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.
And Paco, you make an interesting point. If nudity was on TV, do you think the porn industry would be as big?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
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
"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
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?
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.
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.
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
"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
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
"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
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.
Well maybe. I think we got it down just the notch I was looking for. I might be wrong...
Peace
Dan
Ha ha, perhaps. I read your plea then a comment about how the market does a better job "keeping things clean." You do know there are no market failures, only government failures?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
I am pretty sure there are no written rules. I remember reading when PBS was going to play "The War" the documentary series on WW2, a lot of PBS stations were worried to play it because there were some hard ass old veterans saying Fuck on camera and they didn't want to get fined. Some ended up not showing it I think (or showing an edited version), since the FCC would not review it in advance and say it was ok or not.
The stupid thing about this fine is who does it protect? I mean if you already let your kid watch NYPD Blue I don't think him or her seeing a bit of a boob is your biggest problem.
I am pretty sure there are no written rules. I remember reading when PBS was going to play "The War" the documentary series on WW2, a lot of PBS stations were worried to play it because there were some hard ass old veterans saying Fuck on camera and they didn't want to get fined. Some ended up not showing it I think (or showing an edited version), since the FCC would not review it in advance and say it was ok or not.
The stupid thing about this fine is who does it protect? I mean if you already let your kid watch NYPD Blue I don't think him or her seeing a bit of a boob is your biggest problem.
I think it's more about the religious nut that can only see the breast of their wife while reproducing. If they see a boob at any other time it's hardcore porn. :rolleyes:
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.
Absolutely, but that's a big part of puritan appearance, which is really what's important there.
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.
I guess I'm confused as to why you find that weird. Should I find it weird that there's more nudity in European content than there is violence?
Violence in this culture is largely considered ok. Why? Because, as a culture, we're highly competitive, highly individual and highly terroritorial. Sex, however, is still a relative taboo in this culture. Hence, lots of violence and marginalized sex.
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.
There is no punishment that correctly fits the supposed crime because it's not a crime at all, outside of the legal authority. This is why the amount of the fine is even silly to question. The fine could be $1 or it could be $1B. It's irrelevent as it is impossible to quantify the supposed offense. And since the crime is at someone's subjective discretion, the punishment should also be.
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.
The FCC does have guidelines - a lot of them. However, the intrepretation and application of those guidelines are largely up to their discretion.
Absolutely, but that's a big part of puritan appearance, which is really what's important there.
Oh, I know.
I guess I'm confused as to why you find that weird. Should I find it weird that there's more nudity in European content than there is violence?
Violence in this culture is largely considered ok. Why? Because, as a culture, we're highly competitive, highly individual and highly terroritorial. Sex, however, is still a relative taboo in this culture. Hence, lots of violence and marginalized sex.
In context and tradition it may not be weird per se, but if one takes a few steps back, it really is. Nakedness and sex are good things aren't they? (hinting at reporoduction if anything) Violence is supposed to be bad isn't it? I mean if one is to focus on a sin, It'd make much more sense to restrict violence rather than some flashes of nudity. To me that is, but I'm not a puritanical bible-thumper.
There is no punishment that correctly fits the supposed crime because it's not a crime at all, outside of the legal authority. This is why the amount of the fine is even silly to question. The fine could be $1 or it could be $1B. It's irrelevent as it is impossible to quantify the supposed offense. And since the crime is at someone's subjective discretion, the punishment should also be.
Oh, but these judgements and quantifications are made dailly in many circumstances. We have courts, we have capitalism and book-keeping. It's part and parcel of the modern experience to quantify any- and everything. I think the attitude that "it's silly anyway, so why not 1 billion?" isn't in any way constructive. And even if the crime cant be exactly quantifiable, ball park estimates can be made. My reaction isn't so much against there being fines for this stuff in many countries, but the size of them in the american case. Personally I think it's silly to have fines for such trivials, but if enough people want them I can live with it. But a tad common sense can still be applied, and not cave in to hysteria like this clearly is the residue of.
The FCC does have guidelines - a lot of them. However, the intrepretation and application of those guidelines are largely up to their discretion.
There's a big problem right there. Especially when it seems, as Kel Varnsen put forth, that they only react, and wont even give pre-approval of anything. Then it's not even a regulation thing, just punishment. Then it's just a hammer for the puritans to use at will. Sounds weird. I'd agree to get rid of that whole thing, and if it was felt that control was needed (through elections and whatnot), do it properly. If regulations is wanted, regulate. Not panic-decisions in the middle of a hysteriain order to look good, proactive and family-friendly.
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
In context and tradition it may not be weird per se, but if one takes a few steps back, it really is. Nakedness and sex are good things aren't they?
To some, absolutely. To others, no.
Violence is supposed to be bad isn't it?
To some, absolutely. To others, no.
I mean if one is to focus on a sin, It'd make much more sense to restrict violence rather than some flashes of nudity. To me that is, but I'm not a puritanical bible-thumper.
This has little to do with "sin", conceptually. It has everything to do with what is "acceptable". That's different than sin. Surely most puritans will tell you that violence is sinful.
Oh, but these judgements and quantifications are made dailly in many circumstances. We have courts, we have capitalism and book-keeping. It's part and parcel of the modern experience to quantify any- and everything. I think the attitude that "it's silly anyway, so why not 1 billion?" isn't in any way constructive.
Hehe..."constructive"??? There's nothing constructive about limiting what can be produced in terms of content to begin with. So why in the world would "constructive" as a concept be introduced into this?
And even if the crime cant be exactly quantifiable, ball park estimates can be made.
How?
My reaction isn't so much against there being fines for this stuff in many countries, but the size of them in the american case. Personally I think it's silly to have fines for such trivials, but if enough people want them I can live with it. But a tad common sense can still be applied, and not cave in to hysteria like this clearly is the residue of.
Whose common sense? I mean, I'm sure there are people who would be commonly pleased with ABC executives being thrown to the gallows for showing an exposed breast on their network.
There's a big problem right there. Especially when it seems, as Kel Varnsen put forth, that they only react, and wont even give pre-approval of anything. Then it's not even a regulation thing, just punishment. Then it's just a hammer for the puritans to use at will. Sounds weird. I'd agree to get rid of that whole thing, and if it was felt that control was needed (through elections and whatnot), do it properly. If regulations is wanted, regulate. Not panic-decisions in the middle of a hysteria.
I can't think of any imposed regulation that doesn't meat the "panic-decisions in the middle of a hysteria" standard. That's what regulation is. Why would you regulate anything if you weren't actually afraid of it?
The short answer from me as a democrat would be we the people decide this stuff. Hopefully not some office in order to make some politicians look better to a special group.
And regulation is NOT what is set up as a panic-attempt. I know the US is big on those, which is another thing thaty fascinates me about over there.
Regulation is meant to influence something in a desirable direction, and in a democracy, that desired direction is in the hands of the majority of the people.
"Some" people think the weirdest things. There are always "some" that will have a wacky and very differing view. What is done however, should always have the root in the majority of the people.
And before you give me any majority tyranny speech, I would like to add for the record that any action taken by a democratic government should also not infringe upon the basic rights of the individuals. Where that line is drawn is up for political debate.
And again, this case interested me because it's such a clear-cut hysteria issue not necessarily backed up by popular opinion, and enforced by an agency with unclear mandate.
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
The short answer from me as a democrat would be we the people decide this stuff. Hopefully not some office in order to make some politicians look better to a special group.
And regulation is NOT what is set up as a panic-attempt. I know the US is big on those, which is another thing thaty fascinates me about over there.
Regulation is meant to influence something in a desirable direction, and in a democracy, that desired direction is in the hands of the majority of the people.
"Some" people think the weirdest things. There are always "some" that will have a wacky and very differing view. What is done however, should always have the root in the majority of the people.
And before you give me any majority tyranny speech, I would like to add for the record that any action taken by a democratic government should also not infringe upon the basic rights of the individuals. Where that line is drawn is up for political debate.
And again, this case interested me because it's such a clear-cut hysteria issue not necessarily backed up by popular opinion, and enforced by an agency with unclear mandate.
Peace
Dan
Dan,
I don't really see a clear thesis here. I understand that you think regulating nudity on television is somewhat strange and that levying heavy fines for violations is somewhat crazy. Yet at the same time you say that regulation is necessary, should be dictated by the majority within a certain population, and should serve something called a "desired direction". You acknowledge that there should be some conceptual limits of those regulations vis a vis individual rights, but you leave those, of course, completely undefined.
So, again, I fail to see the problem here. The "majority" in this country has determined that nudity on TV is bad and that a group should exist to levy arbitrary fines on those who violate the sensibilities of that majority. Certain limits to their authority exist such that the regulation doesn't go past our chosen conceptual limits of individual rights. It all serves the majority's "desired direction" in terms of television content. So, what's the problem?
So, again, I fail to see the problem here. The "majority" in this country has determined that nudity on TV is bad and that a group should exist to levy arbitrary fines on those who violate the sensibilities of that majority. Certain limits to their authority exist such that the regulation doesn't go past our chosen conceptual limits of individual rights. It all serves the majority's "desired direction" in terms of television content. So, what's the problem?
But is it the majority though? My understanding is that as long as the FCC gets 1 complaint about something they will do at least a minimal investigation. So whether a show gets 1 or 10,000 complaints the FCC has to review and determine if it should take action. How is that the majority, if one person seeing the side of a boob and complaining leads to a huge fine.
I don't really see a clear thesis here. I understand that you think regulating nudity on television is somewhat strange and that levying heavy fines for violations is somewhat crazy. Yet at the same time you say that regulation is necessary, should be dictated by the majority within a certain population, and should serve something called a "desired direction". You acknowledge that there should be some conceptual limits of those regulations vis a vis individual rights, but you leave those, of course, completely undefined.
So, again, I fail to see the problem here. The "majority" in this country has determined that nudity on TV is bad and that a group should exist to levy arbitrary fines on those who violate the sensibilities of that majority. Certain limits to their authority exist such that the regulation doesn't go past our chosen conceptual limits of individual rights. It all serves the majority's "desired direction" in terms of television content. So, what's the problem?
*sigh* I'm not writing a thesis here, which may be why you find definitions lacking. Were I to publish a book on this I'd be sure to put that together.
I dont have a principal problem with this IF it is truly an expression of the will of the majority over there. However, I am still astonished that people actually would want that, IF that truly is the case. So I guess my problem would be with the people then, and I would try to make them see how absurd that is. Perhaps ineffectively through an internet message board...
But if Kel Varnsen is again right, then I really question just exactly what the FCC is anyway.
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
But is it the majority though? My understanding is that as long as the FCC gets 1 complaint about something they will do at least a minimal investigation. So whether a show gets 1 or 10,000 complaints the FCC has to review and determine if it should take action. How is that the majority, if one person seeing the side of a boob and complaining leads to a huge fine.
Yes, the FCC has to investigate small complaints, but that's how the system was setup per the democratic will of the majority.
*sigh* I'm not writing a thesis here, which may be why you find definitions lacking. Were I to publish a book on this I'd be sure to put that together.
I dont have a principal problem with this IF it is truly an expression of the will of the majority over there. However, I am still astonished that people actually would want that, IF that truly is the case. So I guess my problem would be with the people then, and I would try to make them see how absurd that is. Perhaps ineffectively through an internet message board...
Hehe...
It must be a "true expression of the will of the majority", since the FCC arose in a democratic country, no? Certainly any regulation that emerges from a governmental mandate in a democratic arena is the will of the majority.
But if Kel Varnsen is again right, then I really question just exactly what the FCC is anyway.
The FCC is a watchdog set up by the government to monopolize bandwidth and regulate its use, of course. You can learn more here:
Yes, the FCC has to investigate small complaints, but that's how the system was setup per the democratic will of the majority.
But there is no counterbalance. If someone loved that episode of NYPD Blue and thought it was brilliant and not at all offensive, their input to the FCC goes ignored.
Alternatively if a show has the exact same content as NYPD Blue and no one watches it, so in turn no one complains it doesn't get fined. There have been cases (episodes of SNL come to mind), where people have said Fuck on live TV. But since the audience was so small, no one complained and there was no fines. How is that fair where two programs could show the exact same thing, but only the one where complaints are filed gets fined.
Also speaking of the democratic majority, are the FCC rules and regulations decided on by the elected congress, or are they done by the appointed people who run the FCC?
But there is no counterbalance. If someone loved that episode of NYPD Blue and thought it was brilliant and not at all offensive, their input to the FCC goes ignored.
lternatively if a show has the exact same content as NYPD Blue and no one watches it, so in turn no one complains it doesn't get fined. There have been cases (episodes of SNL come to mind), where people have said Fuck on live TV. But since the audience was so small, no one complained and there was no fines. How is that fair where two programs could show the exact same thing, but only the one where complaints are filed gets fined.
So what? It doesn't matter that someone is not offended. All that matters is that someone else was offended.
Let's think about this for a minute. Everyday on this board, people whine about all sorts of horrible "injustices" that happen to tiny minorities in America and propose sweeping regulation that would affect everyone. How is this any different?
AAlso speaking of the democratic majority, are the FCC rules and regulations decided on by the elected congress, or are they done by the appointed people who run the FCC?
FCC rules and regulations are dictated by Congress. See, for instance, this pearl:
Let's think about this for a minute. Everyday on this board, people whine about all sorts of horrible "injustices" that happen to tiny minorities in America and propose sweeping regulation that would affect everyone. How is this any different?
But in how many of those injustices does the person suffering actually have the power to stop the injustice from happening. I mean if a bunch of cops are beating on you, typically you don't really have any power to make them stop. But if what is being shown on TV is going to offend you, then you have a remote control. TV shows even have those little warning tags on them now (plus viewer discresion advisories), so that you know what kind of offensive stuff is coming up. It is not like NYPD Blue was rated TV-G and then all of the sudden there were naked people walking around, if you were watching it you should know what to expect. On top of that if you can't be bothered to read the rating, you can program your TV to take care of it for you, so that it doesn't play shows that go over a certain rating.
But in how many of those injustices does the person suffering actually have the power to stop the injustice from happening.
In nearly all of them.
I mean if a bunch of cops are beating on you, typically you don't really have any power to make them stop. But if what is being shown on TV is going to offend you, then you have a remote control.
This is silly. How do I know that something on TV is going to offend me until I see it?
TV shows even have those little warning tags on them now (plus viewer discresion advisories), so that you know what kind of offensive stuff is coming up. It is not like NYPD Blue was rated TV-G and then all of the sudden there were naked people walking around, if you were watching it you should know what to expect.
Certainly I wouldn't expect that. I mean, it's just not possible for me to know that I was suddenly going to see a naked person, since there's not supposed to be naked people on TV.
On top of that if you can't be bothered to read the rating, you can program your TV to take care of it for you, so that it doesn't play shows that go over a certain rating.
Well that's all fine and good, but there are a lot of poor people in this country who can't afford fancy new TVs like you have.
You seem to be under the impression that it's America's responsibility to avoid offense. This is incorrect. It is your responsibility not to offend America.
In nearly all of them.
Certainly I wouldn't expect that. I mean, it's just not possible for me to know that I was suddenly going to see a naked person, since there's not supposed to be naked people on TV.
Well that's all fine and good, but there are a lot of poor people in this country who can't afford fancy new TVs like you have.
The TV ratings systems on top of the ratings code also give sub-catergories for specific content. There is V for violence, L for language, S for sexual situations, and D for dialogue. Like I said on top of that you usually get a "viewer discresion is advised warning". If people don't take those warnings seriously. If you watch a show that is TV-MA with the S subcatergory you should have some idea what to expect, the same way you would if you walked into an R rated movie.
As far as TVs with content filters go, they have been around since 1999, and since 2000 have been required by US law to be come factory installed on every TV sold in the US. My tv is almost 9 years old so it is not like we are talking about fancy new technology.
The TV ratings systems on top of the ratings code also give sub-catergories for specific content. There is V for violence, L for language, S for sexual situations, and D for dialogue. Like I said on top of that you usually get a "viewer discresion is advised warning". If people don't take those warnings seriously. If you watch a show that is TV-MA with the S subcatergory you should have some idea what to expect, the same way you would if you walked into an R rated movie.
What if I tune into a show half-way through? What if I'm illiterate? What if I had temporary blindness when the "viewer discretion" thing popped up? What if I was ok with the nudity but my 5 year old just stumbled in to the room? I mean, there's just too much risk in letting people determine these things for themselves.
As far as TVs with content filters go, they have been around since 1999, and since 2000 have been required by US law to be come factory installed on every TV sold in the US. My tv is almost 9 years old so it is not like we are talking about fancy new technology.
Wow, that's really selfish of you. My one-armed grandmother is on a fixed income and still watches her 1970s Zenith. And you expect her to buy a new TV???
What if I tune into a show half-way through? What if I'm illiterate? What if I had temporary blindness when the "viewer discretion" thing popped up? What if I was ok with the nudity but my 5 year old just stumbled in to the room? I mean, there's just too much risk in letting people determine these things for themselves.
Wow, that's really selfish of you. My one-armed grandmother is on a fixed income and still watches her 1970s Zenith. And you expect her to buy a new TV???
I think if someone is that concerned that they might be offended by something, to the point that they think the broadcaster deserves to be punished, and they are going to make the effort to complain, then they should also make the effort to research the shows they are about to watch. Why should the shows I want to watch be cut because someone who probably wouldn't watch them anyways can't be bothered to research them first.
Once again if your grandmother is the type of person who might actually get offended by something that is shown on US broadcast TV then maybe it might be in her best interest to buy a new TV (or even a newer used TV). Like I said way back I hate to think how fast the heads of some of these complainers would explode if they ever saw Canadian broadcast TV (or even basic cable).
Comments
The problem with the FCC is that it exsits.
And Paco, you make an interesting point. If nudity was on TV, do you think the porn industry would be as big?
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?
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'm definitely on board with your conclusions.
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 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.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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
"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
Ha ha, perhaps. I read your plea then a comment about how the market does a better job "keeping things clean." You do know there are no market failures, only government failures?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I am pretty sure there are no written rules. I remember reading when PBS was going to play "The War" the documentary series on WW2, a lot of PBS stations were worried to play it because there were some hard ass old veterans saying Fuck on camera and they didn't want to get fined. Some ended up not showing it I think (or showing an edited version), since the FCC would not review it in advance and say it was ok or not.
The stupid thing about this fine is who does it protect? I mean if you already let your kid watch NYPD Blue I don't think him or her seeing a bit of a boob is your biggest problem.
I think it's more about the religious nut that can only see the breast of their wife while reproducing. If they see a boob at any other time it's hardcore porn. :rolleyes:
Absolutely, but that's a big part of puritan appearance, which is really what's important there.
I guess I'm confused as to why you find that weird. Should I find it weird that there's more nudity in European content than there is violence?
Violence in this culture is largely considered ok. Why? Because, as a culture, we're highly competitive, highly individual and highly terroritorial. Sex, however, is still a relative taboo in this culture. Hence, lots of violence and marginalized sex.
There is no punishment that correctly fits the supposed crime because it's not a crime at all, outside of the legal authority. This is why the amount of the fine is even silly to question. The fine could be $1 or it could be $1B. It's irrelevent as it is impossible to quantify the supposed offense. And since the crime is at someone's subjective discretion, the punishment should also be.
The FCC does have guidelines - a lot of them. However, the intrepretation and application of those guidelines are largely up to their discretion.
In context and tradition it may not be weird per se, but if one takes a few steps back, it really is. Nakedness and sex are good things aren't they? (hinting at reporoduction if anything) Violence is supposed to be bad isn't it? I mean if one is to focus on a sin, It'd make much more sense to restrict violence rather than some flashes of nudity. To me that is, but I'm not a puritanical bible-thumper.
Oh, but these judgements and quantifications are made dailly in many circumstances. We have courts, we have capitalism and book-keeping. It's part and parcel of the modern experience to quantify any- and everything. I think the attitude that "it's silly anyway, so why not 1 billion?" isn't in any way constructive. And even if the crime cant be exactly quantifiable, ball park estimates can be made. My reaction isn't so much against there being fines for this stuff in many countries, but the size of them in the american case. Personally I think it's silly to have fines for such trivials, but if enough people want them I can live with it. But a tad common sense can still be applied, and not cave in to hysteria like this clearly is the residue of.
There's a big problem right there. Especially when it seems, as Kel Varnsen put forth, that they only react, and wont even give pre-approval of anything. Then it's not even a regulation thing, just punishment. Then it's just a hammer for the puritans to use at will. Sounds weird. I'd agree to get rid of that whole thing, and if it was felt that control was needed (through elections and whatnot), do it properly. If regulations is wanted, regulate. Not panic-decisions in the middle of a hysteriain order to look good, proactive and family-friendly.
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
To some, absolutely. To others, no.
To some, absolutely. To others, no.
This has little to do with "sin", conceptually. It has everything to do with what is "acceptable". That's different than sin. Surely most puritans will tell you that violence is sinful.
Hehe..."constructive"??? There's nothing constructive about limiting what can be produced in terms of content to begin with. So why in the world would "constructive" as a concept be introduced into this?
How?
Whose common sense? I mean, I'm sure there are people who would be commonly pleased with ABC executives being thrown to the gallows for showing an exposed breast on their network.
I can't think of any imposed regulation that doesn't meat the "panic-decisions in the middle of a hysteria" standard. That's what regulation is. Why would you regulate anything if you weren't actually afraid of it?
And regulation is NOT what is set up as a panic-attempt. I know the US is big on those, which is another thing thaty fascinates me about over there.
Regulation is meant to influence something in a desirable direction, and in a democracy, that desired direction is in the hands of the majority of the people.
"Some" people think the weirdest things. There are always "some" that will have a wacky and very differing view. What is done however, should always have the root in the majority of the people.
And before you give me any majority tyranny speech, I would like to add for the record that any action taken by a democratic government should also not infringe upon the basic rights of the individuals. Where that line is drawn is up for political debate.
And again, this case interested me because it's such a clear-cut hysteria issue not necessarily backed up by popular opinion, and enforced by an agency with unclear mandate.
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
Dan,
I don't really see a clear thesis here. I understand that you think regulating nudity on television is somewhat strange and that levying heavy fines for violations is somewhat crazy. Yet at the same time you say that regulation is necessary, should be dictated by the majority within a certain population, and should serve something called a "desired direction". You acknowledge that there should be some conceptual limits of those regulations vis a vis individual rights, but you leave those, of course, completely undefined.
So, again, I fail to see the problem here. The "majority" in this country has determined that nudity on TV is bad and that a group should exist to levy arbitrary fines on those who violate the sensibilities of that majority. Certain limits to their authority exist such that the regulation doesn't go past our chosen conceptual limits of individual rights. It all serves the majority's "desired direction" in terms of television content. So, what's the problem?
But is it the majority though? My understanding is that as long as the FCC gets 1 complaint about something they will do at least a minimal investigation. So whether a show gets 1 or 10,000 complaints the FCC has to review and determine if it should take action. How is that the majority, if one person seeing the side of a boob and complaining leads to a huge fine.
I dont have a principal problem with this IF it is truly an expression of the will of the majority over there. However, I am still astonished that people actually would want that, IF that truly is the case. So I guess my problem would be with the people then, and I would try to make them see how absurd that is. Perhaps ineffectively through an internet message board...
But if Kel Varnsen is again right, then I really question just exactly what the FCC is anyway.
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
Yes, the FCC has to investigate small complaints, but that's how the system was setup per the democratic will of the majority.
Hehe...
It must be a "true expression of the will of the majority", since the FCC arose in a democratic country, no? Certainly any regulation that emerges from a governmental mandate in a democratic arena is the will of the majority.
The FCC is a watchdog set up by the government to monopolize bandwidth and regulate its use, of course. You can learn more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
But there is no counterbalance. If someone loved that episode of NYPD Blue and thought it was brilliant and not at all offensive, their input to the FCC goes ignored.
Alternatively if a show has the exact same content as NYPD Blue and no one watches it, so in turn no one complains it doesn't get fined. There have been cases (episodes of SNL come to mind), where people have said Fuck on live TV. But since the audience was so small, no one complained and there was no fines. How is that fair where two programs could show the exact same thing, but only the one where complaints are filed gets fined.
Also speaking of the democratic majority, are the FCC rules and regulations decided on by the elected congress, or are they done by the appointed people who run the FCC?
So what? It doesn't matter that someone is not offended. All that matters is that someone else was offended.
Let's think about this for a minute. Everyday on this board, people whine about all sorts of horrible "injustices" that happen to tiny minorities in America and propose sweeping regulation that would affect everyone. How is this any different?
FCC rules and regulations are dictated by Congress. See, for instance, this pearl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Decency_Enforcement_Act_of_2005
But in how many of those injustices does the person suffering actually have the power to stop the injustice from happening. I mean if a bunch of cops are beating on you, typically you don't really have any power to make them stop. But if what is being shown on TV is going to offend you, then you have a remote control. TV shows even have those little warning tags on them now (plus viewer discresion advisories), so that you know what kind of offensive stuff is coming up. It is not like NYPD Blue was rated TV-G and then all of the sudden there were naked people walking around, if you were watching it you should know what to expect. On top of that if you can't be bothered to read the rating, you can program your TV to take care of it for you, so that it doesn't play shows that go over a certain rating.
In nearly all of them.
This is silly. How do I know that something on TV is going to offend me until I see it?
Certainly I wouldn't expect that. I mean, it's just not possible for me to know that I was suddenly going to see a naked person, since there's not supposed to be naked people on TV.
Well that's all fine and good, but there are a lot of poor people in this country who can't afford fancy new TVs like you have.
You seem to be under the impression that it's America's responsibility to avoid offense. This is incorrect. It is your responsibility not to offend America.
The TV ratings systems on top of the ratings code also give sub-catergories for specific content. There is V for violence, L for language, S for sexual situations, and D for dialogue. Like I said on top of that you usually get a "viewer discresion is advised warning". If people don't take those warnings seriously. If you watch a show that is TV-MA with the S subcatergory you should have some idea what to expect, the same way you would if you walked into an R rated movie.
As far as TVs with content filters go, they have been around since 1999, and since 2000 have been required by US law to be come factory installed on every TV sold in the US. My tv is almost 9 years old so it is not like we are talking about fancy new technology.
What if I tune into a show half-way through? What if I'm illiterate? What if I had temporary blindness when the "viewer discretion" thing popped up? What if I was ok with the nudity but my 5 year old just stumbled in to the room? I mean, there's just too much risk in letting people determine these things for themselves.
Wow, that's really selfish of you. My one-armed grandmother is on a fixed income and still watches her 1970s Zenith. And you expect her to buy a new TV???
I think if someone is that concerned that they might be offended by something, to the point that they think the broadcaster deserves to be punished, and they are going to make the effort to complain, then they should also make the effort to research the shows they are about to watch. Why should the shows I want to watch be cut because someone who probably wouldn't watch them anyways can't be bothered to research them first.
Once again if your grandmother is the type of person who might actually get offended by something that is shown on US broadcast TV then maybe it might be in her best interest to buy a new TV (or even a newer used TV). Like I said way back I hate to think how fast the heads of some of these complainers would explode if they ever saw Canadian broadcast TV (or even basic cable).