Indecency Laws Fines Raised Ten Fold

Imo, Janet Jackson and the punk are the ones who should have been fined for their Super Bowl prank, not the network. If the network was found to be complicit, then sue them, too.

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

I do agree with you jsobecky that we shouldn't have surprise vulgarity on programs that are otherwise PG rated. But I think it's rather stupid that you can't say "#" (the f word) on television. I remember watching this movie where one of the main characters said something to the effect of "Do you know why I hate America? It's because we have military operations where our pilots are ordered to firebomb entire villages of innocent people but that same pilot is not allowed to write "#" (the f word) on the side of his plane."

That statement has a lot of truth to it. Why are we so concerned with vulgarity and properness when on the other hand we can be so nonchalant about war and the innocent casualties (what we call collateral damage) that come with it?

I don't think the FCC should be able to dictate what you can and cannot present (besides the obvious already illegal media such as child pornography) on television and radio. The only thing that they should be able to enforce is that every program must declare it's rating and strictly adhere to it. Every new cable and satellite box has built into it the ability to filter out channels with a specific rating. The onus should be on parents to utilize this technology, not on legislators to cater to the whims of the moral "majority."

[edit on 8-6-2006 by ShakyaHeir]

WATS for shakey!

I too am astonished how American Culture glorifies, blood, violence, war, death and macho pursuits; then views the human body and profanity as "nasty".

Actually I guess I shouldn't be so amazed. All I have to see is the selection in any video game store.

If I had kids, I think I would rather them watch the Playboy channel than play "Doom" or some other shooting video.

Marshal Mcluhan's' "The Media is the Message" is more apropos now than when it was written.

It's a brave new world!

its not even the video games whaaa is the fact americans, old and young, cant seem to get the picture that its not real. They play the video game and act like its real life or something. its not, its just a game, and people just dont seem to get that. I grew up playing the most violent video games, yet I knew the difference between reality and a video games, thats why Im not shooting up a school. Some kids just have no guidence to let them know that its all BS these video games arent real. these kids play socom and suddenly want to be in the navy seals. Its a video game, thats not the real navy seals, its fiction. Its like a fiction book, why are people taking it so serious.

People really need to realize theres a difference between reality and video games. They need to figure out there are things called fiction and by defintion arent true.

I think the solution to this is simple. Put a warning on before the start of the show. If the actual content of the show differs from what the warning said then by all means, fine them for false advertising or something. If you tune in mid show, look in a TV guide, or better yet IO has a function to see its rating and such. Look at that and if its inappropriate, dont watch it.

And dont give me that BS, "the kids could watch it when im not looking" be a better parent and make sure it doesnt happen if you care that much. Sorry for being blunt and harsh, but its true. if you care that much about sheltering your little child from the cold world, leaving him/her unprepared for the real world, then dont leave him alone with the tv, plain and simple.

Just curious why many people are comparing violence to nudity and profanity. Both are considered the same where ratings are concerned, which is why you see the "Rated R for violence, language, nudity, and adult situations." None of the above belong in a Super Bowl halftime show, or episodes of Spongebob Squarepants. If people want to see nudity, or enjoy hearing profanity they tune in their televisions appropriately. Personally, I am offended that someone would think it would be appropriate to disrespect me by subjecting me to unsolicited nudity or profanity - I am not that kind of person, thank you.

The only violence I see on television is on Law and Order, and it certainly is not glorifying it - but I am sure there is nudity and gratuitous violence availible to those who seek it. Do we need the fines? Maybe not, $325,000-$3M is still nothing for the networks - iirc it was something around $3M or so for a 30 second ad during the superbowl! and it will in the end just affect the shareholders. We ought to give the producers of the shows a few hundred hours of community service instead!!

Side note: you gotta love how the network version of "The Big Lebowski" turns "This is what happens when you * a stranger in the *" into "This is what happens when you go hiking with a stranger in the Alps!"

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 ?

Full frontal nudity is fine in England, close ups are no problem, simulated sex with nudity is allowed abut theyre not allowed to show full on sex.

This is all after 9pm, incidental nudity is allowed any time as long as its not sexual.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
If people want to see nudity, or enjoy hearing profanity they tune in their televisions appropriately. Personally, I am offended that someone would think it would be appropriate to disrespect me by subjecting me to unsolicited nudity or profanity - I am not that kind of person, thank you.

So I take it you never go out then for fear of seeing a topless woman sunbathing in the park or hearing a passer by swear?

If I'm offended by something on TV, Ill switch over. Its as simple as that. The only thing I can remember that was bad was them doing a live post mortem on a real body. Not my sort of thing but I didn't feel the need to tell others that it shouldn't be on TV.

Its called tolerance.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I think the solution to this is simple. Put a warning on before the start of the show.
And dont give me that BS, "the kids could watch it when im not looking" be a better parent and make sure it doesnt happen if you care that much. Sorry for being blunt and harsh, but its true. if you care that much about sheltering your little child from the cold world, leaving him/her unprepared for the real world, then dont leave him alone with the tv, plain and simple.

Well, as ShakayaHeir stated:

Every new cable and satellite box has built into it the ability to filter out channels with a specific rating.

But that's not the reality, is it? Not every program is rated.

To say that a parent is " sheltering your little child from the cold world, leaving him/her unprepared for the real world," is a bit cavalier. The same argument is used by those who seek to indoctrinate young school children to sex in our public schools. Once again, butting their noses in where the parent should have full say.

No Flyer, I'm not afraid of nudity or swearing - that's silly. But nudity and profanity, for those who wish to watch or engage in them, have it's own place. I don't care if someone loves porn or Howard Stern, more power to them, it's just not something I should have to be exposed to if I do not seek it. The Janet Jackson episode at the Super Bowl is a perfect example - I didn't example, seek, or want to see her breast. When I tune in to watch the Super Bowl, I have certain expectations.

Stuff like this is the same reason we take showers, put napkins on our laps when we eat, and all those other goodies of etiquette - we respect the people around us enough to do them. Not just from a point of respect, but because we think the other people in our society would like us to do them, or dislike for us not to do them. I'm sure some people would be pleased with walking down the street and seeing people having sex on a bus-stop bench, and other people swearing left and right, but I'm sure most people would not.

ed-few typos

[edit on 8-6-2006 by AlphaHumana]

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
The Janet Jackson episode at the Super Bowl is a perfect example - I didn't example, seek, or want to see her breast. When I tune in to watch the Super Bowl, I have certain expectations.

I was watching a documentary on natural disasters and there were several topless women dancing in a paris show, I didnt seek out nudity but on the other hand, I didnt think twice about it.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
Stuff like this is the same reason we take showers, put napkins on our laps when we eat, and all those other goodies of etiquette - we respect the people around us enough to do them. Not just from a point of respect, but because we think the other people in our society would like us to do them, or dislike for us not to do them. I'm sure some people would be pleased with walking down the street and seeing people having sex on a bus-stop bench, and other people swearing left and right, but I'm sure most people would not.

[edit on 8-6-2006 by AlphaHumana]

You're confusing sex with nudity, two completely different things. Streakers are often shown here at sporting events, its all a bit of a laugh because were not prudes. If I saw two people having sex in public, Id just carry on with what I was doing and not give it another thought. Its not a big deal

If people are offended by something, don't look or listen but I don't want anyone telling what I can and cannot watch. I like to be my own censor and not have someone with warped values judging it for me.

and ya know what, no one is forcing you to watch that show, that station, or TV in general. Dont likt it, dont watch. If enough people dont watch TV will change from loss in profits. If theres not enough people to change anything by turning off the TV/station well then I guess that tells you just how important people feel about it.

I agree it was wrong and stupid for janet to whip out her knocker at half time, but make her pay, dont make everyone in america pay ! I stil think its just another way for the gov to get more free money from us sheep.

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
The Janet Jackson episode at the Super Bowl is a perfect example - I didn't example, seek, or want to see her breast.

I think most of us, no matter how open minded about nudity we may be, did not want to see her breast. It gives a bad name to all the breasts in the world.



Seriously, though, what it all really boils down to is taboos promoted by the society we live in. People living in countries such as Brazil are exposed to nudity and public sexuality all the time, and as such, think nothing of it. People in the US are exposed to a constant onslaught of violence, and as such, think nothing of it. I'd rather live in a society that's casual about nudity and sex, and see violence as a taboo, rather than the other way around.

Statistically speaking, England who allows nudity on TV and doesn't have nearly as much violence on TV also has a lower teen pregnancy rate, and a lower violent crime rate than the US. The US, on the other hand, which shelters the public from sex and nudity, and promotes violence, has incredibly high teen pregnancy and violent crime rates (among the highest in the world). Kind of says something, doesn't it?

YA !!!!!
It does say something.
Thanks for that !
I agree 100%.

I also think it may have something to do with the geography.
In europe people are used to being close together, in the us
you can drive for HOURS and HOURS with out seeing a damn
house. Could it be that too ?

Flyer, you're completely correct in saying that your people don't blink an eye at such things. I was under the impression that this thread, and "fines" (seems like such an American term, argh!) related to the airwaves of the US. If the majority of your society incorporates nudity and profanity into their daily lives willingly, that's fine! Certain things of such nature can be legally decided as "air pollution" in the US (I'm not making this up.)

Also, grimreaper, I am not sure if your post was aimed at me or not, because you did not specify, but I agree! If you do not like it, do not watch it! But nudity at a football game - sure, I can quit watching CBS (or whatever station the game was on that year, I don't recall - this is just an example.) but I mean, most legal classifications are based on deciding whether or not "a reasonable person can expect..."

jsobecky
Few questions for you:
-How does a seeing of a breast/nipple affetct childs psyche?
-Why should you be warned of something natural like a nude body?

Sex is one thing, you shouldn't show actual sex on TV without ratings, but nudity doesn't harm anyone.

Where i come from (Finland that is) we are acustomed to nudity from the childhood, we go to Sauna nude, Families go together (Yes, male and female members at the same time), and for example i've been in sauna since i was 3 months. There is nothing erotic about it, just nudity, nothing bad in it.
And no i'm no freaking nudist who goes to work naked, i prefer to wear clothes most of the time (don't even like shorts), but on the other hand i don't get offended if some is naked/topless at his/hers front lawn or at the public beach.

We've had full frontal nudity in our TV since '70s, no har done.

Just remember, nudity does not equal sex or even erotic.

Originally posted by northwolf
jsobecky
Few questions for you:
-How does a seeing of a breast/nipple affetct childs psyche?
-Why should you be warned of something natural like a nude body?

First question: I don't know. Different kids, different ways. There is no one answer that fits all.
Second question, where is the line drawn? A breast is one thing, but do you stop there?

Anyway, they are our kids, and we should have control on what they see or hear.

Originally posted by Flyer
If people are offended by something, don't look or listen but I don't want anyone telling what I can and cannot watch. I like to be my own censor and not have someone with warped values judging it for me.

We can accept that, but to modify your statement just a bit:

I like to be my own censor and not have someone with warped values forcing it down my throat.

I'm not advocating censorship. I'm advocating total freedom of choice. When you tell me that I must accept somethiing, you are taking my choice away from me.

If you want total freedom of choise you have give others the total freedom to express them selves and you cannot be offended... fair and square.

And parents do have a choise, don't let your children watch TV.

Censorship in any form takes away the right to ghoose from rest of us, do you claim to have right to tell me what I can watch?

OT, do you allso advocate ban on games that have sexual or violent content?