I second that. One really stupid network executive that must have had some other agenda in mind... I mean, they showed the original episodes in the wrong order. I guess he just didn't like Josh Whedon or something, I don't know. They did everything wrong from a broadcaster's point of view and still ended up with a hit show and then cancelled it. This is one of those times when Jayne would have come in really handy... just hand him a cluebat and point him in the right direction.
When a network exec decides to cancel a show, at least that's *his* business he's ruining.
When the FCC decides to wield their axe, though, that's the government sticking their nose into someone else's business.
It's like saying a pro basketball player who gets fat and sluggish has somehow betrayed the fans worse than a referee on graft who deliberately penalizes him for no reason.
Sliders got cancelled because the Sci-Fi channel picked it up and made another one of its famed boneheaded maneuvers. I like some of their shows but they really need new management. And please, get that John what's-his-face "The Dead Will Talk" psychic dipstick off of the Sci-Fi channel. Maybe he's already gone. I hope so.
Anyway, after throwing Kari Wuhrer into the mix in a blatant attempt add sex appeal to the show (as if it needed it), killing off the Professor and having Wade stuffed into a Kromagg
Information about Broadcast Obscenity/Indecency Laws:
The Courts have said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be considered obscene, material must meet a 3-prong test:
1.
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient (arousing lustful feelings) interest;
2.
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
3.
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecency is defined as language or material that, in context, describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. As such, broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
And who defines Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, or Scientific value? This is still just people in a dark room applying arbitrary standards to everything, and contrary to the ideals of our nation.
Uhh.. right. When you define something using a standard that also isn't defined you've done nothing. It's like answering a question with a question. The FCC basically says "indecency is what people think is indecent". As if everyone agrees or there's such a thing as an "average person". There's no concensus on what's indecent beyond a few extremes like child porn, snuff films, and bestiality.
3. The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The superbowl halftime incident didn't lack any artistic value. Didn't anyone from the FCC see that? The little star thing covering Janet Jackson's nipple was pretty artistic, as was the entire performance.
This was the standard the Supreme Court used to decide that child porn for instance, could be outlawed, while most pornography couldn't. It sounds to me like this Parent's TV organization wants porn on television.
What you call indecent may not be what I call indecent. The Seven dirty words, that was specific. (ie: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits.)
Indecency is at the discretion of the customer/listener/broadcaster/your cat. That's the problem I have with this "Indecency" issue.
The Naked Lunch trial is a famous case of something that many people felt was filthy, disgusting, and without value being defended by both the artistic community and the courts. It was the last time (that I'm aware of) that a novel was prosecuted as obscene in the United States.
A more detailed discussion of literary obscenity can be found here [libidomag.com]. Site MAY not be safe for work. It's an adult theme website and the article has pictures of naked naughty bits, albeit arti
By definition an average person would never write a complaint to FCC. So, now that they have a definition, they also need a procedure to test for indecency. It's really is simple. For every complaint that you want to investigate, ask a research organisation (sociology?) to invite a random sample of Americans and run a "blind" study showing them various shows (including the tested one) and measure their erection. If on average they get a boner during that show, it meets the 1 criteria. The 2nd should be dete
From what you've described, the issue seems to be stuff that might turn someone on.....am I the only one who thinks this is an awfully silly thing to worry about?
Since when was being horny a fate that anyone needs protection from?
Now I'm sure you're going to ask "But what if it was your kids?" Don't bother. I've never seen anything that I felt anyone needed to be protected from, at least not within the context of normal living. There are many things I would not want anyone to be subjected to 24/7, rega
Obviously these 100 people need to be refused cable TV service--It's for their own good. They'll probably still complain: "Last night as I was watching my neighbors through binoculars to make sure they were being moral citizens, I noticed an extremely disgusting program on their television..."
When I was in college, our radio station's training guide laid out the rules of indecency Avoid George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words: Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits.
I don't think it was meant to be taken literally though. I remember as a kid watching "Salute Your Shorts" on Nickelodeon where Sponge was stumped on a trivia question and said "I'm pissed off because I don't know the answer!" Didn't U2's Boner get away with saying "This is really fucking great" on TV and the FCC didn't
No, it blows that government has the power to make it happen. Without that power, those 100 people would have to take personal responsibility like everyone else, instead of having government do it for them.
Remember who holds the keys. It's not those 100 people -- it's government.
It would be even nicer for the FCC to behave decently. But the imposition of the will of the few upon the will of the many has happened many times throughout history. Sometimes the many just have to get together and stomp the few into the ground with cleats.
The FCC claims that clearly defining what is indecent would be equivalent to true censorship and thus be unconstitutional. Thus by leaving at as
ex post facto [wikipedia.org] as well as subjective, they can punish indecent content while preserving free speech. Who needs the rule of law [wikipedia.org] anyways?
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
According to them they have 700,000 members (4th to last paragraph [washingtonpost.com]). But it looks like that's the total number of members ever, not the current number. Apparently these people are above little things like telling the truth. Classic sign that they are a bunch of fanatics.
Well, even if their actual membership was 700,000, that really isn't very many people on the scope of the population of the US. We're clocked in at over 300,000,000. That puts them at about 0.2% of the population. And that's ignoring your argument about their membership, which I happen to agree with.
It would be nice for the FCC to define what is indecent..
No it wouldn't!
How would that be any differnet than PTC deciding what is indecent? Just a differnt group of the few saying what is and is not proper to broadcast on the public airwaves. And a federal agency too? Yeah, there won't be any partisan meddling in a group like that.
If anything the FCC should protect the right of the broadcasters to air what they decide to. Let the public decide what they hate and the FCC be their tool, not the scapel
I don't think that the FCC should regulate decency, however the grandparent was referring to the fact that the FCC can fine you for breaking a rule without a clear definition. They say that ignorance is no excuse for the law, but when nobody can tell you whether or not a certain action would be illegal until after the fact, it's hard not to break it.
F the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
When the FCC decides to wield their axe, though, that's the government sticking their nose into someone else's business.
It's like saying a pro basketball player who gets fat and sluggish has somehow betrayed the fans worse than a referee on graft who deliberately penalizes him for no reason.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
"But when asked, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau said it could find only 90 complaints from 23 individuals.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Anyway, after throwing Kari Wuhrer into the mix in a blatant attempt add sex appeal to the show (as if it needed it), killing off the Professor and having Wade stuffed into a Kromagg
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Well, they are now part of NBC.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:5, Informative)
They have [parentstv.org]:
Information about Broadcast Obscenity/Indecency Laws:
The Courts have said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be considered obscene, material must meet a 3-prong test:
1. An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient (arousing lustful feelings) interest;
2. The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
3. The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecency is defined as language or material that, in context, describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. As such, broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Meeeh.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
The superbowl halftime incident didn't lack any artistic value. Didn't anyone from the FCC see that? The little star thing covering Janet Jackson's nipple was pretty artistic, as was the entire performance.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Obligatory Tom Lehrer quote:
From That Was The Year That Was [amazon.com]Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Indecency is at the discretion of the customer/listener/broadcaster/your cat. That's the problem I have with this "Indecency" issue.
From the Burroughs Naked Lunch Obscenity Trial (Score:2)
The Naked Lunch trial is a famous case of something that many people felt was filthy, disgusting, and without value being defended by both the artistic community and the courts. It was the last time (that I'm aware of) that a novel was prosecuted as obscene in the United States.
A more detailed discussion of literary obscenity can be found here [libidomag.com]. Site MAY not be safe for work. It's an adult theme website and the article has pictures of naked naughty bits, albeit arti
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Since when was being horny a fate that anyone needs protection from?
Now I'm sure you're going to ask "But what if it was your kids?" Don't bother. I've never seen anything that I felt anyone needed to be protected from, at least not within the context of normal living. There are many things I would not want anyone to be subjected to 24/7, rega
Indecency (Score:1)
I'm pretty offended every time I hear George W. Bush speak on the radio or TV. There's free speach and free speach, you know?
"there ought to be limits to freedom" -- W.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1, Troll)
If Jesus beleived in loving every one and to value life, how come more people die in his name than any other?
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Yes.. THIS comment is -100 Troll/Flamebait
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
I don't think it was meant to be taken literally though. I remember as a kid watching "Salute Your Shorts" on Nickelodeon where Sponge was stumped on a trivia question and said "I'm pissed off because I don't know the answer!" Didn't U2's Boner get away with saying "This is really fucking great" on TV and the FCC didn't
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Remember who holds the keys. It's not those 100 people -- it's government.
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:2)
Re:F the FCC... (Score:1)
Why is this modded "insightful"? (Score:1)
No it wouldn't!
How would that be any differnet than PTC deciding what is indecent? Just a differnt group of the few saying what is and is not proper to broadcast on the public airwaves. And a federal agency too? Yeah, there won't be any partisan meddling in a group like that.
If anything the FCC should protect the right of the broadcasters to air what they decide to. Let the public decide what they hate and the FCC be their tool, not the scapel
Re:Why is this modded "insightful"? (Score:2)