NYPD Blue fined 1.4 Million $. Come on!

OutOfBreath

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

NOCODE#1

i like how it took 4 years for the FCC to land a punch

Kel Varnsen

Wow people in the US are super uptight about these sorts of things. In Canada CTV broadcasts The Sopronos totally uncut on network TV at 10. How crazy would the complainers and the FCC go if CBS tried that sort of thing?

theroachman

What I want to know is who filed the complaint. The FCC only reviews things if there is a formal complaint???

Pacomc79

OutOfBreath wrote:

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

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.

Kel Varnsen

The thing I never understood about these fines and rules is: what's the worst that could happen? I mean if a kid sees a boob on TV, or in this case a side-boob, is it really going to ruin his life for ever? I don't have any kids so maybe I am missing something.

keeponrockin

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The thing I never understood about these fines and rules is: what's the worst that could happen? I mean if a kid sees a boob on TV, or in this case a side-boob, is it really going to ruin his life for ever?

OF COURSE IT IS!!! I MEAN, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE BOOB ON THAT SHOW IS MORE OFFENSIVE THEN THE VIOLENCE ON EVERY OTHER CRIME SHOW!!!!!!!!!.

ya, its pretty fuckin stupid.

Kel Varnsen

keeponrockin wrote:

OF COURSE IT IS!!! I MEAN, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE BOOB ON THAT SHOW IS MORE OFFENSIVE THEN THE VIOLENCE ON EVERY OTHER CRIME SHOW!!!!!!!!!.

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.

farfromglorified

Hey, one man's moral imperative is another man's oppression. As far as I can see, few here should have a problem with this.

theroachman

farfromglorified wrote:

Hey, one man's moral imperative is another man's oppression. As far as I can see, few here should have a problem with this.

Care to elaborate?

Pacomc79

farfromglorified wrote:

Hey, one man's moral imperative is another man's oppression. As far as I can see, few here should have a problem with this.

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?

farfromglorified

theroachman wrote:

Care to elaborate?

Just think about anything you're willing for force on someone else because of your morals, and you'll arrive at this same place.

farfromglorified

Pacomc79 wrote:

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.

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.

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?

Hehe...no, but they "know it when they see it".

Pacomc79

indeed. still a little sad though.

It'd be nice to have at least some logic applied to our laws. Especially the blue laws.

OutOfBreath

I dont have the most of a problem with that fines can be issued for this. Stupid, but if legislated well then fuck it. But the size of them are so utterly ridiculous and out of any and all possible proportion. Fines (if any) on this should be slap on the wrist, not in the million dollar range.
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

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

I dont have the most of a problem with that fines can be issued for this. Stupid, but if legislated well then fuck it. But the size of them are so utterly ridiculous and out of any and all possible proportion. Fines (if any) on this should be slap on the wrist, not in the million dollar range.

Why? Why shouldn't they be higher?

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

Why? Why shouldn't they be higher?

Because the punishment is all out of proportion to the supposed crime. Common sense really.

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

redsdisease

OutOfBreath wrote:

I dont have the most of a problem with that fines can be issued for this. Stupid, but if legislated well then fuck it. But the size of them are so utterly ridiculous and out of any and all possible proportion. Fines (if any) on this should be slap on the wrist, not in the million dollar range.
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

It's CBS, it is a slap on the wrist.

OutOfBreath

ABC actually.
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

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

Because the punishment is all out of proportion to the supposed crime. Common sense really.

So you're applying common sense to the ridiculous??? How's that working?

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.

Hehe...

Derrick

Porn doesn't kill people, guns kill people.