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
F the FCC... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really blows that 100 people can RUIN what millions watch...
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