Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the sweet-zombie-carlin dept.

Censorship 602

GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

cancel ×

602 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fucking backwards (5, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | about 4 years ago | (#33391130)

Nobody wants to see a cock on their TV. But let me fucking blow up a baby. Americans fucking love that.

Re:Fucking backwards (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391256)

Nobody wants to see your cock on their TV..

Re:Fucking backwards (1, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 4 years ago | (#33391376)

I've no problem with his cock on your TV?!?

Re:Fucking backwards (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33391344)

One of my biggest culture-shocks was waking up to UK morning TV and being confronted by a guy with his trousers around his ankles, his balls the subject of the morning discussion. It's covered in this BBC story [bbc.co.uk] but the long and short of it is that it was a testicular awareness drive in the model of previously successful breast cancer awareness programs.It was the kind of early morning suprise that lets you skip your morning coffee and, more importantly, was one of the first times I've felt like television actually treated me like a thinking adult. Actually learned a few things that morning too. There's something to be said for the value of broadcasters approaching nudity, the body, and all that with a degree of maturity - its certainly one of the first steps towards a cultural shift.

Le sigh (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33391142)

I still can't believe that you can show autopsies, murder, drug deals, and all the horrible things shown on the news...but if you show a titty, you face a big fine. ::head shake::

It's freakin' stupid.

Re:Le sigh (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391274)

So does that mean you're in favour of porn during kid's prime time, or that you want violence banned as well?

Re:Le sigh (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33391336)

I'm saying that if you're willing to show people being killed, you should be willing to show people being fucked. Personally, I don't care what they do because we don't watch TV (we don't even have TV service...Netflix is all we need), but my own opinion is that sex is much less harmful to show than violence. Besides, look at most commercials and/or music videos...or reality shows...or just about everywhere else. Sex is EVERWHERE...it's just nudity that stays hidden. That's stupid.

Re:Le sigh (2, Insightful)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | about 4 years ago | (#33391364)

Our society would be a much, much better place if "kill" had the same vulgar and obscene connotations as "fuck".

Re:Le sigh (4, Insightful)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 4 years ago | (#33391720)

The top three stories on this morning's local news show was:
  • Man busted for child porn
  • Massage parlors raided for prostitution
  • Man arrested for "molesting" girls in park by tongue kissing them

I find it odd that most of the people in power came from the generation of "free love" and are so obsessed with preventing sex. In the mean time, I have more hardcore porn channels available on my cable PPV than there were porn theaters in the late seventies. WTF?

Subject Verb Agreement (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 4 years ago | (#33391732)

s/was/were

Re:Le sigh (1)

paiute (550198) | about 4 years ago | (#33391528)

Sex is EVERWHERE...it's just nudity that stays hidden. That's stupid.

Reminds me of Doctorow's Ragtime, where Father is on an expedition to the North Pole and sees the Eskimos having sex through slits in their fur suits.

Re:Le sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391352)

How about instead of reaching for two extremes, we just come to some sort of middle ground?

Violent porn at all hours, but only on a channel that nobody's likely to tune in to: CW [cwtv.com] .

Re:Le sigh (1)

hazah (807503) | about 4 years ago | (#33391464)

Fail.

Nudity is not porn.

Re:Le sigh (1)

Exitar (809068) | about 4 years ago | (#33391540)

So does that mean you're equiparating full frontal nudity to porn?

Re:Le sigh (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about 4 years ago | (#33391288)

Keep in mind that many people thought it dirty to breast feed in public, and that a woman should do it in private, shamefully. And some still think that way and STILL lobby to make it illegal. We Americans are entirely too focused on nudity being "bad", which I chalk up to too many people who can't separate their religion and their politics.

This is the same reason pot is illegal, prostitution is illegal, gambling is illegal (unless the states is sponsoring it, then it is ok) in most parts of the US. Self righteous politicians and those who support them that want to tell others how to live and think.

Re:Le sigh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391310)

Our culture does not look favourably on ANY act of something being expelled from the human body. Deal with it.

Re:Le sigh (1, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | about 4 years ago | (#33391456)

Does that include your words?

Re:Le sigh (1, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33391516)

OH SHIT!!!

wait....

Re:Le sigh (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 years ago | (#33391662)

It's not a matter of the milk being expelled from the woman's body. The breastfeeding issue is that some people think that breasts are solely sexual objects and a woman taking one out is being indecent. Nevermind if she's just taking a small portion of it out to feed her child, not to gain some sort of sexual satisfaction, and nevermind that the view of the part of her breast that is out is obscured by the feeding child. No, these people insist that women should remain covered up at all times and should feed their child in the bathroom. (Like any of them would consent to taking their food to a public restroom to eat it.)

People also sometimes claim "mental harm" for being "forced" to watch, but unless you've been chained up with your eyeballs propped open, you have the option of looking elsewhere. I've had women breastfeed in front of me and I tend to look the other way because it's a private moment between mother and child (even if it takes place in a public setting) and it is rude to stare. If I was talking to the woman, I would focus my eyes on her eyes and not on her feeding child.

Women should be able to feed their child wherever they want so long as stopping to nurse doesn't cause a public safety hazard, of course. (e.g. Not stopping in the middle of the highway to nurse her baby.)

Re:Le sigh (2, Interesting)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about 4 years ago | (#33391646)

actually, I think it comes from the mentality of a organ of the body which shares a sexual purpose, breasts are not actually a sexual organs, but are sexually charged so get lumped together, they are used in the process of feeding children from an ACT of sexual means, but they are not actually anything to do with the act of sex apart from that weak connection so it's about the americans having little tolerance for sexuality. if the FCC had to patrol the european markets, they'd have a heart attack

Re:Le sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391718)

Keep in mind that many people thought it dirty to breast feed in public

They still do, and they have a large voice locally, trying to ban it where ever they can.

Re:Le sigh (-1, Offtopic)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 years ago | (#33391726)

want to permanently fix terrorism? remove religion (entirely, from everyone).

oh, people will yell and complain when you take the illusion of their sky daddy away. but if you really think about it, you'll realize that what separates us IS religion and once you remove that, you solve almost all our problems.

we prison ourselves by continuing this lie about religion. in fact, religion will be what finally kills all life on this planet (very likely; due to a final set of wars that end us all).

religion has to be the #1 worst trait of mankind, above all else. it truly is the root of all evil (think about it).

Re:Le sigh (1, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 years ago | (#33391736)

Why can't you take a shit in public? Some necessary bodily functions are best performed behind closed doors, according to our culture. Other cultures piss in public. Heck in China they don't use diapers, baby just shits whenever he feels the need, and most baby garments are of the wonderful "split-crotch" kind. Is it OK if our culture has some ideas about what is and isn't appropriate, and we all agree to respect the feelings of others even if we disagree with them? No, it must be the fault of ordinary Americans, who are always wrong about EVERYTHING. Drugs, prostitution, and gambling are all social ills with well-documented effects. Progressives campaigned tirelessly against them back in the 20s and 30s.

Re:Le sigh (1)

spamking (967666) | about 4 years ago | (#33391742)

I was teaching a class about 14 years ago and there were moms, dads and kids around . . . so this lady sitting on the front row decides to pull out a boob and start feeding her kid. She wasn't all that pleasant to look at so it wasn't too distracting, but I felt it wasn't the best time/place to do it. Move to the back and do it where you're not the center of attention.

Face it, there are some people nobody wants to see nekkid.

Re:Le sigh (2, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | about 4 years ago | (#33391764)

But boxing, on the other hand, is eagerly shown on 172" big screen HD TVs in sports bars around the country. Not to mention on ESPN.

Re:Le sigh (4, Insightful)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 4 years ago | (#33391788)

Pot is illegal because blacks and Mexicans smoked it, and hemp was threatening the cotton and (wood) paper industries.

Re:Le sigh (1)

adewolf (524919) | about 4 years ago | (#33391294)

Yeah exactly. Not only that but the so-called news outlets in this country love to glorify shootings and hate-crimes. "Oh won't someone think of the children"...yeah go spend some quality time with your children and stop all the overtime at work.

Re:Le sigh (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#33391302)

Anybody who files an indecency complaint with the FCC should be required to swear, under penalty of perjury, that all of their children(if any) were delivered by C-section, exclusively bottle fed, and bathed and changed only in the dark.

If two seconds of Janet Jackson nipple leads to depravity, our vile custom of allowing mere innocent babies to freely gratify their sickening bodily desires on bare breasts must be the reason that we can't build prisons fast enough to contain the criminal element.

Re:Le sigh (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 4 years ago | (#33391404)

Anybody who files an indecency complaint with the FCC should be required to swear

But then won't they get fined themselves?

Re:Le sigh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391418)

I'm generally for freedom of speech. I think you should be able to make and market any variety of porn you like, for example, as long as it's made exclusively with 0 or more consenting adults. But I do think the Janet Jackson thing was really bad, and not something that should have happened.

In short, I want the religious right to leave me alone, and be respectful of my desire to watch what I want to watch. But I think there's a flipside to that coin. I think it's also reasonable for us to accomodate people who don't want their kids (or themselves) exposed to such things. They have a resonable (if prudish) expectation that Janet's nipple not be shown during what is considered a gathering event for all of America. You respect my rights to what I want, and I'll respect your rights to what you want.

Re:Le sigh (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | about 4 years ago | (#33391794)

I'm generally for freedom of speech. I think you should be able to make and market any variety of porn you like, for example, as long as it's made exclusively with 0 or more consenting adults. But I do think the Janet Jackson thing was really bad, and not something that should have happened.

Why was it a bad thing that shouldn't have happened? Here's a question for you, if nudity wasn't so 'horrible' over there, do you think it would've happened in the first place?

Re:Le sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391446)

Anybody who files an indecency complaint with the FCC should be required to swear

Damn right! Teach those sanctimonious mindchokers some motherfucking culture, maybe in twenty years they can look their sons and daughters in the eyes and say "I raised you to be free, and not take no shit from nobody."

Re:Le sigh (1)

Stele (9443) | about 4 years ago | (#33391498)

If two seconds of Janet Jackson nipple

Her nipple wasn't even exposed. I believe she was wearing a pasty.

My wife and I were watching the event live, in HD, and when the "malfunction" occurred we just looked at each other, said "huh!" and went back to what we were doing.

Re:Le sigh (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33391652)

Her nipple wasn't even exposed. I believe she was wearing a pasty.

her nipple was most certainly exposed. She wasn't wearing a pasty, it was a nipple shield [wikipedia.org] ...and a really high-quality one, too!

Re:Le sigh (2, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 years ago | (#33391698)

My wife and I need to report ourselves for indecency. Not only did my wife breastfeed our two sons, but the older son has seen the younger son breastfeed. Who knows what damage his (then) five year old mind sustained by seeing his mother feeding his (then) infant brother!

Re:Le sigh (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 4 years ago | (#33391370)

Yeah, but without the FCC, I might have to actually pay attention to what my kids are watching myself. Can't the FCC just screen the babysitter for me, while I take a nap?

FTS: (4, Insightful)

absurdist (758409) | about 4 years ago | (#33391144)

"The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

And this is bad how?

Re:FTS: (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#33391318)

And this is bad how?

Because content is none of their damn business... God gave us the off switch and channel knob for a reason. Our children are our responsibility, certainly not the FCC's.

Re:FTS: (3, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | about 4 years ago | (#33391490)

I thought the whole purpose of the V-chip and the TV-[X] ratings was so that content didn't have to be restricted. Parents could just set their TVs to not show anything above, say, TV-PG. And yet we still have this insane push to censor broadcast TV.

Only in America can a show about investigating grisly murders run for 20 years but a couple seconds of titty is worth millions in fines.

(But I love Law & Order.)

Re:FTS: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391322)

The previous requirement was only in place during hours children could be watching. Yet, no station would allow profanity or nudity during any other hours, even though it was legal. That is chilled speech.

Re:FTS: (3, Insightful)

paeanblack (191171) | about 4 years ago | (#33391346)

"The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

It returns them to arbitrating the technical aspects of spectrum licensing instead of being an unregulated police agency. They are accustomed to being the gatekeepers of content distribution in American society. Losing that kind of power really undercuts a fiefdom...can't blame them for sulking about it.

Re:FTS: (1)

sosume (680416) | about 4 years ago | (#33391494)

Judge: "You have no authority to issue fines if you think a certain broadcast is indecent."
FTC: "But how will we then be able to issue a fine if we think a certain broadcast is indecent??!"

Reading for comprehension, people... (1)

absurdist (758409) | about 4 years ago | (#33391618)

...as in "this decision is bad how?"

Obsolete function (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391146)

FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

And that's a good thing. Sick bunch of prudes.

Forget the FCC (4, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33391156)

Whatever happened to parents being ultimately responsible for what their children are watching?

Re:Forget the FCC (4, Informative)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 4 years ago | (#33391200)

We're living in the era of no responsibility in this country. At work everything is the fault of the corporation you're working for (convenient since a paper entity can't go to jail). At home it's the media's fault, the teacher's fault, the government's fault depending on the day of the week. No one is at fault for anything right now in the U.S.

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

54mc (897170) | about 4 years ago | (#33391210)

Whatever happened to parents being ultimately responsible for what their children are watching?

This is America, that's what happened.

On a related note, I live in perpetual fear of the current/coming wussification of America.

Re:Forget the FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391608)

Don't worry. Once I finish fucking your ass tonight you won't care. I'll slap you around and call you a bitch fag just like you like.

Re:Forget the FCC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391690)

I believe you mean "pussification."

Please get your George Carlin references in order.

Show some respect for the dead!

Re:Forget the FCC (3, Insightful)

orthancstone (665890) | about 4 years ago | (#33391262)

Most people like to proclaim they are responsible right up until the point that you try to hold them accountable for their actions. Then it suddenly becomes someone else's fault.

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 4 years ago | (#33391324)

They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know more about the violence level of a program and to care less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going into the first than in the second.

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33391560)

> They want tools to help. Namely, I would like to know
> more about the violence level of a program and to care
> less about sex. My kids will be punished more by going
> into the first than in the second.

The only tool they need is their own eyeballs.

They whine about the nanny state and then think they can use the FCC as one.

You gotta watch this stuff for yourself. You can't trust the
busybodies to not lie to you. They've been pretty blatant
about it in the past. The same goes for the likes of the MPAA
who rate content.

You're the only one that can judge what is "appropriate".

Being lazy about it is simply not going to cut it.

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

hodet (620484) | about 4 years ago | (#33391396)

Exactly, we monitor our own kids tv watching. This is never something I would trust in the hands of a bureaucrat. Violence is much more of a concern to us then the odd booby flashing on tv. We got it covered.

Re:Forget the FCC (2, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 4 years ago | (#33391416)

Funny thing being that the republican portion of the politicians who are in favor of these FCC indecency rules are the very same ones who complain that Obama is turning the US into a nanny state.

Can you get any more "nanny" than this?

Re:Forget the FCC (2, Insightful)

JxcelDolghmQ (1827432) | about 4 years ago | (#33391454)

Because parents want everybody else to nanny their children, in spite of technology being widely available [wikipedia.org] to make it easier for them to police their own children's viewing.

It's like back when Marilyn Manson was so big, and was in the news everywhere. People were protesting at venues trying to get his shows canceled, using excuses such as "I don't want my children to see this filth!" Well guess what, people? If you don't want your kids to see it, then don't let them go see it! There's adults out there that do want to see such things (at least two or three :)) and adults should be free to decide for themselves and not have a bunch of lazy angsty parents pre-emptively make such decisions for them.

Re:Forget the FCC (2, Informative)

localman57 (1340533) | about 4 years ago | (#33391508)

We were watching the Super Bowl with our kids. And out popped Janet's nipple. Live, and unexpected. Parents who wanted to be "responsible" in preventing their children from seeing such things were caught totally by surprise. I think my kids will be OK, but it kinda puts a dent in that argument. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to keep kids from watching certain channels, or all channels at certain times. Put whatever you want on then...

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 years ago | (#33391564)

I like to think of myself as a responsible parent. But if I put on a kid's TV show, and there's nudity or violence on the commercials between the show, how I am supposed to block that? How am I supposed to know that's going to be there? I can prevent them from changing the channel to adult shows, and I'm present most the time when they're watching, but I can't do everything.

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33391692)

But if I put on a kid's TV show, and there's nudity or violence on the commercials between the show, how I am supposed to block that?

Because this is such a regular and routine happening, right? Oh wait...

Re:Forget the FCC (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33391810)

no kidding. Also, there are tvs that have hardware builtin that allows for the blocking of at least foul language. I know since one family I know personally has a tv like that for their own family.

...because (0)

Some Guy (21271) | about 4 years ago | (#33391158)

...because sex and swearing are leading to the downfall of society. Not greed and corruption.

Re:...because (2, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | about 4 years ago | (#33391338)

Well, if people didn't have sex, we wouldn't have had the current crop of corrupt bankers and politicians, now, would we?

You gotta remember that the pilgrims didn't come to the US to "practice religious freedom". They got kicked out of Europe for being too puritanical. From the beginning the US has been at war with sex and "indecency".

It amazed me that you could show the most awful slasher flick and at most get an R rating but typically get a PG-13. But if you so much as showed a few seconds of a tit that was R for sure. And male frontal nudity was an X.

Re:...because (1)

hazah (807503) | about 4 years ago | (#33391548)

If people didn't have sex, methinks we wouldn't have the current crop of anyone :).

Re:...because (1)

cptdondo (59460) | about 4 years ago | (#33391622)

Ahh... You begin to understand, grasshopper.

Indecency, yes. Whiny 'Family Values', no (2, Insightful)

Enry (630) | about 4 years ago | (#33391168)

I think there do need to be standards for what's shown at least on broadcast TV but I think the pants-wetting hysteria from the Family Research Council and their ilk isn't the answer.

These airwaves are for the public use. Want to drop the f-/n-/q-bomb? Start up your own pay channel and go nuts.

Re:Indecency, yes. Whiny 'Family Values', no (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33391182)

When people say America is a "christian nation", I believe this is what they're referring to...

Re:Indecency, yes. Whiny 'Family Values', no (1, Flamebait)

thijsh (910751) | about 4 years ago | (#33391234)

"One nation under god, with all people born of immaculate conception and sex is a concept unheard of."
Well, if you remove the 'god' part it would also apply to Slashdot. :)

Re:Indecency, yes. Whiny 'Family Values', no (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 years ago | (#33391248)

Frankly, given all the cool things that you can do with a chunk of spectrum, the "airwaves are for public use" argument is much better ammunition for the extirpation of broadcast TV and the creation of vast chunks of spectrum that are either unrestricted or "free for use by all devices conforming to $OPEN_INDUSTRY_STANDARD_WIRELESS_PROTOCOL" rather than the bowdlerization of daytime TV.

Good 'ol American TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391184)

Where you can see people being killed on the news, gory operations showing lots of blood and innards, and pixelized nipples on anything remotely resembling a breast, even if it's a medical program. Where does this nipple-phobia come from? Clearly it's not the people. Even average soccer moms have breast implants.

I don't get it... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | about 4 years ago | (#33391192)

I can understand people not liking hard core porn in between sesame street & pokemon while the toddlers are watching (and i'm sure the toddlers don't want to see that neighter), but come on, the image of a boob ain't gonna kill them or turn them into rapist zombie bastards from hell, as for profanity, saying shit is a lot less harmful then showing torture, murder & explosions, hell, even McGyver is more harmful (who hasn't recreated anything shown in that show?) then letting kids hear profanity.

do you know what happens if a kid sees a boob? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33391204)

their minds are scarred and they are ruined for life, they enter a death spiral of drug use and prostitution. all it takes is one glance of a boob, and the fate of your child's life will change on the spot to one of apathy, laziness, fatalism, and moribund lack of emotional affect

Re:do you know what happens if a kid sees a boob? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391312)

Dear lord! What are we doing to our infants by breastfeeding them!?!

it's unnatural, that's what that is (1, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33391506)

the idea of bringing a boob to an innocent baby's mouth is obviously a severe injection of immorality into the family structure by people who have no consideration for a child's decency and psychological health. some people are just perverts, but why they can't do their perversions amongst themselves, why they have to drag an innocent darling child into their sleazy use of the human body by making a helpless infant suck on a boob... it really makes my blood boil at these decadent slime

Re:it's unnatural, that's what that is (1)

thijsh (910751) | about 4 years ago | (#33391634)

Scoundrels! Especially those who attempt to convince us they have a *right* to perform this despicable practice in public places in plain view of other innocent darling kids!

a breast is not made for babies! (1, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33391664)

get it into your sleazy perverted minds you immoral cretins: breasts were not made to be exposed to innocent babies!

Re:do you know what happens if a kid sees a boob? (1)

sosume (680416) | about 4 years ago | (#33391526)

I think you just found the answer to why all mankind is evil ... wait, you should patent it!

Re:do you know what happens if a kid sees a boob? (1)

thijsh (910751) | about 4 years ago | (#33391532)

Reading your post Poe's law [rationalwiki.org] comes to mind... Are you just kidding?

Re:do you know what happens if a kid sees a boob? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33391550)

lol, that's hilarious

yes i'm kidding

God forbid... (1)

firesyde424 (1127527) | about 4 years ago | (#33391228)

[sarcasm] that parents should take an interest in what their kids are watching because we all know that responsible parents are the last thing this world needs..... [/sarcasm]

Hey FCC, the cold war is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391230)

Good to know this agency is fighting to keep a leftover from the 50s. There are 100s of channels now, not just 3 or 4. Disregarding even that, this is a purely commercial medium, why not let the market decide? If what the broadcasters show is not in line with the "morals" of the advertisers or their demographic, then no more money and no more of that program, right? I'm not typically one of those "let the market decide" people, but, honestly, there is nothing good on anyway, so who cares? Let people say "asshole" instead of "ass****" on tv and see what happens, I have a hard time believing it could get worse than 90% of what is on already...

Re:Hey FCC, the cold war is over (5, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 4 years ago | (#33391304)

You've hit on one of the primary contradictions in thinking in the U.S. of today. Most people are for the free market making decisions... that is until it makes a decision they don't like for some reason. Then they go to the government to "protect their interests" or to protect themselves through legislation. So many of the stories on Slashdot, especially the governmental and corporate stories, come down to that... a corporation or other group of people who were so gung-ho about the free market when things were going THEIR way now want governmental protection now that the market has changed. See also: FCC. See also: RIAA. See also: MPAA.

Re:Hey FCC, the cold war is over (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391630)

What a surprise. Sociopathic, amoral, emotionless entities are also liars.

Great news everyone.... (5, Insightful)

NiteShaed (315799) | about 4 years ago | (#33391258)

The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

Good. The FCC has no business regulating the content of what gets broadcast, only the means of broadcasting it, ie: making sure everyone stays in their licensed frequencies and doesn't stomp on each others transmissions.
We're now living in a time where it's trivially easy to block potentially offensive channels, or restrict their use with a code to keep them out of children's reach if their parents don't want them watching. If you don't like that channel X broadcasts unedited showings of "Porkey's", don't watch channel X. You, as a viewer, have no right to expect a government agency to protect you from being offended, and the government has no right to prevent a broadcaster from showing what they choose, or me from watching it if I like.

what ever happened to the V-Chip? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391266)

Shouldn't that take care of any think of the children issues?

Re:what ever happened to the V-Chip? (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 4 years ago | (#33391342)

it would involve effort on the parent's part. FAIL.

Hmmm (3, Interesting)

symes (835608) | about 4 years ago | (#33391358)

As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities. Here in the UK we have the BBC and thus their two fantastic advert, nudity, profanity free childrens channels. And on the home computers I've stuck K9 [k9webprotection.com] , which seems to do a pretty good job without spoiling their use of the computer. Recently they went to a relatives house and log onto their PC. The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to, amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans". There must be a balance, of course, but I do not feel that I can let broadcasters, in the loosest definition, decide what is and what is not suitable for my children. I do not want them to grow up thinking profanity, nudity, violence or whatever is normal behaviour. Similarly, I do not want them subject to some of the adverts that appear on some childrens channels (e.g. give money to help save some poor kid's life... I feel there're more appropriate ways of teaching kids about these issues). So we need something in place, whether that is common sense or an impartial body. Unfortunately I don't think common sense is an abundant commodity and so the US would probably benefit from keeping the FCC's indecency policy in place. There's no K9 for live TV, alas.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 4 years ago | (#33391530)

There are plenty of ways in the U.S. for a parent to decide what they want their kid to see without taking choices away from me as an adult. Again... it takes effort. Every device out there has parental controls... the finest grain parental controls we ever have had... so use them. And if you don't want your kid to see certain things then it's YOUR responsibility to keep him/her off of my computer that has parental controls turned off, not the other way around.

Re:Hmmm (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391596)

So you like the TV and computer to babysit your children. Instead of letting technology or the government raise and watch over your kids why don't you try it for a change?

Re:Hmmm (1, Insightful)

elixin77 (1086785) | about 4 years ago | (#33391606)

So your saying that a government agency (or a private company) should monitor what your kids do, instead of you, the actual parent? Why should a government agency be concerned with what I'm watching on TV, or doing on the internet (oh wait...)? Take responsibility for your kids and what they watch/do on the TV and internet. Its people like you that pass and support laws that strip everyone else's rights by saying "but think of the children!" You know what? Fuck the children. I grew up just fine without some politician screaming that the children are in danger, and that we need to lose rights and pass ridiculous laws so that 'children can be safe.' Fuck that. I used to be out with my friends, and was told to come home when the street lights came on. I used to be forced outside (god forbid), and forced to do something on my own. And because of that, I consider myself a much better person than the generation thats coming up behind me, and guess what? I'm not alone in how I feel either. So do this: grow some balls, and be an active father figure in your kids life. If your kid finds a site on the internet where a horse fucks a person, than make sure your kids know that they can talk to you about it. Than you can be the active father figure and tell them what you feel about the subject, and let them come to their own conclusions on how they feel. The key word is 'active' - be active in their life. Numerous studies have shown that kids do a fuck load better in life if they have an active father figure - not some pussy who hides their kids behind a net filter.

Re:Hmmm (4, Informative)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | about 4 years ago | (#33391712)

What search engine are you using where anywhere in the top 10 pages of results for "Horses" are there horses mating with humans? Google with Safe Search disabled doesn't even have anything like that.

Re:Hmmm (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33391756)

> The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to,
> amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans". There must be a balance,

Actually, based on my cursory search through the first 10 pages of Google Horse search results
I would expect nothing of the sort. At this point, I would be rather suspicious of anyone that
got results like that.

The first obvious non-horse result was a reference to politics.

Showing the user what they aren't looking for is obviously unproductive.

Re:Hmmm (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33391780)

As a father I like the idea of being able to leave my kids at a computer or TV without having to continually monitor their activities.

As a person who has to live on this planet with your children I am horrified that you believe that this is a valid means of parenting. Ever heard of Tivo, and pre-vetting what you permit them to watch? You CAN take responsibility for your crap style of parenting without subjecting the rest of us to your morality.

Here in the UK we have the BBC and thus their two fantastic advert, nudity, profanity free childrens channels.

And here in the US you can pay to get such things if you have children, but nobody forces you to pay for such things if you don't watch them.

Recently they went to a relatives house and log onto their PC. The eldest searched for "horses", as this is something she is interested in, and got links to, amongst what you would expect, "horses mating with humans".

I would expect you to make sure they have SafeSearch turned on and up. You didn't tell us if you did, so I feel free to assume you didn't. I would expect you to keep your children away from relatives who don't share your concerns on parenting, or for you to admit that they aren't really very important.

There must be a balance, of course, but I do not feel that I can let broadcasters, in the loosest definition, decide what is and what is not suitable for my children.

The people decide by voting with their eyeballs or dollars as appropriate. The market will produce acceptable content. It is not the government's job to keep your children from experiencing it to the detriment of others.

I do not want them to grow up thinking profanity, nudity, violence or whatever is normal behaviour.

Profanity is free expression of the amygdala. We are all born nude. Violence, I guess I'm with you on. Indeed, nudism is only harmful because society has made it so; most places you are punished for being unclothed. (There are notable exceptions; I come from Santa Cruz, CA, which is one of them.) You are encouraging persecution of natural activity.

Similarly, I do not want them subject to some of the adverts that appear on some childrens channels (e.g. give money to help save some poor kid's life... I feel there're more appropriate ways of teaching kids about these issues).

I agree on some levels, and I agree with your right to show your kids whatever you like, and teach them however you like. But I do think that showing children only happy niceness on television is a lie.

So we need something in place, whether that is common sense or an impartial body.

We have something in place, it is called the V-Chip [wikipedia.org] . Content is rated and you can restrict content by classification. By and large, the system works; it leans towards false positives. If the FCC wants to be involved in television decency, this is the right way to do it. Ratings are voluntary, and you have a choice; you can refuse to consume media which comes without ratings. Again, let the market decide if it wants sanitized television. You and I both know that it will.

Unfortunately I don't think common sense is an abundant commodity and so the US would probably benefit from keeping the FCC's indecency policy in place.

Again, there is already a working system for keeping people away from content which they consider indecent, it is a combination technical and social solution, and it works great. If I put a set in a store window I'm going to set the chip to block content which I think might get me in trouble or drive away customers. If I somehow get roped into babysitting (hahahahahaha) then I'm going to be looking for a book.

My mother considered the television to be a substitute for parenting, and I do not consider the results to be positive. I am lucky in that I was always a little nerd and so I leaned towards programming that would teach me something. I still think I got a lot of wrong ideas from TV that I carried with me for a long time, and to some degree may still.

Seven Dirty Words (-1, Troll)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 4 years ago | (#33391488)

The kind of shit that gets on these fucking cocksucker motherfurcker cunts' tits is really starting to piss me off.

(Any replies to this post must also make use of all the seven dirty words [wikipedia.org] )

More "business ventures" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391538)

It always surprises me how stupid American law has gotten.
Restaurants put "hot coffee" on cups for fear of being sued.
People get worse sentences for stealing a song then if they would steal a whole business' inventory + more..

God forbid a vagina or penis shows up on tv and it becomes a crazy national topic for a month.
The fcc would love that kind of attention and be there to feed the parents with "we're doing it for the children" and also burp them afterwards...

These kids will probably know more about sex then the collective minds of the fcc. The kids don't need censorship, the fcc needs censorship.

- Yours truly, guy who thinks fcc needs to censor their own penises first before moving onto bigger fish.

Nudity (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | about 4 years ago | (#33391602)

I don't get it. Even the word nudity looks sexy. Isn't sexy suppose to be the in thing?

No harm (3, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33391624)

What's wrong with kids seeing the odd tit on TV? It's just a part of the human body, and let's not forget we all came out of a vagina. All this bitching probably comes from a bunch of super-religious nuts who are trying to make people feel bad about their bodies, so they can keep telling them god will save them.

planet/population rescue in evacuation mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33391642)

that's raised from a 12 year space of crisis mode when things may have been resolved equitably. some of us are boarding our chariots of fire now. you will not be left alone (due to the impossibility of protecting yourselves from unprecedented evile et al (see also; corepirate nazi illuminati, advanced weaponry, media induced mindphuking etc...). the innocents (#ed in the billions) WILL be protected, gravitate towards them & become involved in their care/safety. a couple of important issues; the planet WILL repair itself. there's absolutely no doubt about that. the population's disposition during the 'remodeling' is precarious (many will be leaving). please allow help from something none of us understands very well, as what we've been trained to believe is absolutely useless now, & we have been abandoned (demise scheduled) by those who pretensed to dedicate themselves to service to their fellow humans. we're grateful to have had the chance to attempt to communicate with you, & have found that many of you are capable of much more than dismissive, fear based, sarcastic critical comment, without any reference to (or knowledge of) subject matter. that's good news/stuff that really matters. things are changing dramatically each day now. being open (to positive change) will serve us much better than presenting our rectum as a premier 'feature'. take care....... of each other. thanks again.

meanwhile (& it may be a while); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Wow, I sure hope so (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33391708)

The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Wow, I sure hope so. If someone feels that their child's fragile little mind has been warped by something that appeared on television they are free to cripple the court system by suing for civil damages. Or perhaps they could behave like a parent, and exert some control what their children are watching. Pretty tired of parents who claim this is not possible. It's possible if you do your job.

Take there hands off of the non free channels (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33391722)

Take there hands off of the non free channels I don't see why movies on TNT, USA, TBS, SCIFI, and others needs to have way less censorship. Don't even thing about trying to crack down even more on that.

Kids aren't that fragile (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 4 years ago | (#33391724)

It's a tit. Or a dick. Not that big a deal here folks. Kids are pretty robust, so if you don't panic they won't.

Not to mention most TVs come with parental controls and most stations have the ability to broadcast ratings...I fail to see what relevance the FCC has anymore. I can tell you, as a citizen of the US, I don't need or want them looking out for my child. I'm her parent, I get to decide what she sees and doesn't see.

( as far as profanity is concerned; it's just words. Pull the wad out of your ass and realize that children will learn these words anyway, no amount of filtering on TV will stop that. )

Parents Television Council (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 4 years ago | (#33391752)

The problem isn't so much the FCC or what's on TV. It's the Parents Television Council. They've appointed themselves the judge and jury of all things TV and will get their members to complain en masse about shows that offend their delicate sensibilities (such as nudity, cursing, homosexuality, etc).... even if they've never seen the show in question. They've even complained about a Spongebob Squarepants episode for cursing when the "cursing" was a dolphin noise (unrecognizable as a real curse word) and the main characters in the end learned not to curse. But the lesson and lack of real cursing didn't matter. They heard "cursing" and "Spongebob" and so were off to complain!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>