It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indecency Laws Fines Raised Ten Fold

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I am curious, for all of you in europe....
What is your goverments policy for dealing with nudity on tv and other
mediums. I mean...where do they draw the line ?




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


As far as children go, parents should do the parenting, not Big Brother.


I agree with you there. Unfortunately parents cannot teach kids right from wrong the way they used too, so how do you propose parents teach the kids without proper discipline such as a spanking? Just to make myself clear I stated spanking not beating there is a difference.

A spanking never killed me and assume you either, sad isn't it?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   
agreed shots. Its more these rich to middle class parents that are scared to spank their kids. where I grew up, you got hit lol. There was no spanking of the butt. You did something wrong and you got a smack to the back of the head which you well damn deserved.

I grew up in a poor type area, and around here parents didnt care about child services. (alot of black mothers, and i can assure you the jokes you hear about mothers are true, they do hit. dont threaten them with child serivices, you just make it worse. lol) And we all got hit. We may not be the nicest people in society, but you can bet we showed respect when moms around lol. Growing up around here, your never too old to get smacked by your mom.


[edit on 7-6-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's one thing to have a program that is rated R for nudity. It's quite another to have a live broadcast such as the Super Bowl or an Olympic Ice Skating event to suddenly broadcast nudity in front of a kid. You take all choice out of the parents' hands in the latter example.

The same goes for vulgar language.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
This is long over due. I never did buy this is a wardrobe malfunction bit to begin with. Publicity stunt is more like it.

Of course it was a publicity stunt. And I found the stretch marks on her breast to be more revolting than exciting. Almost upchucked my supper.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
I am curious, for all of you in europe....
What is your goverments policy for dealing with nudity on tv and other
mediums. I mean...where do they draw the line ?


Nudity back at home is not a big deal, a breast is a breast, why we can have nude beaches without fences and security guards like they need in America.

If a breast is exposed it is no big deal, like the person who mentioned the women who were topless on a documentary about the heat wave, not a big deal. Now if the Vagina was shown you might have a problem, but at least in my home Country a breast does not bring a billion Euro fine with the owner of the show beheaded, which in America would be broadcasted as Entertainment.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Yumi]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I'll tell you whats indecent; 3.oo a gal. gas., 7oo.oo a month health care premiums, 2 parents having to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet, politicians playing golf courtesy of lobbyists, wars based on lies. Actually the previous is not indecent, it's obscene.

A naked woman to me is beautiful. I guess it's a matter of perspective.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I'll start by admitting that I haven't read the entire thread, so please pardon me if I state something that someone else has. That said, I have long been following these regulations, both with the FCC as well as other government restrictions on broadcast media (both radio and TV), and feel strongly about the subject.

I am a self-proclaimed media-phile. I love media, is all its forms, radio, television, film, music, etc. As a long standing advocate of first amendment rights, as well as expression of those rights through the media of choice (I am an independent filmmaker), I have always vehemently opposed these "decency regulations" on broadcast media. I've never even cared for the ratings regulations on films and music albums (though, I can live with them, becuse they don't censor, but only rate the content).

I find it quite amusing that even the Brits (who the average American views as stuffy and conservative) allow nudity (to an extent) on broadcast television. Other nations around the world allow what could be considered by US standards to be borderline pornography to be broadcast across the airwaves. Yet, the US allows horrific violence (which, I feel can be entertaining to a viewer who knows the difference between TV and reality - I myself am working on a horror film). All that said, the US tends to have among the highest violence and underage/teen pregnancy rates in the world. Why is that? My belief is that it's because people in the US aren't willing to differentiate between television/film and reality (I could write another entire article, just on that point alone), and are sheltered from sexuality, and thus teens/underage people use their sexuality as a form of rebellion. It's widely known that the underage/teen pregnancies are far lower in nations that expose their citizens to sex on TV, because it's not a taboo or a rebellion thing at that point. It becomes a natural human function. Nudity is not a bad thing. After all, every one of us is human, and all humans are born with one of two sets of sex organs (except in rare cases), and it's all perfectly natural. Humans are not the only species of animal to procreate for recreational purposes rather than reproduction. Many species of ape/monkeys (including old-world monkeys - those thought of as less advanced than the apes or chimpanzees that humans evolved from) have been proven to also procreate for recreation. Dolphins are also known to procreate for recreation. That said, recreational procreation is a natural thing among many species on this planet. Why should humans be foreced to deny that?

Sexuality is as human as breathing. It is a natural function of the body. The government telling us that we cannot see this act is akin to the government telling us we cannot breathe, in my opinion.

To address this from a completely different aspect, disregarding all things I said above, what, truly, is indecency? I'll bet my next ten years salary that my opinion of indecent differs wildly from that of Bush or other lawmakers in the US government. To me, indecency is sending thousands of 18-20 year olds over to Iraq to fight a war we have no business in in the first place. I don't consider breasts to be indecent. I do consider atrocities against humanity to be indecent, on the other hand. To me, pornography is the explicit detail in which the dead of war is shown, without respect to their humanity, regardless of what side they were on. Two people getting it on in a video is not pornography. That's human sexuality, one thing that ALL of us participate in, sooner or later. Not every one of us fires a gun in anger. Not every one of us kills a member of "enemy forces." Not every one of us experiences the loss of life, limb, or happiness as the result of war.

To me, pornography and indecency desribes the exploitation of something that not everyone experiences for personal gain. We all have sex. We don't all get affected by war. The exploitation of which act, is truly the more indecent?

[EDIT] For what it's worth, if I ever have children, they will be exposed to both sex and violence in media. I was as a child, and I feel that I grew up to be more well adjusted as an adult than many people. I will expose my children to sex, so that it's not a taboo for them, and hopefully, they'll respect the act for what it's worth. I'll expose them to violence so that they can see the horror that comes from aggressive violence, and hopefully make them less violent people. As previously stated, I was exposed to both as a child myself, and have come to respect sex as an act between two consenting adults and not as a taboo, and I have come to see the horrible nature of violence, and don't wish violence upon anyone. I have also come to respect violence and sex as a form of humor, but only in fictional situations. My children will know the difference between reality and fiction.

To the parents out there - if you don't want your children to see sex or violence, that's why they invented the V-chip (available in almost every new TV). Use it, or, as a novelty, take an active role in your child's upbringing. You had the kid. That child is your responsibility. Not mine. Not the government's. Yours.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by obsidian468]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Europa sounds pretty good. At least the wraith of jesus chrsit (which i dont believe) dosnt come down on you if you........omg......see a breast !!! AHHH LOOK OUT A BREAST !!!??? What do we do now ???? I think we will screw the people over again by increaseing fines some more...... bah bah bah ....i sheep to work.....



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
Europa sounds pretty good. At least the wraith of jesus chrsit (which i dont believe) dosnt come down on you if you........omg......see a breast !!! AHHH LOOK OUT A BREAST !!!??? What do we do now ???? I think we will screw the people over again by increaseing fines some more...... bah bah bah ....i sheep to work.....


I'm sorry for the short reply, but I really couldn't help but laughing at the sarcasm of this reply.

Ahhh. Someone else who thinks this legislation is just as hokey as I do.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Its a bunch of crap. But its all we got at the moment. It was sarcasm yes, but i was fustrated while writting it, and still am at the lack of power i have to do absolutly nothing. unless i am a ...forget about millionair...would have to be a billionair !!



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
Its a bunch of crap. But its all we got at the moment. It was sarcasm yes, but i was fustrated while writting it, and still am at the lack of power i have to do absolutly nothing. unless i am a ...forget about millionair...would have to be a billionair !!


I agree with you to an extent. As the voting public of America, we do still have (to a degree, hoping that the whole Diebold voting machine thing isn't true (and I really hope it's a lie)), our vote during the upcoming senate/house elections, and the presidential election in 2008 (and we'll all know it was a farce if Jeb wins - even the Rebubs don't want him in office). Use what little voice you have, and vote the people who would do this to us out of office.

I will be using my voting voice just as I have been using my petitioning voice, and my general loudmouthed brevity towards certain campaigns as has been seen on local TV (it's good to have friends in the media) to strike down this sort of bull-(uh... I'm censoring myself out of respect of ATS members who may find the term I wanted to use offensive) excrement (I even find that necessity of censorship to be indecent).

Honestly, it's not so much about being a millionaire or billionaire, but rather about knowing the right people in the media and government. Myself, being a long-standing member of the entertainment business (even jut as a lighting/sound/A/V tech) have met and befriended members of local news media (and even befriended the Mayor of Baltimore himself), and as such am somewhat able to get things aired that may not be otherwise aired.

Money matters to the Feds. Connections matter on a local level. If only we had like-minded people with connections in all 50 states.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I think the law is stupid as well though. Overall I think if your so against it, turn off that station and never watch it again. Im sure if you didnt have this law not every station would affiliate nudity and excessive language in every show. Watch those stations block the others. If enough people care enough to do that, the station will stop broadcasting that type of entertainment. I see it as stupidity. You parents running all over freaking out everytime anything like a victory secret commercial comes on, and flip about "the f word" and "the s word" because you think its "political incorrect". I got news for all you parents out there. In highschool your going to hear "curse words" more in one day then watching a george carlin special over twice. So all that "protecting" your doing....not going to do anything.

As another member said its a form of rebellion. Keep telling your kids not to curse or have sex...they will keep right on doing it. Just let it be. Im not saying encourage it but as long as you tell them that when they do it they better be wearing a rubber, leave it alone.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
is what I would tell my kids when they used profanity.


As I mentioned before, when you allow nudity on live broadcasts without prior warning, you take all choice away from the parents. No V-chip or lock-out code is going to help you.

As far as vulgarity, it is commonplace today. It points to the lower relative education level and self-discipline of many young people these days; they cannot express themselves any other way. They don't know how to.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

As far as vulgarity, it is commonplace today. It points to the lower relative education level and self-discipline of many young people these days; they cannot express themselves any other way. They don't know how to.


As a 19 year old who would consider himself relatively educated and intelligent, I'd have to disagree. There are the few young people who don't approve of swearing, but the majority have no problem and engage in it, regardless of income levels, education, etc. I would say that swearing is simply evolving into the language. Yes, you can have perfectly fine conversations without it, but it adds a nice emphasis, etc. If you look (as immature people like myself do) on www.m-w.com, (Don't worry, it's not offensive. It's Merriam-Webster's website), you will find that most profanities you can think of are now listed in the dictionary as official words, like so:

(Oh noes, cover your ears, children)


Main Entry: ----
Pronunciation: ----, interjectionally also '----
Function: noun
Etymology: (assumed) Middle English, from Old English scite; akin to Old English -scItan to defecate
1 usually vulgar : EXCREMENT
2 usually vulgar : an act of defecation
3 usually vulgar : NONSENSE, CRAP
4 usually vulgar : any of several intoxicating or narcotic drugs; especially : HEROIN
5 usually vulgar : DAMN 2
6 usually vulgar : a worthless, offensive, or detestable person
- #·ty /'shi-tE/ adjective, usually vulgar

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Main Entry: ----
Pronunciation: ----
Function: verb
Etymology: akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fokka to copulate
intransitive senses
1 usually obscene : COPULATE -- sometimes used in the present participle as a meaningless intensive
2 usually vulgar : MESS 3 -- used with with
transitive senses
1 usually obscene : to engage in coitus with -- sometimes used interjectionally with an object (as a personal or reflexive pronoun) to express anger, contempt, or disgust
2 usually vulgar : to deal with unfairly or harshly : CHEAT, SCREW

Source: Merriam Webster Online Dictionary


:O:O:O DID HE JUST POST THAT? Yes he did. The censor got it anyways and I won't bother to correct it. Get over it. You wouldn't care if I typed "FLEAKENFLAKEN" so why should any other word matter?

Where in most schools of the past, if a teacher caught you swearing in the halls you would be taken to the office and recieve a suspension, today the teachers will simply walk by. Maybe they themselves are offended inside because they were raised not to talk in such ways, but to everyone else around them it is perfectly acceptable. Yes I agree that it can be annoying and make someone look foolish if they overuse or misuse swearing to an extreme, but I feel that these words make a contribution to our language. And if you accept that, kids won't be just using words for the shock value any more.

I still stand by the idea that... you know what? Certain words, being naked, etc is only "offensive" because our society has labelled it that way. Well guess what, we were all naked a few thousand years ago. I'll admit that I wouldn't want a sudden acceptance of fullblown nudity in public places at all times, because our society wouldn't be able to cope. We have attached taboos to swearing and nudity that need not be there. But if you gradually removed these laws, soon anyone would be able to walk down the street naked without any funny looks or getting raped. Nudity does not need to be constantly associated with sex. Our society is just ridiculously over-obsessed with sex.

Imagine how ridiculously outlandish and offensive we must look to the people in the past who found it offensive to have your ankles uncovered. There are worse things on TV than seeing someone's skin, and hearing them say words. Let's move forwards instead of backwards.


Edit to remove ATS censor circumvention.
Please do not seek to get around our vulgarity censors, there in place for very good reasons.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
~~

just a contemporary, Americanized version of what happened in the
"Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

the elite (rubber stamping lawmakers) were totally immersed in their own Fluff

~~~~~~~~~~



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Granted _ I'm not much a a television watcher. However, after a ten year hiatus I came back to the ol' boob tube and found it to be chock full of subtley veiled racist ideologies and intolerance masked beneath the guise of "humor".

The last time I took in this much television the PC movement was in full force - now all I pick up on are veiled references to the superiority of certain classes and races and it's in my face everywhere I turn.

Are these types of "humor" going to be covered under the new legislation as well?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

from Yarcofin
Yes, you can have perfectly fine conversations without it, but it adds a nice emphasis, etc.

I'd have to disagree with the words "nice emphasis". They use it for shock value, and the fact that their vocabulary is very limited.

Imagine being with your wife, g/f, daughter, mother, or grandmother, standing in line at a checkout counter or whatever. And a group of foul-mouthed adolescents are standing behind you, making comments about women's vaginas, etc.

That's "nice emphasis"?

The fact that something is listed in m-w only signifies wide-spread usage; it doesn't signify quality or acceptance.

A well-spoken person can tear a vulgar-spoken person to ribbons with well-chosen words, leaving them with their heads spinning. Most likely, because the vulgar person didn't understand or recognize half the words used on him in the first place.

And I do recognize and applaud that you, and your friends, can hold a conversation without resorting to vulgarity. That speaks legions about you.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Jsobecky, you are right when it comes to certain people but I can assure you, there are otherwise. I have a friend who is one of the smartest people in my school. He will use sophisticated words mixed with curses. Believe me there are educated people that curse all the same. Its not because they cant express themselves it because thats what they hear around them. The kids that are uneducated use it, and it catches on. Many don't use it because of lack of expression but because its the thing to say. Its the insult to use, not because they don't know anything else. An educated person can insult an uneducated person, but if the uneducated one doesn't know its an insult it kind of takes away from the point of doing it in the first place doesnt it?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
agreed shots. Its more these rich to middle class parents that are scared to spank their kids. where I grew up, you got hit lol. There was no spanking of the butt.


I have to make this brief because it would take the subject way OT. I disagree I think it is all classes of people in this day and age.



Growing up around here, your never too old to get smacked by your mom.


Not where I lived it was the beat cop or dad that did the spanking, all mom would do is tell dad I was bad she did not like to hit me, she never did explain why


Any ideas where we could start a thread on the subject of discipline in this day and age? If so start a thread and u2 me I would love to discuss that in detail since society as a whole no longer seems to care about proper discipline.

Now back OT, I feel the increased fines are a good step, but the system is still broken and I doubt they will give everyone a stiff fine that is allowed by law instead they will give them a small one (slap on the wrist) then say don't you do that again, while the publicity stunt worked and made the star more popular


This might sound harsh but I think perhaps some jail time would work better, but that is just me.

If you want nudity put it on later at night I say, The Super Bowl is not the right place for that kind of exposure.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join