ABC gets hit with 1.4 million dollar fine from the FCC
01-26-08, 05:18 PM
#26
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NCMojo
and one of the reasons i'm pissed they haven't released any more seasons on DVD. Though, by the time they get to the late season, perhaps they'll be on HD? 
01-26-08, 05:30 PM
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I remember recording that episode in high-def at the time. I believe I saved that scene somewhere too, not for the nudity per se but because it totally cracked me up how they CGI'ed the kids ears to just barely block her nipples.
01-26-08, 05:36 PM
#28
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet
I disagree with that logic entirely, since this is exactly flipped in Europe (where sex is okay and violence is not). It's due to cultural taboos.
And countries where this is true like the UK and France have lower crime rates in both gun-related and sexual assault offenses.... go figure.
Maybe if we did away with the our prudish taboo sentiments toward sex that are a throwback to this country's puritanical roots anyway, and actually SHOWED America's youth the brutal actuality of gun violence instead of giving an action hero cardboard cutouts to shoot - bloodlessly - who instantly and painlessly drop dead, people would be less likely to go gangsta when they feel slighted, and sex crimes wouldn't result from being raised in a sex=bad="the devil" culture.
There's my two pennies.
-Doc
-Doc
Last edited by Doc MacGyver; 01-26-08 at 06:31 PM.
01-26-08, 06:00 PM
#29
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't see this in the initial post. But i'm glad it lets the world know that an ass (a nicely shaped one at that) is a "sexual organ".
'NYPD' Buttocks May Cost $1.4 Million
WASHINGTON (Jan. 26) - The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.
In a 2003 episode of 'NYPD Blue,' Charlotte Ross was shown naked from behind as she prepared to take a shower. As punishment, the Federal Communication Commission has proposed fining 52 ABC affiliates $1.4 million because the scene "depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted "multiple, close-up views" of the woman's "nude buttocks" according to an agency order issued late Friday.
ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The fines were issued against 52 stations either owned by or affiliated with the network.
FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs - specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."
WASHINGTON (Jan. 26) - The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.
In a 2003 episode of 'NYPD Blue,' Charlotte Ross was shown naked from behind as she prepared to take a shower. As punishment, the Federal Communication Commission has proposed fining 52 ABC affiliates $1.4 million because the scene "depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted "multiple, close-up views" of the woman's "nude buttocks" according to an agency order issued late Friday.
ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The fines were issued against 52 stations either owned by or affiliated with the network.
FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs - specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."
01-26-08, 07:39 PM
#30
DVD Talk Hero
Ok, just to clarify, I am in no way saying that my observation makes any amount of sense. It's ridiculous to get in an uproar about any of this.
However, violence during primetime (and I'm not talking about the news) is completely fake, yes? No one is getting hurt. That's not a real dead body they are cutting open on "CSI". No one is actually getting shot on "Law and Order". So it's easy to dismiss that as unreal.
But a boob or a bare ass - that's right there in the living room and little Johnny is looking to Mommy for an explanation. You have to admit, it IS different.
That's all I was saying. Not looking for people to poke holes in the logic (because I already agree it's hypocritical and ridiculous) but I do think that's part of the issue. I realize that other countries do things differently, but that doesn't mean that this isn't part of our country's problem with this stuff.
However, violence during primetime (and I'm not talking about the news) is completely fake, yes? No one is getting hurt. That's not a real dead body they are cutting open on "CSI". No one is actually getting shot on "Law and Order". So it's easy to dismiss that as unreal.
But a boob or a bare ass - that's right there in the living room and little Johnny is looking to Mommy for an explanation. You have to admit, it IS different.
That's all I was saying. Not looking for people to poke holes in the logic (because I already agree it's hypocritical and ridiculous) but I do think that's part of the issue. I realize that other countries do things differently, but that doesn't mean that this isn't part of our country's problem with this stuff.
01-26-08, 08:20 PM
#31
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,288
Received 617 Likes
on
496 Posts
Originally Posted by Draven
I realize that other countries do things differently, but that doesn't mean that this isn't part of our country's problem with this stuff.
It would have just been easier to say that there are many in the U.S. that have issues with nudity whereas it isn't an issue in Europe.
01-26-08, 08:21 PM
#32
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Draven
But a boob or a bare ass - that's right there in the living room and little Johnny is looking to Mommy for an explanation. You have to admit, it IS different.
And you're right, it IS different. I'd much rather my child accidentally see a bare butt than violence, simulated or otherwise. Little Johnny is much less likely to appreciate the differences between make-believe violence and real violence than an adult would.
Originally Posted by Ranger
It is weird that the Moutain and Central zones air episodes an hour earlier. Why do they do that? Not that I am complaining.
Central and Mountain get the East Coast feed, while the Pacific time zone gets its own feed three hours later, which with the time difference ends up being the same clock time as the Eastern time zone.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 01-26-08 at 08:29 PM.
01-26-08, 08:50 PM
#33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
Actually, it's two hours earlier in the Mountain time zone.
Central and Mountain get the East Coast feed, while the Pacific time zone gets its own feed three hours later, which with the time difference ends up being the same clock time as the Eastern time zone.
Central and Mountain get the East Coast feed, while the Pacific time zone gets its own feed three hours later, which with the time difference ends up being the same clock time as the Eastern time zone.
01-27-08, 12:30 AM
#35
Suspended
Originally Posted by Draven
But a boob or a bare ass - that's right there in the living room and little Johnny is looking to Mommy for an explanation. You have to admit, it IS different.
01-27-08, 12:34 AM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by JasonF
Having just watched the scene via the YouTube Mojo posted ... exactly what sort of explanation do you think little Johnny would be looking for? "Why does that woman have a bottom? Why is she embarassed to be naked?" Why do you think it would be awkward for Mommy?
.I am trying to look from the perspective of the hypocritical mind. A mind that makes no sense. I think some of them look at nudity as real and violence as make-believe.
That's all I'm saying.
01-27-08, 01:09 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
I'm not for the fine at all, but I think I know what part may have ticked them off. It's not the first shot where she merely takes off her robe, but rather the second shot, which starts higher up, then tilts down for no particular reason other than to show her ass again. I think that second shot is what did it.
01-27-08, 01:23 AM
#38
Suspended
Originally Posted by Draven
Once again...I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH NUDITY ON TV .
I am trying to look from the perspective of the hypocritical mind. A mind that makes no sense. I think some of them look at nudity as real and violence as make-believe.
That's all I'm saying.
.I am trying to look from the perspective of the hypocritical mind. A mind that makes no sense. I think some of them look at nudity as real and violence as make-believe.
That's all I'm saying.
01-27-08, 01:54 AM
#39
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Drexl
I'm not for the fine at all, but I think I know what part may have ticked them off. It's not the first shot where she merely takes off her robe, but rather the second shot, which starts higher up, then tilts down for no particular reason other than to show her ass again. I think that second shot is what did it.
01-27-08, 10:06 AM
#40
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,288
Received 617 Likes
on
496 Posts
From Bill Poser's Language Log:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/005351.html
The only problem is that it will take years for this case to get into the federal courts given the whole FCC (which serves as judge, jury, and executioner initially) appeals process, and probably not even be worth it for ABC to fight.
And note the craziness here: the burden is on ABC to show that buttocks are not a sexual or excretory organ. Should not the burden be on the government to show that buttocks are a sexual or excretory organ? Under normal 'prosecutions,' the answer would be yes, but under federal agency adjudications, burdens of proof conveniently are shifted.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/005351.html
January 26, 2008
Linguistic Incompetence at the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission is proposing to fine ABC $1.4 million for airing in 2003 between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. an NYPD Blue episode showing a woman's buttocks. The details are in this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture¹. According to the FCC, the episode violated its decency regulations because it depicts "sexual or excretory organs or activities". In response to ABC's argument that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, the ruling states:
"Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law²³ and common sense."
This is the entirety of the FCC's discussion of this point.
I am shocked that the FCC has erred on such a simple linguistic point.² The buttocks are not used for sexual reproduction so they are not a sexual organ. Indeed, they are not an organ of any sort, which is defined by Wordnet as: "a fully differentiated structural and functional unit in an animal that is specialized for some particular function". Unlike the heart or the kidneys, the buttocks are not "specialized for some particular function".
The FCC's claim that case law shows that the butocks are, for legal purposes, a "sexual organ", is contained in footnote 23:
"²³ See, e.g., City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (Supreme Court did not disturb a city’s indecency ordinance prohibiting public nudity, where the buttocks was listed among other sexual organs/body parts subject to the ordinance’s ban on nudity); Loce v. Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 191 F.3d 256, 269 (2d. Cir. 1999) (upholding state district court’s determination that Time Warner’s decision to not transmit certain cable programming that it reasonably believed indecent (some of which included “close-up shots of unclothed breasts and buttocks”) did not run afoul of the Constitution)."
The two cases cited merely establish that the display of the buttocks may be considered indecent. In both cases, the buttocks are included in lists of body parts whose display is prohibited, but nothing in either case justifies the equation of the set of prohibited body parts with the sexual organs. Indeed, one can make the opposite argument. The relevant City of Erie ordinance is Ordinance 75-1994, codified as Article 711 of the Codified Ordinances of the city of Erie (cited in the opinion of the Supreme Court above). It includes the definition:
"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genital [sic], pubic hair or buttocks …
The ordinance lists the buttocks in addition to the genitalia, which is to say, the reproductive organs. This would be quite unnecessary if the buttocks were reproductive organs.
The problem for the FCC is that it wants to enforce a broad notion of indecency that includes display of the buttocks but that its own regulations contain a narrower definition. Both in its ruling generally and in its mis-citation of the case law in footnote 23, the FCC appears to believe that it can expand the definition of indecency from what it is to what it would like it to be by fiat.
I trust that the courts will overturn this idiotic ruling if it does not die of embarrassment first.
Linguistic Incompetence at the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission is proposing to fine ABC $1.4 million for airing in 2003 between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. an NYPD Blue episode showing a woman's buttocks. The details are in this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture¹. According to the FCC, the episode violated its decency regulations because it depicts "sexual or excretory organs or activities". In response to ABC's argument that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, the ruling states:
"Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law²³ and common sense."
This is the entirety of the FCC's discussion of this point.
I am shocked that the FCC has erred on such a simple linguistic point.² The buttocks are not used for sexual reproduction so they are not a sexual organ. Indeed, they are not an organ of any sort, which is defined by Wordnet as: "a fully differentiated structural and functional unit in an animal that is specialized for some particular function". Unlike the heart or the kidneys, the buttocks are not "specialized for some particular function".
The FCC's claim that case law shows that the butocks are, for legal purposes, a "sexual organ", is contained in footnote 23:
"²³ See, e.g., City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (Supreme Court did not disturb a city’s indecency ordinance prohibiting public nudity, where the buttocks was listed among other sexual organs/body parts subject to the ordinance’s ban on nudity); Loce v. Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 191 F.3d 256, 269 (2d. Cir. 1999) (upholding state district court’s determination that Time Warner’s decision to not transmit certain cable programming that it reasonably believed indecent (some of which included “close-up shots of unclothed breasts and buttocks”) did not run afoul of the Constitution)."
The two cases cited merely establish that the display of the buttocks may be considered indecent. In both cases, the buttocks are included in lists of body parts whose display is prohibited, but nothing in either case justifies the equation of the set of prohibited body parts with the sexual organs. Indeed, one can make the opposite argument. The relevant City of Erie ordinance is Ordinance 75-1994, codified as Article 711 of the Codified Ordinances of the city of Erie (cited in the opinion of the Supreme Court above). It includes the definition:
"Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genital [sic], pubic hair or buttocks …
The ordinance lists the buttocks in addition to the genitalia, which is to say, the reproductive organs. This would be quite unnecessary if the buttocks were reproductive organs.
The problem for the FCC is that it wants to enforce a broad notion of indecency that includes display of the buttocks but that its own regulations contain a narrower definition. Both in its ruling generally and in its mis-citation of the case law in footnote 23, the FCC appears to believe that it can expand the definition of indecency from what it is to what it would like it to be by fiat.
I trust that the courts will overturn this idiotic ruling if it does not die of embarrassment first.
The only problem is that it will take years for this case to get into the federal courts given the whole FCC (which serves as judge, jury, and executioner initially) appeals process, and probably not even be worth it for ABC to fight.
And note the craziness here: the burden is on ABC to show that buttocks are not a sexual or excretory organ. Should not the burden be on the government to show that buttocks are a sexual or excretory organ? Under normal 'prosecutions,' the answer would be yes, but under federal agency adjudications, burdens of proof conveniently are shifted.
Last edited by Red Dog; 01-27-08 at 10:09 AM.
01-27-08, 01:54 PM
#45
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this kind of rediculous ruling by the FCC will work against them. A lot of people will look down on the FCC for this. ABC will almost certainly win their appeal. It's a shame ABC is owned by Disney though because we all know that Disney gives in to ANY kind of controversy. It's too bad it wasn't FOX.
01-27-08, 02:08 PM
#46
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,288
Received 617 Likes
on
496 Posts
Originally Posted by Gutch220
I think this kind of rediculous ruling by the FCC will work against them. A lot of people will look down on the FCC for this. ABC will almost certainly win their appeal. It's a shame ABC is owned by Disney though because we all know that Disney gives in to ANY kind of controversy. It's too bad it wasn't FOX.
You presume that ABC will appeal it. Given the legal costs, it may not be worth it to them, particularly since they have already toned down their programming (see the last year of NYPD Blue) since Nipplegate.
The FCC has been pulling this bullshit for years now, so I wouldn't count on 'a lot of people' looking down at them. Plus the FCC suits aren't elected officials so they don't have to worry about what 'the people' think.
Last edited by Red Dog; 01-27-08 at 02:10 PM.
01-27-08, 08:45 PM
#48
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by Lateralus
It was that second deliberate ass shot that did it.
I felt the same way, the pan down wasn't called for, but I truely feel partents should parent, simple as that, it's not the FCC's (well it shouldn't be anyway) job or anyone else's to say what should be watched/aired. But yeah parents ....parenting, right.
01-27-08, 11:50 PM
#49
DVD Talk Hero
Charlotte Ross was several levels of sexy. What the hell happened to her? She should have never bailed before Blue's last season.
And in regards to the FCC - das said what I was going to say, only much more eloquently. I wouldn't have included the 'Dear' and 'Sincerely.'
And in regards to the FCC - das said what I was going to say, only much more eloquently. I wouldn't have included the 'Dear' and 'Sincerely.'
01-28-08, 12:19 AM
#50
That second zoomed in ass shot was so unnecessary and they were just begging to get fined for that one.
I'm not re-reading the article. But, I am sure that ABC has been aware for years that the FCC was investigating this issue. Why it took this long for them to issue the fine is beyond me though.
I'm not re-reading the article. But, I am sure that ABC has been aware for years that the FCC was investigating this issue. Why it took this long for them to issue the fine is beyond me though.