SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs the FCC?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes

Odd story. This is bad news for ABC since a few years back they payed like $40 million or so for the TV rights to the popular Steven Spielberg war movie.

Anyway post your thoughts, or fine me for indencency, whatever fits your fancy.

Ironic that soldiers that fought for freedom when in fact the movie is being restricted by the FCC. Sad.

Who cares about ABC and their $40 million?

This is bad news for America.

What's interesting is how the FCC won't make a ruling in advance, because "that would be cencorship".

Hell, they don't have to make ruling in advance. Just the threat of a huge fine for running afoul of the FCC is enough to censor content.

Thank heavens for cable, although it won't be long before the government figures out a way to censor that.

Maybe ABC wants to pretend the Normany landing and such never happened...? :rolleyes:

The SEC sometimes issues "no action" letters in advance of new proposed financial products or special transactions. SEC basically tells financial companies that a proposed situation is legal. The FCC should do the same thing.

But then again, we now live in a one-party state.

What does republican control have to do with showing a historically relevant movie in it's entirety? :rolleyes:

With a much more conservative viewpoint in the FCC than in the past, the stations are afraid that showing the movie will result in fines that no longer make it financially practical to show the movie. However, I don't believe that the FCC would consider fines for the stations showing this movie the same way that it levied fines for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl mess.

Let me ask you Double-J:

Do you find it at all disturbing that affiliates of ABC were afraid to show this movie out of fear of being fined by the FCC?

Do you find it at all disturbing that they have driven Howard Stern off the air and on to satellite radio?

Do you find it at all disturbing the the five commissioners of the FCC, four of whom were appointed by President Bush, seem to be charting a course in which there will eventually be more censorship of the broadcast media, rather than less?

w00t.

Okay, here we go.

I think the FCC is fine in censoring Howard Stern, because he does cross the line frequently, however, I don't listen to him and also don't watch his show on E!. I think he is a degenerate prick, which I know will get me in trouble with HSIG, who I like, but oh well.

That being said, I think the FCC is moving in the right direction, but at the wrong things - I don't need to see this crap on my TV, such as a Viagra/Cialis/dick enhancer every 5 minutes, or an ad for a fucking tampon. It's rather tacky, and in my humble opinion, is quite intrusive.

And as long as we're at it, let's get ALL the fucking drug ads off the air, because they are quite annoying and pointless, since most don't even tell you what to do.

Continuing right along, there is quite a bit of things I find inappropriate (i.e. Sex in the City on TBS last night, talking about oral, anal, vagina sex, etc. On HBO that is fine, but on cable, it's pushing the envelope quite a bit).

There is a serious difference here between historical relevance and bad taste. The above are in bad taste. By not showing SPR, it shows that ABC has no balls. If the FCC did fine them, there would be massive public backlash; showing the movie would have done nothing to their (ABC's) PR but helped it.

I agree.

I think their fear was quite irrational, and their decision to not show the movie was foolish and hurt them more than anything else.

No. If you feel the need to watch his X-rated foolishness, then pay for it, the same way you pay to watch The Sopranos or Sex in the City on HBO, or pay to watch adult channels on your cable/satellite. It doesn't belong on strictly public airwaves (radio or otherwise), and even pushes the limits of cable.

No, I don't. I don't need to see the latest Jihad pictures from Al Queda, or another shot of WTC coming down, or any other bullshit that they keep pushing down our throats on all the media, especially those leaning towards the left.

plawrence - Thank you for notifying me about this thread and yes, I do agree wholeheartedly with you. Even though I am a supporter of President Bush, I cannot stand what is happening with the airwaves under his administration, and I don't think Michael Powell knows what he is doing at all.

Double-J - I understand that you think Howard Stern is tasteless, and that is fine, but since when does tastelessness pass the criteria of being indecent? Furthermore, Howard Stern has never had anything on the air that was X-rated. Not once. You can say he is a prick and such, but that does not make him indecent. I agree with you and President Bush on many things, you know that, but the policing of the airwaves is one thing I have always had a problem with, if not just because it is so goddamn ridiculous. There is a "power" button on televisions and radios for a reason...use it. I have a situation and a question to ask of you: with the FCC rules and regulations as they are now, you do realize that it is entirely possible (and has happened before) for literally one person to be offended, record what they found offensive, and report it to the FCC, resulting in a show or personality getting taken off the air, and in some cases, an entire station losing its license, right? Do you really find it fair that one person who was offended can effectively take away the rights of millions of people who were not offended?

I listen to Howard Stern every morning with my friends on the way to school and he's flat out--a comedian. The only word I ever heard on the show was 'cock,' and it wasn't even said by him. The critics went to Marilyn Manson first. Eminem took the weight off of him. They went after Eminem. Now they're going after Howard. Screw the FCC. There are CD's that are being edited for Christ's sake. Movies are cut and cut so they're approved to be PG-13 because many parents have restrictions on R movies. Video games have been nailed with ratings. Enough of the editing. ENOUGH. -Pat

Actually, the FCC has been a thorn in Howard's side since day one of his show, which started in the early 1980s, so technically he was the first, not Marilyn Manson.

I guess it's gonna be Saving Ryan's Privates instead...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Double-J:

an ad for a fucking tampon. It's rather tacky, and in my humble opinion, is quite intrusive.

Sorry! I couldn't resist!

Look out here comes the FFC to censor me.....run away :p

Issuing a fine is the least of a radio or television licensee's worries. Your broadcast license is not permanant. It's subject to periodic review and mandatory renewal, and the public is allowed to comment on the performance of your station. The FCC has the power to deny a license renewal altogether, essentially telling the station owner he's out of the broadcasting business with that particular station, without compensation! That's the authority of the FCC given to them by the Communications Act of 1934.

ABC, the network, stated that they would cover any fines the FCC might issue with regard to a judgement of indecency or obscenity in the airing of Saving Private Ryan. But what if the FCC in its ever-escalating "war on indecency" decides to impose the broadcast equivalent of the "death penalty" and takes away a station's license? The network can't help you then. The affiliates alone are responsible for their respective licenses -- not the networks. That's the reason why some affiliates wouldn't air Saving Private Ryan.

The FCC has always been pretty rigid about imposing penalties for airing indecent content during hours when children were likely to be among the audience. That was the basis of the Supreme Court ruling in 1978 that helped shape the indecency rule and it's part of the test in evaluating indecent content. Saving Private Ryan was being aired in prime time and by definition that's a time when children were likely to be among the audience. And that's also why select affiliates elected not to air the programming. Some of those station managers were very specific about adhering to the letter and spirit of the law -- the language in the movie could be construed as indecent and it was being offered only in prime time. That was a risk those station's weren't willing to undertake.

tony b.

FCC = F*cking Co..sucking Cu.ts, basically....

Wait until the government starts to figure that they have to start regulating the internet.

Then censoring cable.

It's a slippery slope.....

When they sart regulating the internet, you may no be allowed to write "dick" or "fucking".

Quote:

there is quite a bit of things I find inappropriate (i.e. Sex in the City on TBS last night, talking about oral, anal, vagina sex, etc. On HBO that is fine, but on cable, it's pushing the envelope quite a bit)

Yeah, shocking, isn't it? Apparently you were watching, though. Why didn't you simply turn it off if you were offended?

Quote:

There is a serious difference here between historical relevance and bad taste. The above are in bad taste. By not showing SPR, it shows that ABC has no balls. If the FCC did fine them, there would be massive public backlash; showing the movie would have done nothing to their (ABC's) PR but helped it.

All it takes is one complaint. Read YoTonyB's post.

No. If you feel the need to watch his X-rated foolishness, then pay for it, the same way you pay to watch The Sopranos or Sex in the City on HBO, or pay to watch adult channels on your cable/satellite. It doesn't belong on strictly public airwaves (radio or otherwise), and even pushes the limits of cable.

Pushes the limits for cable? Uh-oh. You wanna start regulating that next? Then the internet? Then what?

No, I don't. I don't need to see the latest Jihad pictures from Al Queda, or another shot of WTC coming down, or any other bullshit that they keep pushing down our throats on all the media, especially those leaning towards the left. [/qb][/QUOTE]Beautiful. The first step towards censoring political content. I guess will all be watching only Mary Poppins soon

Just what this country needs. Five beaurocrats in Washington telling us what we can watch and listen to and what we can't.

I don't think the majority should control the minority, no. But wouldn't you agree that that type of procedure has happened in other areas beforehand.

The rules about sales to minors should be enforced. This is why I don't think Stern can be on public airwaves, because of the fact that minors can listen to his program.


Shaving Private Ryan?


I'm glad someone noticed the double entendre.

I agree. I mean, I think if they wanted to show it in it's entirety, it shouldn't have been on before maybe 9:00 PM (I don't know the FCC guidelines). If it would have been slightly edited (obviously for some content), which the contract doesn't allow as I understand, it could've been shown in it's proper time slot.

In my opinion, you're taking this whole situation to undeserved Orwellian proportions.

Even if somehow (and it's not), how would you regulate the global internet? It would be like interpol - no effective power to do anything.

I was flicking through the channels, and when it came on, I decided to see what the hell show was on my satellite TV. I found out.


The complaint also has to be relevant. I admit it's slightly arbitrary, but forgive me if I think a historically accurate film is more appropriate and more "immune" to complaints that Howard Stern.

Cable doesn't need as many regulations as public broadcasting. But certainly, especially in the ad examples I mentioned in my previous post, is inappropriate.

And the internet argument is getting tired, because it a.) cannot happen and b.) internet policing would be an internation thing? how would that work?

A pure example of pointless left-side overkill. I'm talking about censoring programs inappropriate for minors, not taking away anyones 1st Amendment rights.

You and Michael Powell can learn from the Chinese government. Here is a list of internet sites blocked in China:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/China-highlights.html

Editing of the internet?! Porn?

You and Michael Powell can learn from the Chinese government. Here is a list of internet sites blocked in China:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/China-highlights.html [/b][/quote]M'kay, well I do appreciate you explaining it.

But don't you think that it would fall on deaf ears in America, unless it was some pro-terrorist/jihad related website? People are up -in-arms as it is with protests and blocking their rights, there would be serious outrage if they tried to block "freedom of the internet," whether that exists or not.

They certainly can make spam/do not call lists illegality, but when it comes to actually regulating internet content that you choose to visit, I suspect it would not work in America, though it may in the PRC.

---

Offtopic: Did anyone ever notice how the names of some countries are quite ironic? Like, "The Peoples Republic of China," is not a republic after all, and the people...well.

Regarding regulation of content on the internet...Congress attempted to do this with the Communications Decency Act of 1996, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I believe the Justice Department was given the authority to enforce this. The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling which held that the CDA was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. (Reno vs. ACLU)

Congress tried again with the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. An injuction prohibiting enforcement was issued and the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled the injunction against enforcement was valid because there was sufficient evidence that COPA violates the First Amendment. (Ashcroft vs. ACLU)

One act of Congress was declared unconstitutional, another is enjoined from enforcement. The internet remains the wild, wild west of information and content.

Regarding the regulation of content on cable television...while the FCC has been able to impose certain regulations on the cable industry, they have been reluctant to impose obcenity/indecency standards on cable content. Initially, the Communications Act of 1934 recognized that the airwaves belong to the public, and there was a public interest in "lending" the airwaves (via the licensing process) to a select group in order to serve the public interest. Congress, the FCC, and the courts have repeatedly cited that over-the-air-television and radio broadcasts are pervasive, like an uninvited guest, that can be received by anyone anytime. Consequently, there is a public interest in regulating its use and screening the content for obscenity and indecency. That's not true for cable and satellite broadcasts. Those are privately built systems which subscribers have consciously invited into their homes. You can't escape radio or TV...it's everywhere according to Congress and the courts. Conversely, you CAN escape cable and satellite...you unsubscribe.

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, the one that increased the fines for indecent content, originally had an amendment that would have given the FCC authority to regulate content on cable for obscenity and indecency. That amendment was rejected by the Senate Commerce Committee by ONE vote. The amendment would have given authority to the FCC to regulate content on basic cable (like ESPN and MTV) but NOT on the premium channels and movie channels like HBO and Showtime!

For now, it's anything goes on cable and satellite.

This same Act also has a "safe harbor" provision restricting violent content on over-the-air television to the hours of 10pm - 6am. There is a specific exemption for violent content imperative to the truthful depiction of history. Presumably airing Saving Private Ryan and its graphic, violent content in prime time would fall under this exemption. Or maybe not...

Them's the facts...feel free to try and form a fair policy that preserves free speech while limiting or restricting access of indecent or obscene content by minors.

One powerful Act still remains. That's the simple act of turning it off if you don't like what you see/hear.

Google for the relevant legal cites if you're so inclined...I got you started with the name of the cases or appropriate law. Real lawyers with expertise in regulatory law are welcome to file your briefs in this discussion!

tony b.

I assume you mean that the other way around...
------------

I'm not say this is gonna happen tomorrow or next week or next month or next year.

That's the "slippery slope" concept. Once we start....
------------

Again, the slippery slope.

Let the parents be responsible for what their minor children watch, not the government.

I have a 15 year old son who loves to watch movies with me, and is fairly intelligent and astute with his observations and analysis of what we watch together.

We've watched any number of films, most have which have been discussed on these boards, that contain partial nudity, profanity, sexual innuendo, etc.

I consider him to be mature enough to handle it, so I allow him to see it.

The point is, it's my decision.

I don't need the government to decide what is or isn't inappropriate for him to see. His mother and I are doing a fine job, thank you. And if someone thinks we're not, well, that's too bad.

"The airwaves belong to the people", as the FCC says.

Let the people decide what is appropriate and what isn't by choosing what they watch and listen to and what they don't.

Yeah...

I guess so. But again, I guess I'm not as paranoid as you. Probably why I support the Patriot Act.

So you're saying we should just let TV and radio be a free for all? Let Al Qaeda buy some ABC tv-time and send out Jihad messages? Or maybe on NPR?

Right. And I commend you for spending time with your son. And that's my point. Too many parents plop their kids in day care all day, and then in front of the TV, and could give two shits about little Johnny so long as he isn't using crayons on the wall.

So you don't think there should be any censorship or regulation on radio or television programming?

In this particular case, no.

But that is a national secuirity issue, not one of censorship on moral grounds.

However, TV and radio are, first and foremeost, commercial enterprises.

If ABC-TV, for example, decided that they wanted to show hard core pornography, they should have that option.

Except that first of all, it's questionable how large a viewershp such programming would attract. Which means that ABC could get higher advertising rates for their latest stupid reality show.

And second of all, what would happen, of course, is that no sponsor would want to associate themselves with such programming anyway. A movement would certainly arise to boycott at least the sponsors of such programming, and possibly the network itself, which would affect the rates they could charge the sponsore of their more bland regular programming.

The point is that it would not be the government making the decision, it would be ABC-TV, bending to the will of their viewership.

The people would be making the decision.

That's the beauty of the difference between broadcast Tv and cable.

Broadcast TV, which must depend on sponsors for revenue and large viewerships to determine their rates, air programming which appeals to the lowest common denominator - the majority.

The majority doesn't want obscenity or nudity or the depiction of sexual acts on TV, and they don't get it, and that's fine with me.

Government regulation is unnecessary. It basically regulates itself because the TV networks are in business to make money.

Cable TV, on the other hand, is a different animal. The non-commercial channels which we pay for, like HBO or The Playboy Channel, derive their revenue from subscriptions, not advertising.

So their programming reflects something else.

"Sex and the City" is a quite critically acclaimed show (altho I will add that personally I don't care for it), and it features partial nudity, obscenity, and the simulation of sexual acts.

Same thing for "The Sopranos". Throw in a hefty dose of violence there, for good measure.

And people eagerly pay extra for HBO, and happily watch both programs.

But if HBO decided they were gonna start showing hardcore porn, I'm sure they would suffer a backlash and start losing subscribers.

So, to answer your original question"

"you're saying we should just let TV and radio be a free for all?"

I say, excepting matters that affect national security, yes. The economic forces at work, which are controlled by the majority, do a fine job of regulating it already without government interference.

As I say, it basically regulates itself through the market forces at work.

Howard Stern, who, I might add, I don't particularly care for, attracts a huge audience on both radio and TV and many sponsors who pay top dollar to advertise on his programs.

What makes him so popular is his raunchy style.

Clearly there are a great many people who are interested in listening and/or watching him. Certainly not the majority of Americans, but except for the Super Bowl, is there anything that a "majority" of Americans watch or listen to?

I think the disturbing thing about Howard Stern's persecution by the FCC is the fact that it may very well be politically motivated.

******

Yea right! ha ha ha. I remember watching his television show alot in college, which is, correct me if I'm wrong just a televised version of his radio show. The most disgusting thing I've ever seen was this woman allowing this perverted fat man to shove his big toe into her vagina. I was with a bunch of friends and every last one of us was going to throw up. Sure there was a teeny tiny blur mark covering her but everyone knows exactly what was going on.

This is exactly what all the "Soccer Moms" are trying to get rid of. I can't say I blame them. Last time I heard all the political sterotypes most Soccer Moms were labeled as Democrat anyway. Do the politicians or FCC really care about these things or are they just following what their viewers wish?
That new AOL commercial with the Mom holding the baby interrupting the board meeting, she starts demanding censoring and protections from dangerous sites for her children...meanwhile I'm sitting there screaming at the television.... "Why the $%$# don't you watch your own kid!" But then I always remember that I do not have kids yet and don't have the 8000 other things moms have to protect their children from.

What I don't understand here is why anyone thinks they have the right to impose their version of maorality and decency on anyone else.

You find it disgusting? That's fine with me. Don't watch it.

Why do we have to "get rid of it"? Clearly there is an audience for it. If there weren't, it wouldn't be there.

Doesn't getting rid of it impose the morality viewpoints of some upon others?

Isn't that wrong? And dangerous?

Couldn't the next step down the slippery slope be to get rid of unpopular political or religious viewpoints?

Plawrence- Believe me I do agree with you but at the same time, you can say "Don't watch it" over and over again but that's not going to matter to many Americans. Yes you are a responsible parent but so many aren't. Parents can't watch their kids ALL the time. Don't they have a right to protect their kids?

Yes I believe in the slippery slope, but honestly do you ever think it will really get that far. I don't think it will in a Democracy like ours. We have a gov't that is set up to NOT allow that type of thing to happen. People like yourself won't let it happen, and that's a good thing.


On a side note: I was editing my original response while you were responding. I went in to make a spelling correction and started rambling.

Of course they do. I just don't think it's the job of the government to do the job for the parents.

And some members of the "moral majority" or religious right might not consider me a responsible parent for allowing a 15 year old watch some of the things that I allow mine to watch.

People like myself are, I think, increasingly becoming the minority.

Who knows what will happen years down the road? Constitutional ammendments, anyone?

The argument for protecting young children from certain things on TV and radio is a strong and sometimes compelling one, and if that were the only issue, I might be inclined to agree.

The thing is, though, that those who would seek to censor this stuff wish to do so for other reasons than simply the protection of children.

They have a much larger agenda. They seek to impose their moral viewpoints on all of us. Adults as well.

In a free society, we sometimes have to pay a price to keep our freedoms intact. If the price for not having government censorship of the media is that some children, who are not properly supervised by their parents, have the opportunity to view or hear things that may be unsuitable for minors, that is, I believe, a small price to pay.

I can't say I disagree with anything you just posted. Personally I do believe there are too many regulationsI woulden't mind a few less. I watched plenty of violent films when I was a child and I haven't gone on a psycho-killer crazy rampage. Where I get frustrated is when the gov't or "the right" are blamed. My point being that the gov't is ultimetly doing what the majority of Americans want and in effect, if that is the majority, how can that be wrong in a Democratic state?

First of all, we don't know for sure what the majority wants in many instances.

But even if we did, should "what the majority wants" be the only criteria in a democratic society for what we are allowed to do or not do?

I think if you submitted all of the following to a national referendum, the majority of people in America would "not want" some, if not all, of the following:

-- Pre-marital sex
-- Certain other sexual practices between consenting adults (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.)
-- Pornography on the internet
-- Any pornography at all, for that matter
-- Gambling
-- Rap music
-- Censorship or complete elimination of certain unpopular political views, such as Communism or Nazism
-- The return of prayer to the public schools

My point is that the basis for a democratic society is that everyone has the individual right to pursue certain beliefs, interests, and courses of action in their daily lives that, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, should not be regulated by the majority simply because they are in disagreement.

I have to disagree. Rap is the most popular music and most wanted music today (which has been proven). I don't think people would vote off anything on there except for prayer in schools and pre-marital sex.

We're talking about a national referendum here, which would include only people of voting age.

That's exactly what I have wrong with your argument. Where is the line drawn between infringing on others and not? Shouldent the best enviornment for children be a "village" where not only parent look out for them, but others (FCC) look out for them as well. Parents cannot watch their children ALL the time.

As far as "What the majority wants" yes in theory I do believe that what the majority wants should be the best in a Democratic society. Unfortunately the majority of Americans do not have the time or desire to educate themselves on every issue out there (me being one of them, hence the system of electing representatives to make those choices for us. I won't claim that the system is perfect, but I do believe it's the best system out there.

The majority of Americans do not want to do away with things like Saving Private Ryan and Catcher in the Rye. They want to restrict people like Howard Stern who have fat men shove their feet into womens vaginas. I understand that cable television was designed to allow more lee way (spelling?) than ABC, CBS, etc, but cable television is too common now to be able to show that kind of stuff. HBO and Showtime can do whatever they want, I don't care, but cable is in the majority of households, hotels, even schools.

So then, you believe that it's OK to have laws that govern our freedoms of choice if that's what the majority wants?

If a majority of Americans believe, for example, that homosexuality is "wrong" (which I believe they do), then you would have no problem with laws against consensual homosexual activity between adults (which do still exist in some states)?

As I said earlier, I can understand the argument for the need for laws or regulations to protect minors from certain things.

But I can't for the life of me understand why my personal actions or choices should be dictated by the majority, unless my choices or actions infringe upon the rights of others.

(Note: When I speak of "cable", BTW, I am speaking strictly about the "pay" channels, like HBO, etc. I understand that cable TV is everywhere, and, as you know, the commercial cable channels such as TNT, TBS, etc., follow the same standards as broadcast television. Sorry for not making that clear.)

How come when Hillary came out with a book titled, "It takes a village", the likes of Bob Dole emphatically stated it doesn't take a village, but parents to raise a child. Now years later people argue it "takes a village".

The last time I checked Howard Stern came on at 11:00 at night. If some ho in a crack house can't watch her kids at 11:00 at night and prevent them from watching Howard Stern that's her problem. Maybe I might want to see some woman get her vagina licked by some fat tube at 11:00 at night. As a tax paying American it is my right too. Come to think of it, obese people make me f*ucking sick. I don't want some 300 lb hippo on tv anymore. They should not be allowed to sit next me on the bus. If they take up 2 seats, by God make that cow pay for 2 seats. After all, it's what I WANT.

Sorry, I'm not gonna have some "soccer mom" in her SUV, toting her brats to practice while her husband is problably f*cking his secratary while she does this, tell ME what I can watch on tv. There's v-chips in tv's now and cable has "parental controls" on them. If Jane Doe cant' control her kids, she shouldn't have them. No one told me how to raise my kid, I'm not gonna tell someone else how to raise theirs.

Ok hold up, it's just a debate. I'm not looking for hostility on an internet forum. I already told Plawrence that I have almost the same view point as him. I'm just argueing the other side. Nothing wrong with that right? Without debates no improvements would be made.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern?

Not when the taxpayers are paying to feed her drug habit through welfare, or paying the criminal justice system to incarcerate her when she's busted, or how about the future unseen costs to the taxpayers when little Johnny gets busted cause he wasn't raised right (ala Elvis Presley, "In The Ghetto"), he buys a gun and steals a car, et al.

I believe we're straying from the topic a bit here.

Censoring Howard Stern won't correct these problems.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern? [/b][/quote]I can think of far worse activities their kids can be involved in than watching Howard Stern.

As I said in one of my posts above, there is always a trade-off in keeping our civil liberties intact.

A few kids watching Howard Stern seems to me to be a small price to pay for the right of adults to watch him or not watch him as they see fit.

And I don't beieve it's the governemnt's job to act as surrogate parents.

I don't know if you attend UB because you live in Buffalo, or live there because you attend UB.

But I wonder how you or your friends feel about the concept of in loco parentis ...the idea that the school should act as your parents in their absence.

It seems like the problem is get rid of the welfare system, shoot the crack whore who's getting high instead of raising her kid. If you honestly think that taking shows off the air are gonna solve the world's problems I don't know what to tell you. I never saw a defense lawyer say little Johnny was innocent because his mother didn't watch what he watched on tv. That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of.

I am probably the last person who would ever support Howard Stern but you have to look at something else.

The only time I've seen his show aired on tv was at 1am. I could be wrong and there could be other times but I believe they are all late at night.

If you are old enough to stay up to 1am and watch it then you are old enough to make your own decisions. I don't know of many 12-13 year old kids who are allowed to stay up til 1am

That's where our system is messed up. Pretty much everything you listed is stuff that revolves around the youth. We should make the judgment. You seem to use the quote, "How will this effect me?" How is the taking away of Rap music going to help you or someone else? How is prayer in schools going to effect you? We (teenagers) hate to admit it, but we're very faithful, meaning that we pray a lot and have strong faith in God. That doesn't mean we're religious and go to church. I, for one, haven't been to church in years. It's just one of the few things we hide from adults. All of those things you mentioned that you think people would get rid of are things that effect ME directly, not you, not someone who isn't a member of the youth (no offense).

Here are the things you listed:

Pre-marital sex: I most likely will wait until I'm out of high school, but I highly doubt my only partner will be my wife.

Certain other sexual practices between consenting adults (homosexuality, sodomy, etc.): What people do in the bedroom is their choice.

Pornography on the internet: No way. Filters can be bought. If people are offended by it so much or don't want their kids to see it, block it.

Any pornography at all, for that matter: Porn makers aren't forcing people to watch their movies. (See above)

Gambling: I think it should be limited, but outlawed? Not a chance in hell.

Rap music: One of the few freedoms I have in a day. I don't know where I'd be without music. It's the only thing that doesn't judge you and it accepts you for who you are.

Censorship or complete elimination of certain unpopular political views, such as Communism or Nazism: If we ever tried to wipe communism off the face of the earth, I'd fight to NOT have it taken away. Just because we don't believe it's right doesn't mean people of another country don't.

The return of prayer to the public schools: I am against that.

I am pretty sure I have heard that defense before. Same thing with blaming violent video games for kids hurting each other.

It might not be a "good defense" but it has been used.

And what happens when parent's aren't doing their job? Sure, you watch TV with your son. My parents did the same thing. But what about the parents who plug their kids into the TV while they go down to the corner to buy some crack? Or they get to know Jack Daniels better while little Johnny is watching Howard Stern? [/b][/quote]Then those parents shouldn't be parents, as Beth said. I don't think ALL blame should be put on parents, but most of it, hell yes. It depends on the circumstances.

I have some facts here for TV violence and sex etc that I learned the other week in Law. By age 11, a child witnesses 100,000 acts of violence on TV and 8,000 murders. Sequels to movies triple and quadruple the murders. I do believe these movies, video games, and songs impact kids. HOWEVER, I am for the distribution of ALL movies, video games, and songs. They ALL receive some sort or rating and you MUST be ATLEAST 17 to buy this stuff that is "damaging society." If a parent allows their 12 year old who does miserably in school to buy the Die Hard Trilogy and Scarface Deluxe set, then play some GTA, then that parent isn't a parent.

Okay then.

I didn't say that TV is the source of the worlds problems. Your taking the argument to such an undeservedly macro level.

We should just ignore negative messages sent to the youth on these forms of media???

I attend UB because a.) It's academically the #30th ranked school in the nation and b.) It's within an hours drive of my house.

I was accepted at Syracuse and elsewhere, so...there were several factors effecting my decision.

So it's wrong for school to be a "parent," but we should give television, the ultimate pseudo parent, unlimited access?


I never said that, so...

What's retarded is your attitude towards what is being projected towards us, as consumers, on television, and how it affects our children. And I'd appreciate you not calling my argument retarded, thanks. :rolleyes:


It's a sad fact of life that people who SHOULDN'T become parents often DO. So ho-hum. What, are we going to regulate who can have kids now?

I agree, blame should fall upon their parents, first and foremost, and not television, or whatnot. But to say that TV, any TV, or radio, is completely acceptable when it projects X-rated style programming and such...there should be some kind of standard.

Or have we, as a society, come to accept these loose moral standards as the norm?

First off, basic cable is edited. Second, parents can block any channel. Why should things be taken off the air that have an effect on SOME kids when other kids just watch them for entertainment? If anything, you should be fighting to have violence off of the air, not 'x-rated material and Howard Stern.' What does Howard Stern do to damage society? Is he telling me to go out and shoot someone? Rape someone? Rob a bank? No. -Pat

It never ceases to amaze me that someone can form such a strong opinion about Howard Stern when they admittedly haven't seen or heard the show. I personally don't listen or watch, but not because the show is risque or x-rated (by the way I would never catagorize Howard Stern as x-rated) - I don't watch because the TV show isn't very good and I have alternative preferences on the radio.

I agree with George Carlin when it comes to censorship - the public can best decide what should and shouldn't be on the air by simply switching the channel.

Yea right! ha ha ha. I remember watching his television show alot in college, which is, correct me if I'm wrong just a televised version of his radio show. The most disgusting thing I've ever seen was this woman allowing this perverted fat man to shove his big toe into her vagina. I was with a bunch of friends and every last one of us was going to throw up. Sure there was a teeny tiny blur mark covering her but everyone knows exactly what was going on.[/b][/quote]You seem to be missing a crucial point here that nobody has raised, thus far: where, in the FCC's rules and regulations, does it say that nobody can broadcast a "woman allowing this perverted fat man to shove his big toe into her vagina"? I have a copy of the rules and regulations governing radio and I can tell you from an insider's view that this is precisely the problem with the FCC: it is worded so ambiguously that nobody is quite sure what can and cannot be said or done. As far as that particular episode, listen closely to how it was described: was it risque? Yes. Was it vulgar and indecent? Definitely not. If it was, then WXRK New York would have definitely lost its license by now.
Also, I must repeat myself: Howard Stern has never said or done anything X-rated on the air, and his show on E! Entertainment Television has never contained anything that was X-rated. Someone sticking his toe in a woman's vagina may be tasteless but it is hardly X-rated...plus, it generates ratings, and as we all know, ratings equal cash. Not to mention the fact that that particular episode was pretty good.

Can someone define X-rated for me then? I mean, if that was in a movie, I certainly think it would be above an "R". Probably beyond NC-17.

In saying I don't watch his show or listen to the radio doesn't mean I've never watched an episode. :rolleyes:

Actually, for a surprisingly interesting take on this whole argument, I recommend reading the final chapters of "Foley is Good," by Mick Foley, which delves into how the PTC wanted to censor wrestling and how he did his own research to counteract a University of Indiana study on the content of wrestling versus other programs, including daytime soap operas.

Ok well we obviously have different ideas as to what constitutes X-rated. A Toe shoved in a vagina is past X-rated in my book

It's gotta make you think if the toe was bigger than something else :p

From imdb.com:

"Banning 'Private Ryan'

Conservative religious and family groups said Friday that they plan to file complaints with the FCC charging that ABC violated the agency's indecency regulations when it aired Saving Private Ryan Thursday night. Fearing such action and the possibility that they might be fined, some 66 ABC affiliates refused to carry the broadcast, which nevertheless produced the largest Thursday-night audience that the network has been able to attract this season. Among the groups complaining about the Ryan screening was the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, which cited the film's "excessively profane language." It added, "ABC crossed the line by airing at least 20 'f' words and 12 's' words during primetime viewing hours!" The FCC acknowledged over the weekend that it had received numerous complaints about the telecast."

F*cking stupid this is. Makes me ashamed to be an American at the moment.

Can someone define X-rated for me then? I mean, if that was in a movie, I certainly think it would be above an "R". Probably beyond NC-17. [/b][/quote]If I had a definition of "X-rated" from the FCC then I would be glad to provide you with one, but that is precisely my point: the FCC does not say exactly what is and what is not OK. The rules and regulations are written in very murky and ambiguous language, which is why it is so hard to know exactly what it is that they forbid.
Furthermore, let us just get one thing straight: something that is X-rated is NOT indecent or obscene, according to the law. I am sick of people likening the term "X-rated" to something that is indecent or obscene, because it is not.

No argument from me that the rules are written in an ambiguous manner. In the case of a toe-invading-a-vagina scenario though, the movie would get an X-rating (now called NC-17) because its considered sexually explicit.

My God... However grusome and graphic some scenes in the film were, this film is required vewing for all. It is the only film on WWII that I feel came even close to displaying the madness and chaos of war and what happenes at war. It foucused on people and what happenes to them in cobat, and how they become brothers and how they DIE for each other... This is one of the few films that honors those boys who went to fight for our freedom so very long ago. I feel that the FCC can streach the limit just a little bit so that we the people can see this piece of art...

hsig opines:
Here's the text of the the FCC rules and regulations governing obscenity, indecency and profanity. I included it here becuase I think it would be a good idea to try to understand the legal foundation that lead to this.
For the record, profane speech specifically includes the "seven words" along with a couple more that were added after the Pacifica court case. The FCC is pretty clear on this...no profanity in prime time. Based on this standard, there's a case to be made regarding Saving Private Ryan. If artistic merit or historical accuracy are acceptable defenses, then there will be the peace.

The FCC pushes...but nobody has pushed back. Companies don't fear the monetary fines. It's the risk of losing a license that they fear. And on a greater political scale, the risk is an increase in the level of regulation like lowering the number of stations a company may own -- overall or in a particular market. So monolithic is the business, nobody wants to rock the regulatory boat. So they pay the fine and move on.

They have the right of appeal. If you feel you've received an unfavorable decision by the FCC, you may appeal in federal court. Still not happy with the outcome? Next stop, the Supreme Court, provided they're willing to hear your case. Companies don't appeal because they won't win. They can't challenge the constitutionality of the law, and they can't say it wasn't obscene or indecent or profane based on the standards, because it was! They're guilty! That's why they don't appeal! In Stern's case, in Opie and Anthony's case, the broadcasts were indecent based on the standards, and likely obscene.

In the past, the FCC has held the licensee solely responsible for programming content, not the air talent. If the licensee refuses to fight back, the FCC will continue to wield its power as it sees fit. Furthermore, if a Howard Stern is held personally responsible, will he personally challenges the FCC? Very few people have the financial resources to mount a court battle against a regulatory agency. He might. But his only defense will be to argue that the broadcast in question was NOT indecent or obscene or profane based on the existing standards.

Saving Private Ryan included profanity in prime time. If push comes to shove, will ABC be the one to shove back on behalf of its own stations and its affiliates?

tony b.

How the BBC reported this issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4015753.stm

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of seech and stifling of free expression and so on but we no what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days, I have here a march for mine.

It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
And unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
Acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"to be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
The mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about peter pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
Thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: re-reading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
Away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
We fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!"

-- Tom Lehrer, from the album That Was The Year That Was, circa 1964 or so.

Congratulations on stopping this debate cold.

Haha, we're just too busy in the other thread.

Go ahead and perform your smut and X-rated sex! It saves us conservatives from having to endure sex education!