Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Very good post Img.
Just one question however (and I'm playing the devil's advocate). What should the FCC do, if anything, for situations similar to Janet Jackson's
"wardrobe malfunction" where parents have a reasonable expectation that their children won't see anything undesireble they might deem
As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with my young children seeing the ocassional "nude" shot, provided there's no outward sex involved
(they are 3 and 5). I feel that by making a big deal out of a situation like Ms. Jackson's only makes the problem out of proportion to what it really
is. This includes the FCC's actions as well.
Thanks! (It's Lmg, BTW)
I don't see what the hullaballoo is with breasts, either. I think that the scarcity of seeing them is what makes them so taboo. If breasts were all
over the place, they wouldn't be a big, err, a small, err, well, you get my point.
But nonetheless, I do believe that people should know what they are getting in public television and have the option of filtering out content that
they deem inappropriate. There should be a ratings system that is specific--along with a fixed fine schedule. This way, broadcasters know what they
are getting into and can code their programs accordingly. Parents can also be forwarned that if a program that is rated "M-NAVS" for Mature
Audiences only comes on, and that means there is nudity, adult language, violence, and sexual situations, it is time to put the kiddies to bed. Their
cable service should also allow them to lock-out such programming if they aren't home so kids can't stumble upon it by accident (this technology is
already available-why it isn't being used, I have no idea.) This could also apply to any person that doesn't wish such programming to be seen in
So if someone complains to the FCC that they heard the f-word on TV last night, the response would be "Well, the show was rated M-A. If adult
language offends you, you can turn that kind of programming off" and not censorship for everyone.
And when there are violations, broadcasters and talent will be well aware of the consequences. I think that if a solid ratings/fine system was in
place and Janet Jackson was faced with the concrete reality that by violating the code, she would be going against the wishes of parents all over the
country and personally facing a stiff fine, she might have thought twice (wardrobe malfunction, yeah, right. I don't know about you, but who the
heck A--has a bustier that has removable cups and B--wears it on national television when there is a possibility that it could fall off.) I think
that she might have been tangentally aware of the fact that kids watch the Superbowl, but she obviously didn't think about the full impact of her
actions. If a solid structure was in place and live talent is made aware of the rules, as well as the full consequences of violating the rules,
shock-value publicity stunts like this will be reduced. I think that the backlash after Janet's stunt will probably put an end to them anyway.
But as far as legitimate slip-ups during live-broadcasts, I think that these people are professionals and should still be held accountable. As much
as I disagree with some people's definition of what is obscene, how some parents shelter their kids or other people's beliefs, they have the right
to them. The compromise to all-out censorship is that there is the option of being able to shut out whatever is considered to be offensive. The
only way to do that is to adhere to the rules.
Will this ever happen? I doubt it. I think that we are in for "faith-based" decisionmaking when it comes to what the general public is allowed to
see. Perhaps this is why every program I watch is on cable....