Supreme Court strikes down part of FCC profanity policy

[Hayabusa Rider]

Getting to what was actually decided on, I'm glad to see the vote went as it did. That there should be punishment for an accidental equipment failure is ridiculous.

 

[Ninjahedge]

The key is simple.

The government should provide the mechanisms that can be employed by parents to implement in the raising of their children, they should not do the raising themselves.

The problem we have is an inconsistent code of conduct for many things that is too puritanical in some cases, and too lax in others.

We have no problem with people beating the crap out of each other at 3:30 in the afternoon on, or near, "kids" channels, but a boob is Verboten! Selective overzealous morality is a dangerous thing and we can't seem to compromise on the extents of individual legislations. We seem to only be able to pass or reject them on a 1 by 1 basis, giving us an irregular waffle-iron pattern on the skulls beaten to death with it.

 

[PokerGuy]

The thread title is how foxnews originally reported the court decision.

But I will edit the title to reflect the updates.

Sorry, did not mean to imply that you had created an incorrect topic title, just that it didn't match up to what the ruling was.

 

[Texashiker]

Sorry, did not mean to imply that you had created an incorrect topic title, just that it didn't match up to what the ruling was.

Its ok, no offense taken

 

[PokerGuy]

Getting to what was actually decided on, I'm glad to see the vote went as it did. That there should be punishment for an accidental equipment failure is ridiculous.

Actually, that's not what the ruling was. The court punted (did not rule on) the issue of what the rules are (ie, what is subject to penalty or not), the court just ruled that the stations were not made aware of the rule and possible infractions prior to getting fined.

My understanding is that if there was some equipment failure etc, the FCC could still fine the TV station under current rules.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually, that's not what the ruling was. The court punted (did not rule on) the issue of what the rules are (ie, what is subject to penalty or not), the court just ruled that the stations were not made aware of the rule and possible infractions prior to getting fined.

My understanding is that if there was some equipment failure etc, the FCC could still fine the TV station under current rules.

Well that's crap then.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Don't you mean "shit"?

 

[cybrsage]

If we remove the morality laws from public airwaves TV to allow sexual organs to be shown, does that mean we also should remove the age restriction from porn? It is based entirely on morality as well.

 

[cybrsage]

The key is simple.

The government should provide the mechanisms that can be employed by parents to implement in the raising of their children, they should not do the raising themselves.

The problem we have is an inconsistent code of conduct for many things that is too puritanical in some cases, and too lax in others.

We have no problem with people beating the crap out of each other at 3:30 in the afternoon on, or near, "kids" channels, but a boob is Verboten! Selective overzealous morality is a dangerous thing and we can't seem to compromise on the extents of individual legislations. We seem to only be able to pass or reject them on a 1 by 1 basis, giving us an irregular waffle-iron pattern on the skulls beaten to death with it.

Agreed, we need consistency.

 

[Texashiker]

does that mean we also should remove the age restriction from porn?

Its a matter of perception.

What is the difference in porn, and videos and images used for sex education?

Awhile back a lady called the police saying her divorced husband was showing porn to their teenage daughters. The police said there was nothing they could do because porn can be used in sex education.

Mormons do not drink, but they will take medicine that contains alcohol.

As to your question, is porn that portrays a normal relationship between a man and woman a bad influence?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

If we remove the morality laws from public airwaves TV to allow sexual organs to be shown, does that mean we also should remove the age restriction from porn? It is based entirely on morality as well.

Morality changes. The industry needs to adapt to changing morality. Right now, it is lagging behind. It used to be taboo to use words like "fart" or "damn" on television, and now primetime shows will toss around "ass" and "bastard" with impunity. Hell, George Carlin's "Seven Words you Can't Say on TV" included "tits" and "piss," both of which are now acceptable. Did we suddenly become less moral as a society to let this filth through? Or is that our standards for what constitutes indecent language have shifted? If someone on a police drama got shot and exclaimed "Ow, darnit!" we'd have a hard time believing the portrayal. But if art reflects a reality that we don't want to acknowledge, it becomes indecent? That's just pure cowardice.

Allowing people to say "fuck" on broadcast TV isn't going to usher in a new era of lawlessness. Neither is a bare breast. The draconian prudishness of our obscenity laws in relation to broadcasting is absurd.

 

[Ninjahedge]

A swear is only as bad as people make it to be.

I find personal insults to be more damaging than "Fuck you".

BTW, how did "fuck" become an insult? Aside from sleeping with farm animals, F'ng is generally a GOOD thing, isn't it?

 

[zsdersw]

If we remove the morality laws from public airwaves TV to allow sexual organs to be shown, does that mean we also should remove the age restriction from porn? It is based entirely on morality as well.

From viewing porn, you mean? If so, yes.. we should IMO.

 

[zsdersw]

Morality changes. The industry needs to adapt to changing morality. Right now, it is lagging behind. It used to be taboo to use words like "fart" or "damn" on television, and now primetime shows will toss around "ass" and "bastard" with impunity. Hell, George Carlin's "Seven Words you Can't Say on TV" included "tits" and "piss," both of which are now acceptable. Did we suddenly become less moral as a society to let this filth through? Or is that our standards for what constitutes indecent language have shifted? If someone on a police drama got shot and exclaimed "Ow, darnit!" we'd have a hard time believing the portrayal. But if art reflects a reality that we don't want to acknowledge, it becomes indecent? That's just pure cowardice.

Allowing people to say "fuck" on broadcast TV isn't going to usher in a new era of lawlessness. Neither is a bare breast. The draconian prudishness of our obscenity laws in relation to broadcasting is absurd.

Indeed.

 

[cybrsage]

As to your question, is porn that portrays a normal relationship between a man and woman a bad influence?

It depends on what is considered a normal relationship. If we go by current societal standards, gay porn does not show a normal relationship (for example).

 

[cybrsage]

From viewing porn, you mean? If so, yes.. we should IMO.

Why, other than your personal morality, should we allow a breast but not allow sex?

 

[zsdersw]

Why, other than your personal morality, should we allow a breast but not allow sex?

Because it is not up to the government to decide what children can view. That is a decision that each parent must make for their child(ren).

 

[cybrsage]

Morality changes. The industry needs to adapt to changing morality. Right now, it is lagging behind. It used to be taboo to use words like "fart" or "damn" on television, and now primetime shows will toss around "ass" and "bastard" with impunity. Hell, George Carlin's "Seven Words you Can't Say on TV" included "tits" and "piss," both of which are now acceptable. Did we suddenly become less moral as a society to let this filth through? Or is that our standards for what constitutes indecent language have shifted? If someone on a police drama got shot and exclaimed "Ow, darnit!" we'd have a hard time believing the portrayal. But if art reflects a reality that we don't want to acknowledge, it becomes indecent? That's just pure cowardice.

It will alwasy lag behind, which is a good thing.

Allowing people to say "fuck" on broadcast TV isn't going to usher in a new era of lawlessness. Neither is a bare breast. The draconian prudishness of our obscenity laws in relation to broadcasting is absurd.

How about showing anal sex?

 

[zsdersw]

I think it's proper for the government to demand that content providers identify what's in their programming, but it is not proper for the government to arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be shown.

 

[Retro Rob]

Morality changes. The industry needs to adapt to changing morality. Right now, it is lagging behind. It used to be taboo to use words like "fart" or "damn" on television, and now primetime shows will toss around "ass" and "bastard" with impunity. Hell, George Carlin's "Seven Words you Can't Say on TV" included "tits" and "piss," both of which are now acceptable. Did we suddenly become less moral as a society to let this filth through? Or is that our standards for what constitutes indecent language have shifted? If someone on a police drama got shot and exclaimed "Ow, darnit!" we'd have a hard time believing the portrayal. But if art reflects a reality that we don't want to acknowledge, it becomes indecent? That's just pure cowardice.

Allowing people to say "fuck" on broadcast TV isn't going to usher in a new era of lawlessness. Neither is a bare breast. The draconian prudishness of our obscenity laws in relation to broadcasting is absurd.

Does taking this view make the world a better or worse place?

I don't think letting this stuff through will make people worse either, but it desensitizes people to bad language and violence. That's the problem.

 

[cybrsage]

I think it's proper for the government to demand that content providers identify what's in their programming, but it is not proper for the government to arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be shown.

So just to clarify, you are fine with showing anal sex at 2 in the afternoon, provided the show starts with the A symbol at the beginning (A for adult)?

 

[zsdersw]

Does taking this view make the world a better or worse place?

I don't think letting this stuff through will make people worse either, but it desensitizes people to bad language and violence. That's the problem.

Desensitization is a myth. The evolution of what we consider "profane" and "indecent" in the context of what can be spoken/viewed in broadcast media has taken place (and will continue to take place) in spite of "decency rules", so I'd say there is no particular value in keeping them when it's not media that's driving what we consider "normal" and "acceptable".. we're making those changes ourselves. Media isn't driving our culture, the culture is driving the media.

 

[zsdersw]

So just to clarify, you are fine with showing anal sex at 2 in the afternoon, provided the show starts with the A symbol at the beginning (A for adult)?

Correct.

Rules that make sure consumers are informed of what they're getting before they get it are good. Rules that say what they can and cannot get are not.

 

[Retro Rob]

Desensitization is a myth. The evolution of what we consider "profane" and "indecent" in the context of what can be spoken/viewed in broadcast media has taken place (and will continue to take place) in spite of "decency rules", so I'd say there is no particular value in keeping them when it's not media that's driving what we consider "normal" and "acceptable".. we're making those changes ourselves. Media isn't driving our culture, the culture is driving the media.

No... it isn't a myth. Why do you think some people can kill others and go eat dinner like nothing happened and others can't/don't? They weren't born insensitive to the lives of others.. but somehow, they became that way. I sure can't do that and will never. I am sensitive to the lives and well-being of others.

My point is that TV and movies make the unacceptable, acceptable, the once bad, good. I talk to my mom a lot about how TV was back then and they didn't show a guy get shot, or a child cursing out his/her parents and storming to the room in a heated rage.

So, I guess we're better off as a society with looser morality on TV. Ok.....:whiste:

 

[zsdersw]

No... it isn't a myth. Why do you think some people can kill others and go eat dinner like nothing happened and others can't/don't? They weren't born insensitive to the lives of others.. but somehow, they became that way. I sure can't do that and will never. I am sensitive to the lives and well-being of others.

My point is that TV and movies make the unacceptable, acceptable, the once bad, good. I talk to my mom a lot about how TV was back then and they didn't show a guy get shot, or a child cursing out his/her parents and storming to the room in a heated rage.

So, I guess we're better off as a society with looser morality on TV. Ok.....:whiste:

Yes... it is. The people you talk about have mental problems or issues. Any number of things can cause that.

Your point is wrong. Yes, what is shown on TV has changed a lot since the beginning of TV... but that's not because of TV.. it's because society has changed and TV is reflecting those changes.