Ok, what are y'all opinions on the FCC

[Windu Chi]

My opinion, I hate it; the censors are getting annoying now, I am tired of blurry images and beep noises.

Also whatever else those free speech opponents come up with, for censoring TV programs.

I know the FCC is there to possibly keep those racist neo-Nazis, which I despise from broadcasting their hate on public channels.

But, for TV and radio it is getting tiresome.

If it wasn't for those f**king neo-Nazis, I would say DESTROY THE FCC, NOW.

 

Opinions people ?

[Jae Onasi]

As the parent of young kids, I say keep the FCC. It's the only thing keeping some of the crap off the radio/TV. My kids don't need to see sex and hear the f-bomb every other word, and that's what it'd degenerate to in the US without some kind of control, because the media likes to push the envelope (e.g. the famous 'wardrobe malfunction incident'). They'll get exposed to plenty enough unfortunately as they get older anyway. I'd like them to have their innocence for a little longer.

[The Source]

^^^

I agree. As long as they don't go too extreme, I am satisfied with how the FCC is handling things. For now anyway.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

As long as this doesn't happen:

 

 

and HBO is around, I'm okay with the FCC.

[Emperor Devon]

Keeping children innocent is more important than some adults getting annoyed.

 

Heck, even if there were no children, I'd keep it. Television is trashy enough already.

[Nancy Allen``]

I think I'd much prefer the FCC to the Parents Television Committee, whose sole aim seems to be the destruction of most broadcast television. I read up on these people and not only do they employ McCarthy like tactics (such as Communist scare campaign style attacks on programes they find repulsive and the dreaded black lists) their head, Brent Bozell, is even the grandson of Joe McCarthy's speech writer. A couple of things the PTC have done include smear campaigns and lies against certain shows and threatening the sponsers of certain shows, such as when they threatened to accuse those who advertised on WWE programming of being baby killers and hold them personally responsible for every child injured or killed as a result of doing something that may have been broadcast on the wrestling.

[Windu Chi]

Keeping children innocent is more important than some adults getting annoyed.

 

Heck, even if there were no children, I'd keep it. Television is trashy enough already.

I thought that you don't like or watch television, Devon.

Unless, you've change your mind?

[Windu Chi]

As the parent of young kids, I say keep the FCC. It's the only thing keeping some of the crap off the radio/TV. My kids don't need to see sex and hear the f-bomb every other word, and that's what it'd degenerate to in the US without some kind of control, because the media likes to push the envelope (e.g. the famous 'wardrobe malfunction incident'). They'll get exposed to plenty enough unfortunately as they get older anyway. I'd like them to have their innocence for a little longer.

Well, that is bias, Jae.

But of course, this going to be expected from parents like you.

[Emperor Devon]

I thought that you don't like or watch television, Devon.

 

I don't. That doesn't mean I still can't think it's trashy or that it should be regulated.

 

Well, that is bias, Jae.

But of course, this going to be expected from parents like you.

 

Bias? For crying out loud, that's being a decent parent. What kind of a mother would let her kids watch obscene material on TV? Heck, you don't even have to be one to be repulsed at the idea of children swearing and talking about sex.

 

Might I ask why you want to hear swear words and see disgusting images in the first place?

[Windu Chi]

I don't. That doesn't mean I still can't think it's trashy or that it should be regulated.

Yeah, whatever !

 

 

Bias? For crying out loud, that's being a decent parent. What kind of a mother would let her kids watch obscene material on TV? Heck, you don't even have to be one to be repulsed at the idea of children swearing and talking about sex.

Hey! Hey! Calm down, Devon!

I'm being neutral here, I'm not attacking Jae.

Well, I guess I shouldn't have said bias.

Might I ask why you want to hear swear words and see disgusting images in the first place?

Because I don't like censors in my TV programs, unless it's censoring that neo-Nazi s**t.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Bias? For crying out loud, that's being a decent parent. What kind of a mother would let her kids watch obscene material on TV? Heck, you don't even have to be one to be repulsed at the idea of children swearing and talking about sex.

Parental controls are always a plausible alternative to the FCC. Setting a password and blocking all but a few channels isn't all that difficult.

 

Might I ask why you want to hear swear words and see disgusting images in the first place?

Who says they're disgusting images? When someone on TV flips someone off their hand is censored, nothing disgusting about that.

 

 

(e.g. the famous 'wardrobe malfunction incident')

I just noticed that part of your post. And, if you're referring to Justin Timberlake pulling Janet Jackson's breast out for a fraction of a second (and this could have easily been missed if you say, sneezed or something), what about all the other bull**** being advertised during the Superbowl? Alcohol, erectile dysfunction pills, and commercials with supermodels washing cars or shaking their asses to advertise whatever stupid bull**** a drunken sports fan may be suckered into buying. Oh, and did you hear? The woman with herpes prancing through the wheat field and rock climbing wants your kids to ask their pediatrician about prescription-only Valtrex or whatever-the-****.

 

Because don't like censors in my TV programs, unless it's censoring that neo-Nazi s**t.

The 1st Amendment doesn't contain a clause saying "except for the neo-Nazi ****". Free speech should be granted to all, and if you don't like what someone's saying, turn the channel. That whole argument would be better suited to a topic on free speech in general however.

[Jae Onasi]

Parental controls are always a plausible alternative to the FCC. Setting a password and blocking all but a few channels isn't all that difficult.

Wouldn't have worked for the 'wardrobe malfunction' incident.

Who says they're disgusting images? When someone on TV flips someone off their hand is censored, nothing disgusting about that.

I don't want to see two people going at it in glorious detail. I sure don't want my kids seeing it. There's absolutely no reason, outside of education, for children to be seeing anything about sex and nudity, hearing swearing, or seeing extreme violence. When I was growing up (yes, when rocks were soft and dirt was in beta-testing), they didn't have nearly the amount of sex, violence, and off-color language that they have now. You know what? I never missed the sex, violence, naked people, and swear words. In fact, I wish they'd go back to that--I prefer things to be left to my imagination rather than have it crudely spoon-fed to me. What does use of an expletive prove other than someone doesn't have enough creativity to come up with something unique?

Frankly, if the networks want to keep me as a viewer (and if the sponsors want to keep me watching their ads), they need to clean up a lot of garbage and quit showing some of the obnoxious, mind-numbing programs that are on currently. I don't feel good about my kids watching most of the stuff that's on network TV now. We end up watching TVLand, the Hallmark Channel, Animal Planet, and Disney Channel because I know most of those programs are going to be 'clean' and safe.

 

 

I just noticed that part of your post. And, if you're referring to Justin Timberlake pulling Janet Jackson's breast out for a fraction of a second (and this could have easily been missed if you say, sneezed or something), what about all the other bull**** being advertised during the Superbowl? Alcohol, erectile dysfunction pills, and commercials with supermodels washing cars or shaking their asses to advertise whatever stupid bull**** a drunken sports fan may be suckered into buying. Oh, and did you hear? The woman with herpes prancing through the wheat field and rock climbing wants your kids to ask their pediatrician about prescription-only Valtrex or whatever-the-****.

Actually, as soon as we saw the first 30 seconds of that particular Superbowl half-time show, we thought it was offensive enough that we actually sent the kids out of the room, and I went in the kitchen to do some other things. They, fortunately, did not see Janet's breast. I think a lot of the ads have gone way too far, too, which is another reason why I don't let the kids watch much network TV. I found the 'wardrobe malfunction' so offensive because a. it wasn't censored (and everyone knew about a week prior that Janet 'had a plan'--this should have been a Big Clue to the FCC) and b. it was done intentionally on a show they knew would have children watching. Further, I as a parent had absolutely no warning about the content of that entire half-time show--there was no rating giving any kind of warning on what would happen that night.

I thought it was irresponsible and selfish of Justin and Janet to do that. I would have been far more impressed if she'd put more work into her singing instead of how her chest protector could be artlessly ripped apart. However, I agree that a lot of the ads also need to be toned down. I'm liking the idea of Tivo more and more....

 

If the parental controls worked well every single time something offensive came on, we wouldn't need the FCC. However, there needs to be some place to set the bar for shows that kids are going to watch, and consequences for when a network violates the rules, hence the need for the FCC.

[Nancy Allen``]

The 1st Amendment doesn't contain a clause saying "except for the neo-Nazi ****". Free speech should be granted to all, and if you don't like what someone's saying, turn the channel. That whole argument would be better suited to a topic on free speech in general however.

 

I remember hearing about an issue of Supergirl where there's a Nazi speaker that she defends the right to freedom of speech. She gets into a confrontation with Steel over it (the lines, from memory, are Stell saying during their fight "You wear the S and stand for intolerence?" to which Supergirl replies "I fight for ideas. Who's to judge what ideas are allowed? You? Me?") I know I'd be against the idea of Nazism in a second but for many the reprehensible acts they committed and ideas they have versus the right to free speech is a source of conflict for many.

[Windu Chi]

Actually, as soon as we saw the first 30 seconds of that particular Superbowl half-time show, we thought it was offensive enough that we actually sent the kids out of the room, and I went in the kitchen to do some other things. They, fortunately, did not see Janet's breast. I think a lot of the ads have gone way too far, too, which is another reason why I don't let the kids watch much network TV. I found the 'wardrobe malfunction' so offensive because a. it wasn't censored (and everyone knew about a week prior that Janet 'had a plan'--this should have been a Big Clue to the FCC) and b. it was done intentionally on a show they knew would have children watching. Further, I as a parent had absolutely no warning about the content of that entire half-time show--there was no rating giving any kind of warning on what would happen that night.

I thought it was irresponsible and selfish of Justin and Janet to do that. I would have been far more impressed if she'd put more work into her singing instead of how her chest protector could be artlessly ripped apart. However, I agree that a lot of the ads also need to be toned down. I'm liking the idea of Tivo more and more....

 

If the parental controls worked well every single time something offensive came on, we wouldn't need the FCC. However, there needs to be some place to set the bar for shows that kids are going to watch, and consequences for when a network violates the rules, hence the need for the FCC.

 

I'm just going to have to be bias here.

What is the big deal with Janet breast showing at the Surperbowl half-time show , I mean come on, Jae they couldn't censor it because it was live and the breast pop out was an unplanned event.

All that damn complaining by people was ridiculous.

It's like she had strip butt naked; the way people was complaining.

Also I don't think there was some kind of conspiracy, for her to show one breast.

 

 

You just going to have to hate me here, Jae.

I'm sorry, because I had to respond to your comments.

[Nancy Allen``]

Was it a planned event? She said she had a plan and how Justin Timberlake came up behind her and pulled off the bra, well I think it's quite obviously a stunt to get attention.

 

@Jae, I said before somewhere that people have a right to watch anything they like regardless of what it is. If your local TV station were to broadcast 8MM or Wolf Creek, uncensored, people have a right to see it if they want to. With that said however, there's the responsibility of the people who make these films, shows and radio programes, those who sell and broadcast them, as well as parents themselves to keep material that might be harmful to kids out of their hands. Scream, for example, gave my niece nightmares after she saw the big where the girl was murdered and hung from a tree. Children can also be more easily influenced by what they see, although that may go beyond what effect these things have on people and into there being something wrong with the individual, this is especially true for cases like a grown man going on a crime spree and then say 'well Grand Theft Auto made me do it.' With the oversexualisation of women in ads, and to some extent in films, television and video games as well, I agree that it's wrong for them to do so. Not only is it a cheap cop out ('this game has chicks with big tits, it must be good') but aside from the effects it has on children, it treats women as objects, sexual objects. I see some of the advertisments and programming they have on and am disgusted at the exploitation that goes on there.

[Emperor Devon]

Yeah, whatever !

 

With logic like that, I shouldn't pay attention to events I won't witness or read about things I'll never experience.

 

Well, I guess I shouldn't have said bias.

 

No, your disregard for children simply sparked my opinion.

 

Because I don't like censors in my TV programs,

 

So you don't mind seeing nudity, sexuality, or the other seedier aspects of society on your television?

[DarthAve]

censorship is a very touchy issue to me, considering I work for a newspaper for teenagers. All the stories are censored to be 'school appropriate'. I wrote this artical on death, that was like 10 small paragraphs that told basically how we're all gonna go someday and that we need to cherish life. Half of it was considered unfit and was cut. I was only teeny bit pissed because the stuff that got cut was the stuff that had the message to it.

 

And on the censoring television, keep it. There's NO WAY I want to see fat naked austrailian guy from that episode of SFU. I think they're doing a decent job. Because I certainly lost my innocents around preteenness when I started watching the shows on murders and staying up late on weekends to watch movies that were rated R on TV. (My second fave movie is Silence of the Lambs, saw it around 12 years old) So my view, keep them, just be careful...

[Windu Chi]

The 1st Amendment doesn't contain a clause saying "except for the neo-Nazi ****". Free speech should be granted to all, and if you don't like what someone's saying, turn the channel. That whole argument would be better suited to a topic on free speech in general however.

Well, in my bias opinion, those people preach hate and racism.

So, I will continue to say, oh hell nah.

To that freedom of speech argument.

I really hate skinhead white supremacists.

I can't be objective with the holocaust on my mind.

That those people demean with their strategy of hate.

[Windu Chi]

So you don't mind seeing nudity, sexuality, or the other seedier aspects of society on your television?

:lol:Of course I don't mind seeing, nudity and sexuality.

Well, because I'm a man.

Of course, the nudity and sexuality of women.

 

I'm a man, what else did you thought I was going to say?

 

Also those damn cursing censors have to go too.

Come on, it is just words, people.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So you don't mind seeing nudity [...]

No. And as for the record, neither do children.

 

[...] sexuality, or the other seedier aspects of society on your television?

Nope. If two people have sex, so what? I've seen far worse things both in movies and reality than a couple acting out their love.

[Mace MacLeod]

As flawed as the FCC and CRTC are, there has to be some authority over broadcast tv outlets to regulate content and standards. That being said, I also think there should be some channels like my beloved HBO where its assumed that adult content will be just that--content intended for adult minds to comprehend and appreciate, and not just sex or swearing. I'm an adult, and I want programming that hasn't been censored or dumbed down to suit the Sesame Street crowd when I want to watch it. In my house, my wife and I are the parental controls. Clockwork Orange is my favourite movie, and OZ is my favourite show, but we don't watch them with our daughter. Besides, if she did see them, she'd probably find them too disturbing and/or boring to hold her interest, so she'd just turn them off and go watch Teen Titans or something. But yes, they shouldn't be on during after school special hours, and there has to be some regulatory body to enforce that, so yes, keep the FCC and CRTC.

 

I found the 'wardrobe malfunction' so offensive because a. it wasn't censored (and everyone knew about a week prior that Janet 'had a plan'--this should have been a Big Clue to the FCC) and b. it was done intentionally on a show they knew would have children watching. Further, I as a parent had absolutely no warning about the content of that entire half-time show--there was no rating giving any kind of warning on what would happen that night.

That Janet Jackson thing has got to be the single most overblown, overhyped, hand-wringing non-event in the history of television. I mean, c'mon. You see more skin in perfume commercials for god's sake. Americans are hilarious: "A boobie! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That Janet Jackson thing has got to be the single most overblown, overhyped, hand-wringing non-event in the history of television.

 

b. it was done intentionally on a show they knew would have children watching.

And again, I've never, ever heard of a child taking damage from seeing a nipple, vagina, anus, or penis. Ever.

[Jae Onasi]

That Janet Jackson thing has got to be the single most overblown, overhyped, hand-wringing non-event in the history of television. I mean, c'mon. You see more skin in perfume commercials for god's sake. Americans are hilarious: "A boobie! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!"

 

It wasn't the breast itself that was the problem--I've seen a zillion naked parts so that wasn't what got me. I'm not particularly worried if my kids see the human body (there actually is a difference between being socially conservative and being prudes ). It was the fact that there was no warning, and the censors obviously didn't have the time delay in place to blot it out. If I'd gotten the warning 'brief nudity during the half time show', I would have had far less of a problem with it, though I certainly would have questioned the NFL's decision to allow something like that on a show intended to be watched by families and the FCC's decision to allow it. With the warning in place, I would have at least had the opportunity to decide whether or not my family would watch it. Without the warning in place, I was given no option to make that decision--that's what I object to, not the breast itself.

There are some things that kids, especially young kids, should not be watching because they aren't developed enough cognitively to handle those kinds of images. Obviously, that's going to be different for each individual child, but there is a general average range of development that works, and the standards need to be geared towards that for network TV shown at times where kids are most likely to watch TV. Since it's very obvious that a lot of the media could care less about children's needs in their quest for the almighty dollar/currency of your choice, it's the government's job to regulate the industry to some extent so that we don't have shows/images/language that can affect children at the times they're likely to be viewing shows.

[Samuel Dravis]

Let's remember a few funny things:

 

Almost ALL of the complaints for that incident (and for the entire year) came from one organization. In fact, 99.8 percent of them were from the Parents Television Council. There are 300 million people in the US. Nearly half of those watched the Super Bowl, and pretty much everyone heard about Janet's trick. There are less than 1 million people in the PTC.

 

lol, I DARESAY the American people in general consider this a extreme problem.

 

Why wouldn't you just not watch the channels that you don't agree with? If they allow spontaneous things like Jackson, don't watch them. If enough people care about such incidents, the channel will censor itself in order to keep viewers. If not enough people care, well, you didn't really lose anything by not watching (and of course, the channel would actually reflect the opinion of the populace, not one, single group that accounts for less than 1 person in 300).

 

I don't watch TV ever anyway; it's a complete waste of time. I could be playing video games, reading books, or doing something else.

 

What makes this even more entertaining though is the fact that most of the people who want this sort of censorship also support abstinence. If you expect children to follow that, then I expect adults to at least be able to turn off the freaking TV if you don't like what's on it. Seriously.

[TK-8252]

If anyone is relying on a government organization to help raise your children, lord help you.