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.