NYPD Blue fined 1.4 Million $. Come on!

baraka · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

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?

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

South of Seattle · January 2008

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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:

farfromglorified · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

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.

OutOfBreath · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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

farfromglorified · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

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?

OutOfBreath · January 2008

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

farfromglorified · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

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?

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

OutOfBreath · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

*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

farfromglorified · January 2008

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · January 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

*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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

farfromglorified · January 2008

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Decency_Enforcement_Act_of_2005

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · January 2008

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · January 2008

Kel,

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.

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified · January 2008

Kel Varnsen wrote:

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???

Kel Varnsen · January 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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).

NYPD Blue fined 1.4 Million $. Come on!

Comments

Categories