejected that, too. ABC argued that the scene was meant to show the difficutly of a single parent dating and that it was not meant to suggest any seduction or titillation of the boy, but the FCC said no dice there, too, saying that the multiple scenes of skin were certainly titillating to viewers.
The FCC also said that ABC's warning that the show contained partial nudity was not sufficient shield since the warning would not work if channel surfers happened on the show after it began, citing Supreme Court precedent for the decision.
Numerous TV station group owners were hit with proposed fines, with the list including Post-Newsweek, Hearst, Young Broadcasting, Citadel, Gray Television, McGraw-Hill, Media General, Nexstar, and Scripps Howard. Hearst appeared to be the hardest hit with six stations cited.
The FCC issued the proposed fine late Friday and asked each licensee to pay up by Feb. 11.
The move came exactly one week before broadcasters are scheduled to weigh in on the FCC's request that the Supreme Court review a lower-court decision slamming the agency's fleeting profanity enforcement and a little over one week before the fourth anniversay of the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl reveal.
Before defending its profanity rulings, the FCC reversed a profanity decision against NYPD Blue.
1,4 million fine for a glimpse of a boob and some buttocks? Seriously? This is what FCC does? :rolleyes:
I'm once again confronted with the weird american puritan hypocrisy, in that almost any amount of violence is ok, but show some skin and the nation goes gaga. Well, parts of it anyway, and that part seems to be running the FCC at least.
As a sidenote, am I the only one that finds it slightly amusing when these guys go into detail about how and why things are indecent?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
Oh Dan, if you only lived here. Gambling is fine, Spend all your money plugged into a machine 24 hours a day any day of the week....but God Forbid you try to buy beer on a sunday at the grocery store....or liquor or wine or beer in the same store in some states or brew alcohol and sell it in the same place etc etc.
We have a lot of puritanical numb nuts voters who love to control what everyone does socially.
ya, its pretty fuckin stupid.
The stupid thing is that pretty much every tv since the late 90's has come with a V-chip. So even if a parent is lazy and doesn't want to find out what their kids are watching they can set up the TV to do the work for them so their kid won't have to see any side-boobs.
Care to elaborate?
~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
The Tie-Dye Lady is HOT!!!
yeah, but honestly, the government using it's police power to levy a fine on a TV show....slightly outside the implied powers given to the government.
It's more of a power granted to the parents of any children or said people or individuals who have issues with side boobs.... and even then should be a civil matter.
Have they even decided what "Obscenity" means yet legally?
Just think about anything you're willing for force on someone else because of your morals, and you'll arrive at this same place.
The implied powers given to a government are limited only by their powers of enforcement and the people's willingness and power to reject such force.
Hehe...no, but they "know it when they see it".
It'd be nice to have at least some logic applied to our laws. Especially the blue laws.
From what I understand this is the residue of Janet Jackson boob moral PANIC. Wasn't it right after that that they shot the fines through the roof?
I see a not insignificant correlation between the public attitude towards sex in the US and you having such an enormous and prosperous porn industry.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Why? Why shouldn't they be higher?
And I know you want to go on about force, government and all that principal jazz. (you always do, you know
But for me this is just about hysteria institutionalized, or rather an institution taken over by hysteria. And, if you will, a prime example of how things should not be run.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I have no idea if that difference is significant.
A million dollar is not a slap on the wrist in this regard. Now if people certifiably became disabled watching that boob or something, and needed medical for the rest of their lives, well sure. For rattling the puritan minds out there a smidgeon, is not equivalent to a million $. And as I'm led to believe, neither was it before the Jackson boob and everyone freaked.
This is a case where angry viewers' letters is a proportional response. Cancelling the subscription to that channel, fine. If you feel that much about it. Being fined by the FCC several years after the fact, sounds silly to me, and at least where I live is presented as a "smirk and shake your head" case and proof of you americans being crazy.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So you're applying common sense to the ridiculous??? How's that working?
Hehe...
Can you explain the formula you used to arrive at that conclusion?
There is no formula. It is an opinion I express in regards to something I view as ridiculous and totally over the top. This is not based on a firm mathematical and unassailable principle, just using my noodle here.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
And you recognize that the fine that was levied was someone else's "opinion in regards to something they viewed as ridiculous and totally over the top", yes? And since they also had no formula, what's the problem here?
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/aboutus/main.asp
...
These are the same people who came up with the Janet Jackson 'Wardrobe Malfunction' at the Super Bowl.
Their M.O. is to set up a pre-typed letter of complaint that they have people click and send in to the FCC. such as this one:
https://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/gma/main.asp
It makes it look like there is an outpouring of complaints.
I'm glad there are these perfect people out there, looking out for MY morals... because, obviously... I am incapable of doing so for myself.
Hail, Hail!!!
yuck!
for the least they could possibly do
(edit) Example: I dont necessarily have a problem with that people can be put to jail for 15 years. I do have a problem with that being slapped on a stolen candy-bar or a speeding ticket. This case looks to me like the equivalent of life for a parking ticket.
Now, arguably, that goes for any and all laws, I see that. However, some areas are more important than others, and this for me is a prime example of an unimportant area. And this has been a judgement on my part, yes. Others certainly make judgements too, which I can disagree with.
But this to me isn't at all about fundamental ideal principles. It's about people going nuts over really small business. As I said earlier "But for me this is just about hysteria institutionalized, or rather an institution taken over by hysteria. And, if you will, a prime example of how things should not be run."
I do not have a prinicpal objection, but I do have a specific objection.
Capiche?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
This is all fine and good, and I'm glad to see you recognize some of the inherent problems here. I find your justification, however, to be lacking. You say that this legislation protects "the precious pure thoughts of a minority". This is incorrect. In the minds of those who support this type of legislation, it protects a vast majority! Nearly every American citizen is exposed to television, no? And what better way is there to ensure that majority remains unspoiled than to simply prohibit widely available content providers from showing "adult female nudity"? This kind of legislation and FCC action directly prevents networks from showing such "appalling" content so, to suggest as you do, that it "changes nothing", is completely false. It changes all sorts of things! Therefore it must be good.
You say that is it "unimportant" and, as such, imply that it should be tabled in favor of more "important" tasks. This seems to imply that governance, as a resource, is severely limited. Can we not continue the virtuous fight against "deplorable" television content while also, for instance, fighting abortion, lynching immigrants, and also, of course, spreading the word of Jesus?
Not only can we do these things, but we must. We must do them because America works best when one man's morality becomes everyone else's obligation. Dissenters be damned! Are you suggesting that you are above compromise? Are you suggesting that your right to watch whatever programming another will provide you supersedes my right to prevent you from watching whatever I disapprove of? How selfish of you.
Nudity on TV? That's crap...what are we Communists? That should be at least $14.25 for good side boob
The problem with the FCC, from what I understand it is it doesn't prohibit anything from being shown on television. There are no rules that say you can't show a boob or an ass that NYPD broke. It is just any time they get a complaint they have to investigate it and only then is a ruling made. And on top of that a person can complain without even having witnessed the show. I don't understand how that can protect anyone, nor do I understand how someone can be offended by something they didn't even see. Then again I still don't understand what is so bad about seeing the side of a boob on tv. But I come from a country where the government owned public broadcaster shows The Big Lebowski uncut.