FCC: CBS Facing $3.6M Fine for Indecency for without a trace.
03-17-06 | 12:59 AM
#51
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ontario, Canada
This crap makes me glad that I can turn shows like "The Sopranos" or "The Osbournes" on regular TV and happily listen to his mumbled 'fucks' uncensored and/or bleeped here in Canada...that is of course, if I understand any of what he says...
03-17-06 | 01:10 AM
#52
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by Nick Martin
This crap makes me glad that I can turn shows like "The Sopranos" or "The Osbournes" on regular TV and happily listen to his mumbled 'fucks' uncensored and/or bleeped here in Canada...that is of course, if I understand any of what he says...
03-17-06 | 01:41 AM
#53
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Ontario, Canada
I'm only talking about basic television, like the whole CBS thing - here the shows I mentioned would air on CTV from time to time.
I didn't know about the adult video issue, and the Howard Stern thing is indeed stupid. I guess I would have heard more about these things if I paid more attention to the nightly news.
I know it doesn't make much sense, but that's the government for ya.
I didn't know about the adult video issue, and the Howard Stern thing is indeed stupid. I guess I would have heard more about these things if I paid more attention to the nightly news.
I know it doesn't make much sense, but that's the government for ya.
03-17-06 | 06:01 AM
#54
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by digitalfreaknyc
yeah. cause it's all janet's fault for turning this country into a bunch of conservative asshats.
Now how about actually discussing the issue instead of putting words in my mouth? Think we can do that?
Originally Posted by Palpadious
FCC is to right wingers as ACLU is to left wingers.
03-17-06 | 12:22 PM
#55
Member
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: La La Land
Episode Title
Originally Posted by Rypro 525
according to imdb "when darkness falls"
i didn't think the clip was that bad.
i didn't think the clip was that bad.
Orig. Air Date: Nov. 6, 2003
Episode 2-6
http://www.tv.com/without-a-trace/ou...8/summary.html
TIM
03-17-06 | 04:46 PM
#56
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by RocShemp
Gotta love the PTC's description: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/...ce/content.htm
But seriously, it's okay to have murders and other extreme violence on TV, but (questionably) a bit of simulated sex, and the world is collapsing around us? Sigh...
03-17-06 | 06:54 PM
#57
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Compton (Straight Outta)
Funny, I heard your version of the fcc is even worse than the U.S. Didn't your government take off Howard Stern when he was on regular radio? I also heard that Canada's porn is heavily monitored and anything considered to be demeaning torwards women is censored or banned.
I assume the last part of your post refers to the R. v. Butler decision, which held that is legal to prohibit the sale or importation of material considered "degrading or dehumanizing" by "community standards of tolerance." In practice, this is not significantly different from U.S. case law regarding obscenity (which allows restrictions based on "contemporary community standards" but sets a different test). Of course, some argue that pornography is inherently "degrading or dehumanizing," but this interpretation in unsupported by both case law and relevant legislation. I'd wager that the number of successful obscenity prosecutions in Canada is pretty close to the U.S. figure, if not lower (U.S. obscenity prosecutions have skyrocketed since Bush came into office).
Last edited by Dan Average; 03-17-06 at 06:56 PM.
03-17-06 | 07:23 PM
#58
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
I checked that clip out, and was extremely offended by the CBS logo being on the screen through the entire thing. I hope the FCC gets them good for that.
03-20-06 | 01:46 PM
#60
I just snipped this from IMDB news:
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Friday that the agency's decision to fine broadcasters for airing indecent language depends in part on "context." Asked at a news conference why the FCC allowed broadcasters to air Saving Private Ryan, which has numerous uses of the f-word throughout, but fined PBS stations for airing the documentary The Blues, which also does so, Martin replied, "We look at how integral the words are, how easy it could've been to have the same effect without using those words." Martin also indicated that the commission looked into programs about which it had received "thousands of complaints." However, critics of its decision-making process pointed out that virtually all of those complaints were generated by a single group, the conservative Parents Television Council. In a statement on Friday concerning the FCC's actions, Tim Winter, PTC executive director, said, "The airwaves must remain safe for families when children are likely to be in the audience. Those who violate the public trust are breaking the law and must be punished accordingly."
Parents Television Council .... hmmmmm
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Friday that the agency's decision to fine broadcasters for airing indecent language depends in part on "context." Asked at a news conference why the FCC allowed broadcasters to air Saving Private Ryan, which has numerous uses of the f-word throughout, but fined PBS stations for airing the documentary The Blues, which also does so, Martin replied, "We look at how integral the words are, how easy it could've been to have the same effect without using those words." Martin also indicated that the commission looked into programs about which it had received "thousands of complaints." However, critics of its decision-making process pointed out that virtually all of those complaints were generated by a single group, the conservative Parents Television Council. In a statement on Friday concerning the FCC's actions, Tim Winter, PTC executive director, said, "The airwaves must remain safe for families when children are likely to be in the audience. Those who violate the public trust are breaking the law and must be punished accordingly."
Parents Television Council .... hmmmmm
03-20-06 | 01:50 PM
#61
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 15,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: NYC
Originally Posted by MovieExchange
Let's see, where did I say that... oh yeah, nowhere. Is that really the best you can do, putting words in my mouth? What I did say was that Janet's bullshit publicity stunt marked the beginning of the FCC crackdown. The PTC was active and regularly complaining long before the Superbowl incident, and they were generally ignored.
Now how about actually discussing the issue instead of putting words in my mouth? Think we can do that?
Riiiiiight. When's the last time the FCC fought for your rights? That would be never. When did the ACLU become a government agency? That would be never. The two are NOTHING alike.
Now how about actually discussing the issue instead of putting words in my mouth? Think we can do that?
Riiiiiight. When's the last time the FCC fought for your rights? That would be never. When did the ACLU become a government agency? That would be never. The two are NOTHING alike.
03-20-06 | 02:06 PM
#62
Suspended
Meanwhile, if you're Oprah, everything's A-OK.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/feder...-feder172.html
Sure. Cause you're 16-year-old kid's going to tell you "Bye, Mom! Me and Suzie are headed over to Jimmy's house for a Rainbow Party," and without Oprah, you're just going to think "Wow, I bet they have party hats with little unicorns on them!"
FCC indecency ruling lets Oprah off the hook
March 17, 2006
BY ROBERT FEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Among dozens of broadcast indecency rulings announced this week by the Federal Communications Commission, one all but overlooked in most media reports involved a controversial episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
Buried in its findings, the FCC dismissed a complaint against Winfrey's Chicago-based syndicated talk show for an episode on March 18, 2004, which featured a discussion about teenage sexual practices, inspired by the movie "Thirteen."
Although the show described "sexual practices in very specific terms and [was] highly graphic and explicit," the FCC concluded that the material was not indecent because "in context, [it was] not pandering and [was] not used to titillate or shock."
Many of the thousands of complaints the FCC received about the show were believed to have come from supporters of Howard Stern, whose former syndicated radio show had drawn millions of dollars in fines for language that was far less explicit than that uttered on Winfrey's broadcast.
In this case, the difference -- or the double standard --seemed to be based on intent.
"The material is not presented in a vulgar manner and is not used to pander to or titillate the audience," the FCC found. "Rather, it is designed to inform viewers about an important topic. To the extent that the material is shocking, it is due to the existence of such practices among teenagers rather than the vulgarity or explicitness of the sexual depictions or descriptions.
"It would have been difficult to educate parents regarding teenagers' sexual activities without at least briefly describing those activities and alerting parents to the little-known terms (i.e., 'salad tossing,' 'rainbow party') that many teenagers use to refer to them."
March 17, 2006
BY ROBERT FEDER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Among dozens of broadcast indecency rulings announced this week by the Federal Communications Commission, one all but overlooked in most media reports involved a controversial episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
Buried in its findings, the FCC dismissed a complaint against Winfrey's Chicago-based syndicated talk show for an episode on March 18, 2004, which featured a discussion about teenage sexual practices, inspired by the movie "Thirteen."
Although the show described "sexual practices in very specific terms and [was] highly graphic and explicit," the FCC concluded that the material was not indecent because "in context, [it was] not pandering and [was] not used to titillate or shock."
Many of the thousands of complaints the FCC received about the show were believed to have come from supporters of Howard Stern, whose former syndicated radio show had drawn millions of dollars in fines for language that was far less explicit than that uttered on Winfrey's broadcast.
In this case, the difference -- or the double standard --seemed to be based on intent.
"The material is not presented in a vulgar manner and is not used to pander to or titillate the audience," the FCC found. "Rather, it is designed to inform viewers about an important topic. To the extent that the material is shocking, it is due to the existence of such practices among teenagers rather than the vulgarity or explicitness of the sexual depictions or descriptions.
"It would have been difficult to educate parents regarding teenagers' sexual activities without at least briefly describing those activities and alerting parents to the little-known terms (i.e., 'salad tossing,' 'rainbow party') that many teenagers use to refer to them."
Sure. Cause you're 16-year-old kid's going to tell you "Bye, Mom! Me and Suzie are headed over to Jimmy's house for a Rainbow Party," and without Oprah, you're just going to think "Wow, I bet they have party hats with little unicorns on them!"
