The FCC Won't Let Anyone Be

[NinjaJack]

The Nipple Ripple Effect







Almost six months after her revealing super bowl performance, Janet “Ms. Nasty Demita Jo” Jackson has boosted attention to indecently, and fell to Usher in record sales





The unaging innovator of the pretty smile’s breast baring stunt has effected every asspect and boob-spect of popular media, Although Howard Stern’s breast barring moments have gone mostly unnoticed on the radio, his show has been axed by six media outlets and although he won’t be missed by myself, it is being a little unfair to attack him on the basis that he’s talked about more cleavage than Janet has ever shown, Howard’s an A-Cup by the way.



Miss Jackson cancelled award show appearances; she’s been banned and warned from enough events to fill Kobe Bryant’s black book. Kidding aside this is a very serious issue. The V-Chip has been re-introduced; they’ve started airing public service commercials for the thing. All the V-Chip does is further prove that American parents are letting the FCC control more and more of their children’s lives, and to some extent their own.

There was once a time when Eminim’s lyrical prospects were among the FCC’s biggest concerns, now it’s a breast, a middle-aged man and MTV.



Daytime television shows and MTV have toned down their daily doses of T&A for less risqué content, lets see a 400+ women stay dressed during Jerry Springer for once.

The WWE fans in the world can even feel the tight vice of the FCC, they’ve contacted Vince on his content throughout the years, not to mention how much John Cena has began to suck since the FCC ask the Heavy Hitters to tone it down…gee and they still let that jerk Rico on.



It’s my understanding that the FCC doesn’t really want change, they want to flex their muscles in hopes that along with their lip service they can be taken seriously.

[GMB]

It’s my understanding that the FCC doesn’t really want change, they want to flex their muscles in hopes that along with their lip service they can be taken seriously.

Oh they do, just not really pertaining to content.

This whole "decency crusade" is BS. The FCC is just trying to draw attention away from that black eye they got over their plan to loosen media consolidation rules last year.

I wouldn't trust any government body that wants to give more power to Clear Channel.

[krazymed]

I applaud the FCC's actions, for the wrong reasons. I am personally sick of seeing sex and violence as overused reasons to get people to watch TV. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand censorship in a country that has a primary law for free speech, but I need some other reason to watch TV than to see blood and high-school level sex.

[Boy Wonder]

[QUOTE=NinjaJack]
The WWE fans in the world can even feel the tight vice of the FCC, they’ve contacted Vince on his content throughout the years, not to mention how much John Cena has began to suck since the FCC ask the Heavy Hitters to tone it down…gee and they still let that jerk Rico on.

Actually not really on the Cena things. His "nut" skits are funny! Rico, its just a tease, where was the FCC in 1996 for WWF if you are saying this now? Or even 1997-1998 for some nasty DX promos (Michaels).

[Enrique]

All the V-Chip does is further prove that American parents are letting the FCC control more and more of their children’s lives, and to some extent their own.


I believe it's the exact opposite. Parents WANT bodies like the FCC to regulate the media. This latest generation's batch of parents have gone lazy, the image of a parent simply plopping their kid in front of a TV instead of actually CARING for them has gone from being a comical idea in the 80s to the de facto truth in the 21st century. So who better to pass the obligation of parenting than to the FCC, right?

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again... IT'S THE PARENTS FAULTS that the FCC or any other governing body has to put up regulations on "morals" and "indecency". Adults know very well what's on TV, radio, and movies, and yet they don't want to be bothered by actually PARENTING their kids and keeping things like sex and violence off the TV. You want to know how to keep sex and violence off TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF.

Some of us enjoy sex and violence, obviously in varying degrees. Some people can't stand the gratuitous violence in 70s horror movies, others are obsessed and collect the stuff. All you need to do to find out what you're about to watch or buy is just a tiny bit of research, which I like to call READING. Yes, yes, I can hear the PS2 kids going, "what the hell is reading?". It's this thing you do to find stuff out, like what a movie's about. If you read, you might find out that certain movie is rated R due to sex and violence. At this point, it's up to you if you still want to watch the movie. Or better yet... it's up to the PARENTS if they'll let you watch the movie, if you're a minor. Holy crap, what a novel idea!! What's that called, when parents put their foot down and prevent their rebellious teenage kid from watching Showgirls? Why, I do believe it's called PARENTING.

Fight the FCC ... fight any organization who attempts to control what the MASS PUBLIC can see. Notice I wrote mass public... I believe that the media should be free to show whatever they want, so that private citizens can see what they want. I listen to Howard Stern sometimes, and you know what happens when I find him unfunny or over the top? I change the station. Wow. If the FCC read about this technique, their mind's must be overheating trying to figure out how that works...

[Peter Paltridge]

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again... IT'S THE PARENTS FAULTS that the FCC or any other governing body has to put up regulations on "morals" and "indecency". Adults know very well what's on TV, radio, and movies, and yet they don't want to be bothered by actually PARENTING their kids and keeping things like sex and violence off the TV. You want to know how to keep sex and violence off TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF.

Dude, you is so right! It's not our fault if we cram every single channel full of garbage! It's THEIR fault for wanting to watch TV in the first place! They should throw out their TVs, as well as their radios and any other form of entertainment, and live behind a wall so they truly look like the cowardly prudes they are!!! So we can laugh at them!

</sarcasm>

You don't really care about the parents. You don't care at all. People just use that argument as an excuse to yell the most X-rated stuff they can, when the First Amendment argument doesn't seem to work.

[ClockStomper]

Dude, you is so right! It's not our fault if we cram every single channel full of garbage! It's THEIR fault for wanting to watch TV in the first place! They should throw out their TVs, as well as their radios and any other form of entertainment, and live behind a wall so they truly look like the cowardly prudes they are!!! So we can laugh at them!

</sarcasm>

You don't really care about the parents. You don't care at all. People just use that argument as an excuse to yell the most X-rated stuff they can, when the First Amendment argument doesn't seem to work.But what about the instances of stupidity outside of the realm of Television programming, like the parent who buys their child a Grand Theft Auto game then turns around to complain about it later? The M rating is there, hell, just reading the back of the package is enough to give one an idea of the game's contents. Why personal responsibility is such a hard concept to grasp, I'll never know.

And why the baseless attack? I see nothing in Enrique's argument that indicates that he uses yells X-rated things...

[Peter Paltridge]

Well, in the case of the M rated games it's different; there's clearly stupidity involved there. What I'm talking about is TV when often they just show whatever they want and parents have to go insane screening every minute of it. I'm not a parent, but I don't imagine it must be fun.

[Sparticus]

*rolls eyes* I know, it's stupid what they're doing. Most everyone I know dosen't even care.

'Course, on the one hand, some stuff just shouldn't be on broadcast tv *coughrealitytvcough*, simply because if your life sucks - like mine - and you don't have cable or a dish, what you can get over the antena IS ALL THAT'S ON. @.@ Don't get me started about saturday morning cartoons... It's irritating when you just want to sit down to watch something and it's all crap and there's not a whole helluva lot you can do about it.

On the flipside - if parents need someone else to enforce the TV watchin' rules, they're not very good parents. I don't remember how long ago it was... but some parents were complaining that cartoons were too violent and they're kids couldn't tell the difference. I don't think anyone ever told them that if they're kids can't tell the difference between a cartoon and real life they've got a whole other problem they need to deal with...

[TheScarecrow]

Well, in the case of the M rated games it's different; there's clearly stupidity involved there. What I'm talking about is TV when often they just show whatever they want and parents have to go insane screening every minute of it. I'm not a parent, but I don't imagine it must be fun. If a parent really cares enough about what their child watches, they will take the time to make sure they are not watching inappropriate material that only the adults can watch. It should be no different than any of the other responsibilities that come with raising a child.

It shouldn’t be the TV and Cable network’s job to take their programming back into the fifties and sixties just because a parent can’t be bothered to follow through on their convictions that their little ones shouldn’t be exposed to cursing, nudity, and violence. But they do still have TV ratings and warnings don’t they? And aren’t V-Chips still around?

Bottom line; if you are a parent and you want your kids to be “safe” from the “evils of smut”, than take the responsibility in your hands, and quit whining and moaning that the networks are not tailoring their programming towards your beliefs on what is and isn’t “exceptable”.

[jeffrey 228]

I myself don't like to see sex, nude scenes, or even, bloody violance, but I can tell you that they are being a bit more rough, on this and to the extent most shows would have to be in the ratings of a TV-7 type of thing, even on the non animation stuff, and it is just going to the point that Soccor Moms every where are still inforcing measures to make sure that the FCC in addion of the BS&P to lower the show rated content, and this includes anime for most of us be more edited and to have no such bad language even minor ones on it this includes the Jerry Springer as well, and for TV as we know it, we may be heading to that issue sooner then we think, I just hope we will be still there to watch this stuff.

[Slane]

I agree with Scarecrow's last comment on this.

I hate to be an extremist at this point to counter the FCC's own extremism in continuing the restriction of the freedom of speech, but the FCC should butt out of any verbal censorship of television and that the censorship they are against in physical actions is getting ridiculous.

Language is constantly changing and will always be impossible to monitor for whatever new phrase is out there to describe some lewd action; it is unrealistic to believe the FCC to effectively monitor the entire English language (and even Spanish, French, etc. depending on the part of the country in which you live where foreign languages are popular) the next [expletive], or [expletive], or [expletive].

So what if you hear it? There are plenty of words used by ignorant, hateful people that we don't like (racial, gender, and sexual epiphytes), and they hurt badly, but we can't stop people from saying them anywhere; that's the cost of the freedom of speech. Curtailing that right has already set an awful precedent in which government can limit other forms of speech; I'll have to find newspaper article about a certain government official who prevented college student reporters from attending the speech he offered at the college, and it was not a speech that did involved sensitive information that could jeopardize the nation if it was released.

That is an example of how freedom of speech does require restriction, such as how we can't yell "Fire" in a crowded building or say "Hi Jack" in an airport, but both are for the protection of society, and the latter is also just a lie. Language on television should only be restricted to the ideas it presents, the ideas that are lies that will slander others or lead to chaos, or sensitive information that could place governmental workers in danger (such as the identities of CIA operatives, the location of troops in Iraq, etc). If the FCC wants to focus on the evil of language, focus on the lies; act as a division to combat falsehoods and improper revelations on television.

The FCC's fight for mortality is a mistaken job to begin with; the commission was designed to prevent the media from being controlled by only a few parties (which it can not even do properly given the predominance of major corporations such as Clear Channel and Viacom purchasing affiliate stations until most programming and jobs come from a central source instead of various parts of the country, leaving the stations with news and entertainment that can not properly inform and appeal to that region; if I can find the source, I'll mention one instance in which this problem occurred).

In summary (sorry for how trite that is), the FCC should not monitor language because 1) it is impossible to control due to its mutability, 2) to do so would limit the freedom of speech, and 3) the commission needs to focus its job on its other responsibilities, whether given to it from the beginning (stop corporate takeover of multiple media outlets) or that are implied (prevent lies and sensitive government information from airing).

As for violence and sex on television: Again, the FCC is not responsible for censorship; they are a division that ensures fairness in ownership. Perhaps a better system would be to finally separate the FCC from its censorship or infrastructure duties; ownership regulation could be handed to the SEC or another similar branch to deal with businesses, while the FCC could handle censorship. While verbal language is not harmful enough to require censorship, physical actions can be; this is not because they are just morally wrong but because they legally wrong. Child pornography is illegal because it harms children, and the FCC should not tolerate any media market from airing it (an extreme example, I know, but just making a point).

However, I have difficulty determining whether airing the less extreme "obscene" actions is bad or not. Violence gives ideas about harming others, such as gun violence, but, as Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" showed, it does not cause violence in people (the rest of the world does not experience the same number of gun crimes as does the US because there is some other variable in the US leading to these figures); gun violence does not represent all possible violence, but Moore shows that television, movies, et al are not responsible for children attacking and killing each other. Safeguards are needed, and it's not in the media; we need a society restructuring of how well we teach children about violence.

Sex and nudity are not offensive in themselves; they are natural. They can be made perverse (as I said, child pornography), and should therefore be censored in those perverse forms. Does that mean porn should be on television? It SHOULD not be aired, but the media outlets have the freedom to air whatever sex, nudity, or violence they choose. Therefore, if they want to put on porn and death and violence, they are free to do so.

How, then, do parents deal with this problem? Because parents can not monitor everything their children watch, the solution is that they should not even subscribe or purchase such media. Don't get cable; get a VCR or DVD player and put on some programming you know is good, or go see a movie. Despite the time a parent needs to monitor all the programs the child can watch, he can at least spend two minutes to read a movie review to see if what the kid will watch will be bad for him or not. Instead of allowing government to manage their lives, they need to directly tell the stations they refuse to watch their programs; they should not lobby to repeal their freedom of speech (no matter how idiotically they are using it to air such garbage and sickeningly perverse filth) but should instead attack them with the laws of supply and demand. No station that understands what its viewers want would air something that would drive them away; if they do, the viewers should just give up on that station and let their ratings plummet until their ad sales revenue dwindles to nothing. Do not have government intervene; use the dearth demand to influence the stations to air what you want.

I disagree with those who have said that the FCC's censorship is necessary; it is not if parents would stop government intervention and instead give a giant middle finger to the entire industry instead of financing the filth they spew. If censorship continues, the precedent could be set to remove anything from the media; that SHOULD not happen, but it has already begun. Stop it now. [Points down to signature...not the Jersey Girl one...yeah, that one.]

PS The FCC monitors public airwaves; because they are public, they are in our contorl and we should be allowed to place whatever we wish onto them. Unlike in public, when we do not wish to walk down the street and see disgusting actions, we choose to grab a newspaper or a TV or a movie and glance over it; we have chosen to take that risk to see something potentially harmful or disgusting. Simiarly, the FCC now wants to contorl satellite and cable TV and radio and also the Internet; again, we choose to purchase these subscriptions and the FCC should not stop us from seeing whatever we choose to as long as it is not harming someone else (not offending but literally harming them physically or in status).

[MJC]

As somebody who doesn't mind sex/nudity/violence on TV (hey, it can have artistic merit) the FCC (and soccer moms) piss me off. It's not hard to find out what's coming on TV, or block certain channels, etc. These parents are lazy and want the TV to raise their kids. In fact, I bet these are the same people that curse out their kid every other day but throw a fit if somebody says "damn" on TV.

Censorship is very overrated anyway. While there are things children probably shouldn't see, I doubt little Jimmy is going to have a psychological issues because he saw a boob on TV or something.

Oh well, this'll die down sooner or later. I'm betting our generation will have fewer soccer moms.

[Peter Paltridge]

No station that understands what its viewers want would air something that would drive them away It doesn't drive the youth demographic away and that's what's really important.

[JLApe]

Proposed solutions to responsible parenting:
1. Have one parent stay home and the other one work. Career accomplishments is not all that important.
2. Make divorce settlements extremely costly for both spouses that have children.
3. Child taxation for children born out of wedlock. Rate to increase from second child onwards.
4. If any of the above three are too expensive, make abortion extremely cheap and widely available.

'Course I'm not being serious, but there are solutions to problems though they may not be pleasant. :rolleyes:

[ClockStomper]

Well, in the case of the M rated games it's different; there's clearly stupidity involved there. What I'm talking about is TV when often they just show whatever they want and parents have to go insane screening every minute of it. I'm not a parent, but I don't imagine it must be fun.
When have they ever aired anything above TV-14 before 9 on Network TV? It's insanley simple to keep kids from seeing inapropriate content:

1. Put the TV they can watch in your view (so you can see the screen from as many rooms as possible).
2. Keep the volume high, be suspicious if they turn it down.
3. Put'em to bed at 8 or 9 away from the TV. If they're awake afterwards, be diligent.

Most kids'll just watch Nikelodeon or Cartoon Network without venturing away from their channels. But when parents do fail, the crazy ones complain instead of disiplining their children and modifying their strategy. That high-ish volume one work really well.

[Fone Bone]

I believe it's the exact opposite. Parents WANT bodies like the FCC to regulate the media. This latest generation's batch of parents have gone lazy, the image of a parent simply plopping their kid in front of a TV instead of actually CARING for them has gone from being a comical idea in the 80s to the de facto truth in the 21st century. So who better to pass the obligation of parenting than to the FCC, right?

I've said it a million times, I'll say it again... IT'S THE PARENTS FAULTS that the FCC or any other governing body has to put up regulations on "morals" and "indecency". Adults know very well what's on TV, radio, and movies, and yet they don't want to be bothered by actually PARENTING their kids and keeping things like sex and violence off the TV. You want to know how to keep sex and violence off TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF.

Some of us enjoy sex and violence, obviously in varying degrees. Some people can't stand the gratuitous violence in 70s horror movies, others are obsessed and collect the stuff. All you need to do to find out what you're about to watch or buy is just a tiny bit of research, which I like to call READING. Yes, yes, I can hear the PS2 kids going, "what the hell is reading?". It's this thing you do to find stuff out, like what a movie's about. If you read, you might find out that certain movie is rated R due to sex and violence. At this point, it's up to you if you still want to watch the movie. Or better yet... it's up to the PARENTS if they'll let you watch the movie, if you're a minor. Holy crap, what a novel idea!! What's that called, when parents put their foot down and prevent their rebellious teenage kid from watching Showgirls? Why, I do believe it's called PARENTING.

Fight the FCC ... fight any organization who attempts to control what the MASS PUBLIC can see. Notice I wrote mass public... I believe that the media should be free to show whatever they want, so that private citizens can see what they want. I listen to Howard Stern sometimes, and you know what happens when I find him unfunny or over the top? I change the station. Wow. If the FCC read about this technique, their mind's must be overheating trying to figure out how that works...Very well put. How 'bout we work on the real problems in this country like corruption in the government, police brutality, the increasing divide of the classes, declining morality. Yes, I said declining morality. Parents nowaydays teach their kids that naughty language and nudity is wrong and bad. Meanwhile Arnold Swartzenegger star of some of the most misogynistic films of the last twenty years is elected governor of California.

That's why there's so much crime in this country, because violence is acceptable. The wife-beater who is sent home after a night in jail, hockey dads beating each other over a game, and a might makes right mentality. (I'm not getting into the implications of the last one.)

Does this mean we should have Big Brother deciding what we watch on TV? Heck, no! The Government limiting one form of free speech is dangerous because it sets a bad precedent. If the television stations start caving into demands of content soon the government will be regulating everything they put out including news. That's scary on so many levels but we're starting to see it happen now. The White House sent out fake news reports about medicare for TV stations to air during their newscasts. Jon Stewart described these stories as coming out of the government's handbook: 1984. I was laughing, but it was nervous laughter.

Society needs to take a chill pill, calm down, stop blaming everybody but themselves, and start loving and appreciating one another. God, I miss Fred Rogers.