undeRliRcs Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The FCC's cable crackdown The indecency war is ready to heat up -- and Tony Soprano, Jon Stewart and the "South Park" kids better watch their mouths. By Michael Scherer Aug. 30, 2005 | A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to "extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time television. The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to "pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time. Though Martin lost the battle over horse extraction, he is now poised to win the broader indecency war. During the long hot summer in Washington, he has been quietly meeting with religious activists and industry leaders to organize a push for new standards for broadcast, cable and satellite television. At the same time, Martin's allies in the Senate have been considering new laws that could increase broadcast indecency fines, break up cable TV offerings to allow parents to cut off racy channels, and -- most controversially -- give the FCC the power to fine basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy Central's "Daily Show," for crude and lewd content. "On the surface, it may look like ... we are in a holding pattern," a Senate Commerce Committee staffer tells Salon. "But there have been lots of meetings on a staff level as well as meetings with interest groups and with industry." Privately, industry leaders are quaking in their Prada loafers. The water cooler may no longer buzz over Janet Jackson's Super Bowl halftime teat or Bono's expletive-laden Golden Globe speech, but executives still see the coming fight to sanitize television of the crude, the pixelated and the bleepable as an assault on their bottom line. "Everybody should be frightened by the notion that this process could be hijacked by a very few people," says Jim Dyke, a Republican who now leads TV Watch, a group founded by Viacom (CBS, MTV, Comedy Central), General Electric (NBC, Bravo) and News Corp. (Fox) to argue against new regulation. "They are trying to make decisions about what our children can see." Full story here (requires viewing short ad OR premium subscription): http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/ "1950s, here we come!" :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted August 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 30, 2005 Wow, this is rediculous. I mean it sucks that there is so much indecent garbage on television, but stuff like John Stewart/South Park should be left alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotix Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 They hate us for our freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Censorship knows no boundaries. If we allow them to do it to public airwaves then it is only a matter of time before they encroach even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The horse thing is fairly indecent if you ask me but I agree with Boffa that the rest should be left alone. The problem is though is how do we define "indecent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Veteran Posted August 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 30, 2005 Why doesn't the FCC focus on the fact that cable companies are money gouging monopolies? One that the government gave infrastructure to at the expense of the taxpayers who now pay the cable companies for access.... Instead they cry over implied beastiality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Why doesn't the FCC focus on the fact that cable companies are money gouging monopolies?One that the government gave infrastructure to at the expense of the taxpayers who now pay the cable companies for access.... Instead they cry over implied beastiality 586454625[/snapback] Anti-trust cannot and should not be conducted by the FCC. That doesn't change the fact that we should kill the cable companies ;). They get way too much money, and in return for their exclusive positions, they just charge even more. It makes no sense to keep companies like Verizon and SBC from competing with each other. Money grubbing Comcast.....grrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted August 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2005 well this is rediculous. i mean really fine them?!? you have a warning at teh beginning of the show. if people are too stupid to read the damn things and get offended, well its there fault. they were warned. the fcc should not have the power to do stuff like this, its simply restricting more freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted August 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2005 Cable is not free, therefore it should not be regulated this heavily as opposed to the actual airwave broadcast channels, in my opinion. it is not public in the same sense the broadcast channels are, so since you have to actually pay to see it, the people buying cable or satelite should be the ones who decide what's decent or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Douglas Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Cable is not free, therefore it should not be regulated this heavily as opposed to the actual airwave broadcast channels, in my opinion. it is not public in the same sense the broadcast channels are, so since you have to actually pay to see it, the people buying cable or satelite should be the ones who decide what's decent or not. 586457294[/snapback] I totally agree; its an issue between the consumer and the provider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted August 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2005 Cable is not free, therefore it should not be regulated this heavily as opposed to the actual airwave broadcast channels, in my opinion. it is not public in the same sense the broadcast channels are, so since you have to actually pay to see it, the people buying cable or satelite should be the ones who decide what's decent or not. 586457294[/snapback] bingo, i pay for channels that offer nice holsom borderline rude and unusual tv, so i want to enjoy it and not have some government agency dictate what i can and can not watch. htis is just a way so they can get more power in the industry which will eventually lead to other restrictions, like political views, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamz Veteran Posted August 31, 2005 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2005 i pay for cable, meaning i pay for what i value. if i value what they show me, then let me watch it. if it's going to cause me suffering, then let me be responsible for it. equivalently, let me be responsible for not watching it. i don't need nannies to protect myself. i need a someone to protect me from organizations that try to infringe upon my rights. i watch the daily show precisely because it's edgy and adventurous. people need to stop trying to curb liberties in the name of innocuousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Cable is not free, therefore it should not be regulated this heavily as opposed to the actual airwave broadcast channels, in my opinion. The problem with that (as addressed by one of my favorite shows: Bull****) is that it overlooks the reason that censorship was allowed on public airwaves to begin with. The argument was made that (at the time) since there were so few channels, people didn't have enough reasonable options to just 'change the channel' whereas the access to newspapers and magazines was much greater. Look around your city today though and ask yourself one simple question: Which do you have more of, newspapers or radio/tv stations? The former isn't regulated yet the latter is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts