NYPD Blue fined 1.4 Million $. Come on!

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

This is a case where angry viewers' letters is a proportional response.

Can you explain the formula you used to arrive at that conclusion?

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

Can you explain the formula you used to arrive at that conclusion?

a |= a

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

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

There is no formula. It is an opinion I express in regards to something I view as ridiculous and totally over the top.

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?

Cosmo

Here are the culprits...
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.

slightofjeff

OutOfBreath wrote:

residue of Janet Jackson boob

yuck!

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

Again, I have not much of a principal argument here, since I have no problem with legislation in principle. However, these people seem to take what mandate they have and really run with it, to benefit the precious pure thoughts of a minority. But I do heartily disagree that legislation should be used for public "decency" in this regard as the legislation changes nothing, and is nothing but for a group to feel better.

(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

OutOfBreath

slightofjeff wrote:

yuck!

hehe, nice phrasing there on my part, eh?

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

Again, I have not much of a principal argument here, since I have no problem with legislation in principle. However, these people seem to take what mandate they have and really run with it, to benefit the precious pure thoughts of a minority. But I do heartily disagree that legislation should be used for public "decency" in this regard as the legislation changes nothing, and is nothing but for a group to feel better.

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

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.

Pacomc79

you know, maybe the porn industry is behind this.


Nudity on TV? That's crap...what are we Communists? That should be at least $14.25 for good side boob

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

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.

farfromglorified

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

The problem with the FCC is that it exsits.

keeponrockin

farfromglorified wrote:

The problem with the FCC is that it exsits.

+1

And Paco, you make an interesting point. If nudity was on TV, do you think the porn industry would be as big?

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

I am saying that not everything needs legislation. I'd think you would be on aboard with that. And again, I'm not about ideal principles here.

As I edited in the former post (which it seems you missed), there is a difference in degree, the difference between misdemeanor and felony. I can't imagine this anywhere past misdemeanor on par with parking tickets or speeding, relatively.

I have no philosophical, libertarian backing for it, neither was it my intention here to highlight that. Only to highlight something I, me, thought was really off the wall, and which I'm pretty sure would be considered so by most people in most countries, maybe even your own. And also highlighting what I can't figure to be anything else than hysteria and pandering to special interests.

I know you want to go at fundamentals, but I dont have a problem with the fundamentals, and I am fine with flawed. I am no libertarian/anarchist, and have no general problem with legislation which in effect will be majority deciding. What I am against is the abuse of this tool, or the complete disregard of that in favour of a special interest.

That, and you americans seriously are hysterical when it comes to nudity. (I know, not all of you, but enough of you) Which I also ponder why is.

Could we talk about that, instead of making this thread too into the libertarian vs the rest argument? Pretty please with sugar on top? ( I could also just not respond I suppose, but I dont know if I have that in me :P )

Peace
Dan

farfromglorified

OutOfBreath wrote:

I am saying that not everything needs legislation. I'd think you would be on aboard with that.

I'm definitely on board with your conclusions.

That, and you americans seriously are hysterical when it comes to nudity. (I know, not all of you, but enough of you) Which I also ponder why is.

Could we talk about that, instead of making this thread too into the libertarian vs the rest argument? Pretty please with sugar on top? ( I could also just not respond I suppose, but I dont know if I have that in me :P )

The answer to your above question is exposed in the flaws in the top paragraph. "Americans" is a meaningless term in this context. Some Americans have serious problems with exposing themselves or their children to nudity. Why? Because they're highly puritanical. There are also millions of Americans that a) dont care or b) would love more nudity (hence the porn and pay-per-view industries here). Seems pretty straightforward, no?

Kel Varnsen

farfromglorified wrote:

The problem with the FCC is that it exsits.

Which is actually kind of true. I mean the FCC has no jurisdiction over basic cable yet your TBS's and your TNT's and your USA network's rarely show anything that you couldn't see on network TV because of the fear that they might lose advertisers. So in a sense the advertisers are doing as good a job keeping things clean as the US government is.

farfromglorified

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Which is actually kind of true. I mean the FCC has no jurisdiction over basic cable yet your TBS's and your TNT's and your USA network's rarely show anything that you couldn't see on network TV because of the fear that they might lose advertisers. So in a sense the advertisers are doing as good a job keeping things clean as the US government is.

The market does a better job "keeping things clean" because the definition of "clean" is not static.

baraka

So much for your 'Pretty please with sugar on top?' plea, Dan.

OutOfBreath

farfromglorified wrote:

The answer to your above question is exposed in the flaws in the top paragraph. "Americans" is a meaningless term in this context. Some Americans have serious problems with exposing themselves or their children to nudity. Why? Because they're highly puritanical. There are also millions of Americans that a) dont care or b) would love more nudity (hence the porn and pay-per-view industries here). Seems pretty straightforward, no?

Which is why I added the ( ) after that statement about americans. And why I wonder if the first mentioned really outweigh a and b. And actually, I wouldn't be too surprised if many of the self-titled puritans are really heavy users of porn.

I dont think it's straightforward at all actually. I think there are a lot of (murky) stuff embedded in this angst towards nudity. (displayed by SOME americans) It's like my girlfriend tells me of her host family over there when she was an exchange student. The parents had no problem letting their boy watch an rated 18 movie, if it was because of violence. If it was rated for sex/nudity, it was not ok.

And it would be one thing if the network suddenly switched kids' tv with hardcore porn at 5 in the afternoon. Showing a side of a boob a bit before 10 is nothing. The punishment do not fit the supposed crime.

But does the FCC only react to complaints? That sounds pretty ass-backwards. Don't they have guidelines for what they do? I have no idea how they really work.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

baraka wrote:

So much for your 'Pretty please with sugar on top?' plea, Dan.

Well maybe. I think we got it down just the notch I was looking for. I might be wrong...

Peace
Dan

redsdisease

OutOfBreath wrote:

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

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just saying compared to the amount of money that Disney (the owners of ABC) is worth, 1.4 million is absolute peanuts.