'NYPD' Buttocks May Cost $1.4 Million

WASHINGTON (Jan. 26) - The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.

The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted "multiple, close-up views" of the woman's "nude buttocks" according to an agency order issued late Friday.

ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The fines were issued against 52 stations either owned by or affiliated with the network.

FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs - specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."



The Scene in Question (warning: mature content)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnsxFvCaZJ8&eurl=http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/nude-buttocks-may-cost-abc-14-million/20080126094309990001

oh please, NYPD showed ass for a decade, why that isolated incident?

One of my favorite scenes in all the years of that program, lol.


Seriously.

I remember that scene. :lol:

oh please, NYPD showed ass for a decade, why that isolated incident?
This wasn't just a peek. I think it went over the line. It was a full scene of well, ASS. :lol:

I remember that scene. :lol:
I'm sure you do. :p ;)

no wonder there was controversy, the woman in question was attractive. It's perfectly fine for Dennis Franz to bare it because he's not considered hot by anyone :lol:

no wonder there was controversy, the woman in question was attractive. It's perfectly fine for Dennis Franz to bare it because he's not considered hot by anyone :lol:
The fans should have sued ABC for having to watch that. :lol:

The fans should have sued ABC for having to watch that. :lol:

I remember seeing an interview with Dennis Franz, years ago. He said that before he ever showed his butt on the show, fans in the streets would always ask him "When do we get to see your a$$?" lol

I'd like to know how that scene made it past the censors. Seriously, I've never seen that much nudity on network tv, with a kid in the scene to boot. I really wonder how it made it to the airwaves. Those censors are strict. I was just reading a list of other fines through the years.

This wasn't just a peek. I think it went over the line. It was a full scene of well, ASS. :lol:
:rofl: Well put my dear. :lol:

$1.4 million dollars???? Geez, that is one expensive piece of a$$.

I'd like to know how that scene made it past the censors. Seriously, I've never seen that much nudity on network tv, with a kid in the scene to boot. I really wonder how it made it to the airwaves. Those censors are strict. I was just reading a list of other fines through the years.
It shocked me too. Until the Janet Jackson controversy NYPD Blue pretty much went unchecked. After that I don't think their was hardly any nudity on the show.

:rofl: Well put my dear. :lol:

$1.4 million dollars???? Geez, that is one expensive piece of a$$.
How's this for ass? :lol:

http://www.yournutz.com/store/images/Ass-B&Web.jpg

How's this for ass? :lol:

http://www.yournutz.com/store/images/Ass-B&Web.jpg
:brent


I am SMART-A$$ thank you. ;)

That scene has more ass than J-Lo's dress. :lol:

http://sportssmack.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/jlo.jpg

http://www.ssqq.com/jokes/Images/200204%20dog%20missing.jpg

:brent


I am SMART-A$$ thank you. ;)

Ooh, ooh, I want to be Lazy Ass! After all, I am very lazy. :)

http://www.ssqq.com/jokes/Images/200204%20dog%20missing.jpg
:rofl:

At first glance I thought the puppy was biting her ass...I realize now she sat on him! :rofl:

You know, I'll admit this now. When this show was in reruns (and the later years in new episodes) I would watch it for the sole purpose of seeing some female butt. And most of the time, I was disapointed. They didn't show butts as often as I figured they would since that seems to be this show's trademark. So when I saw the now infamous scene, yeah, I was happy. It was good to see. And clearly worth the $1.4 million. :cool:

to be honest, I wish the FCC would stop being prudes. NYPD Blue was never ever once geared to younger audiences and always aired at 10 pm. I don't understand why pay-cable outlets like HBO and Showtime had nudity on their show, and even shows like Nip/Tuck on FX have showed moments of nudity, and it's okay because those shows don't air before a certain time and have never been marketed to children. So why is it okay that we see an explicit sex scene on Nip/Tuck but it's not okay to see a woman's backside for a few seconds in what was meant to be a comedic sequence (at least from the clip I saw). Nip/Tuck was never meant to be viewed by the Zach and Cody crowd.

to be honest, I wish the FCC would stop being prudes. NYPD Blue was never ever once geared to younger audiences and always aired at 10 pm. I don't understand why pay-cable outlets like HBO and Showtime had nudity on their show, and even shows like Nip/Tuck on FX have showed moments of nudity, and it's okay because those shows don't air before a certain time and have never been marketed to children. So why is it okay that we see an explicit sex scene on Nip/Tuck but it's not okay to see a woman's backside for a few seconds in what was meant to be a comedic sequence (at least from the clip I saw). Nip/Tuck was never meant to be viewed by the Zach and Cody crowd.
Well HBO and Showtime are pay networks and even cable channels like FX , you have to pay extra to get them. That scene was not comedic. I remember it and I was shocked...more so because a boy was also in the scene. I was a big fan of NYPD Blue. I admit the nude scenes did get people to watch in the beginning but the show was good and didn't really need them. I thought at times they went over the line. Even with the language...right before the Janet Jackson controversy they started using the s word a lot. Afterwards they stopped. I'm not for a lot of censorship but their has to be a limit of how much you can put on network tv.

Good grief!!!

I don't want nudity on any network show. We have HBO for our risque shows. We're not prudes in any sense. Suppose my husband's 14 year-old granddaughter was sleeping over and walked into the room while that NYPD scene was on. Who needs that BS? No way. I don't want blatant swearing and nudity when I'm not expecting it or not paying for it. The majority of people don't either. I say fine them the 1.4 million. They went too far. Teach their ASSes a lesson.

So why is it okay that we see an explicit sex scene on Nip/Tuck but it's not okay to see a woman's backside for a few seconds in what was meant to be a comedic sequence (at least from the clip I saw).
Did we watch the same clip? It wasn't just a few seconds. The camera took a closeup of her ass, and there was a side view that bordered on frontal nudity, breasts and all. The nudity part was 25 seconds long, not a few seconds. Like Sonny stated, it wasn't funny. They both looked traumatized, and not in a "Home Alone" cutsey kind of way, where the kid puts his hand over his cheeks.

ABC = ASS BUTT CHEEKS

Janet Jackson's legendary "wardrobe malfunction" at the hands of Justin Timberlake during halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl is perhaps the most infamous FCC target. Her briefly exposed nipple cost CBS $550,000.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/09/02/20080126110309990007

Fox was hit with a fine of $1.2 million by the FCC after an April 2003 episode of 'Married by America' featured "scenes in which party-goers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner" and "a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers playfully spank him."

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/0e/06/20080126105409990024

Janet Jackson's legendary "wardrobe malfunction" at the hands of Justin Timberlake during halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl is perhaps the most infamous FCC target. Her briefly exposed nipple cost CBS $550,000.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/09/02/20080126110309990007
I actually was on SO at that time and missed it. :lol:

In 2002, Stern's colleagues Greg "Opie" Hughes, left, and Anthony Cumia earned Viacom and Infinity Broadcasting a $357,000 fine when they aired the sounds of a couple claiming to have sex in St. Patrick's Cathedral.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/01/05/20080126165309990008

I remember all the hype when NYPD Blue was doing all the nudity.

It served no purpose to the plot, and most viewers knew it was a shameless stunt to get ratings.

Other shows tried similar things, and they came and went too.

The world didn't come to an end.

So, why is the FCC fining a show that aired 5 years ago?

I actually was on SO at that time and missed it. :lol:
That'll teach you, lol. I'm sure you saw one of the 10,000 replays. That was the most foolish, staged thing ever. Their claim that is was an accident was laughable.

I remember all the hype when NYPD Blue was doing all the nudity.

It served no purpose to the plot, and most viewers knew it was a shameless stunt to get ratings.

Other shows tried similar things, and they came and went too.

The world didn't come to an end.

So, why is the FCC fining a show that aired 5 years ago?
Good question. The show has been off the air for how long now - what's the point??

I remember all the hype when NYPD Blue was doing all the nudity.

It served no purpose to the plot, and most viewers knew it was a shameless stunt to get ratings.

Other shows tried similar things, and they came and went too.

The world didn't come to an end.

So, why is the FCC fining a show that aired 5 years ago?
I was wondering why it took so long myself. No clue why. Nope, the world didn't come to an end. I'm very thankful for that, lol. I just think it's nice to maintain some decency to tv. Who wants butts and breasts all over network tv, where kids can see it?

That'll teach you, lol. I'm sure you saw one of the 10,000 replays. That was the most foolish, staged thing ever. Their claim that is was an accident was laughable.
Oh yea...nobody believes that...that was all staged. lol Once MTV took over the halftime show I stopped watching it. The NFL took it back after the JJ controversy though.

Good question. The show has been off the air for how long now - what's the point??
My guess is to deter other shows from airing similiar nudity.

I was wondering why it took so long myself. No clue why. Nope, the world didn't come to an end. I'm very thankful for that, lol. I just think it's nice to maintain some decency to tv. Who wants butts and breasts all over network tv, where kids can see it?

I agree with you. Look, I have no problem if an drama airing at 10PM wants to get a little "adult" from time to time, but NYPD Blue did the nudity thing for no other reason than to get attention. And nudty just for nudity sake is just dumb.

Remember that HBO comedy "Dream On" from about twenty yers ago? Pretty decent show, good cast, but since it was HBO and they could show nudity, well then darn it, a naked girl will be in every epsisode.

It was pointless. And this is coming form a man who has no problem with pointless nudity.

;)

I agree with you. Look, I have no problem if an drama airing at 10PM wants to get a little "adult" from time to time, but NYPD Blue did the nudity thing for no other reason than to get attention. And nudty just for nudity sake is just dumb.

Remember that HBO comedy "Dream On" from about twenty yers ago? Pretty decent show, good cast, but since it was HBO and they could show nudity, well then darn it, a naked girl will be in every epsisode.

It was pointless. And this is coming form a man who has no problem with pointless nudity.

;)
When it comes to HBO or other pay networks, I don't care what they do. A person knows what to expect. I've had HBO since it debuted. I'm okay for a little shot of something on network tv, but I've never seen anything like what it's that clip. Never. If that ever became the norm, man alive, that's a world I don't want to live in. This coming from a person who watches most R-Rated movies (and beyond, lol).

I don't want it on network tv. I don't want to be entertaining my aunt Alice, and have a scene like that come on. I don't want the grandkids to see that. There's a time and a place for everything, in my opinion. I do have a problem with any kind of nudity on network tv. It's all pointless, and against FCC rules, fortunately.

When it comes to HBO or other pay networks, I don't care what they do. A person knows what to expect. I've had HBO since it debuted. I'm okay for a little shot of something on network tv, but I've never seen anything like what it's that clip. Never. If that ever became the norm, man alive, that's a world I don't want to live in. This coming from a person who watches most R-Rated movies (and beyond, lol).

I don't want it on network tv. I don't want to be entertaining my aunt Alice, and have a scene like that come on. I don't want the grandkids to see that. There's a time and a place for everything, in my opinion. I do have a problem with any kind of nudity on network tv. It's all pointless, and against FCC rules, fortunately.
Yea I agree. I was a big Deadwood fan but I wouldn't want that on Network TV either. Somethings just shouldn't be available for everyone to see. People always say to parent your kids but how are you supposed to do that when they can put anything they want on network tv?

Isn't nudity what we pay more $$$ for to get the channels that do show that kind of fare? I don't expect that from FOX or any other channel.

Isn't nudity what we pay more $$$ for to get the channels that do show that kind of fare? I don't expect that from FOX or any other channel.
That's what I always thought.

Remember that HBO comedy "Dream On" from about twenty yers ago? Pretty decent show, good cast, but since it was HBO and they could show nudity, well then darn it, a naked girl will be in every epsisode.

It was pointless. And this is coming form a man who has no problem with pointless nudity.

;)

:rofl:

When it comes to HBO or other pay networks, I don't care what they do. A person knows what to expect. I've had HBO since it debuted. I'm okay for a little shot of something on network tv, but I've never seen anything like what it's that clip. Never. If that ever became the norm, man alive, that's a world I don't want to live in. This coming from a person who watches most R-Rated movies (and beyond, lol).

I don't want it on network tv. I don't want to be entertaining my aunt Alice, and have a scene like that come on. I don't want the grandkids to see that. There's a time and a place for everything, in my opinion. I do have a problem with any kind of nudity on network tv. It's all pointless, and against FCC rules, fortunately.
I agree wholeheartedly. You know what I don't understand though? How come we and the FCC get all bent out of shape over a some butt but allow people being impaled, dismembered, or shot and their chests or heads exploding all over? Shows like 24, Supernatural, some of the Law and Order shows and others show some really gruesome things that I wouldn't want Aunt Alice or the kids to see either, but that seems ok. I'd almost rather see some butt than some splattered brains. Why do we and the FCC allow that but not nudity? And it seems like some of the violence on tv gets more and more graphic and we don't seem to say too much about it. How'd we ever get to where seeing our insides is better than seeing our outsides?

I agree wholeheartedly. You know what I don't understand though? How come we and the FCC get all bent out of shape over a some butt but allow people being impaled, dismembered, or shot and their chests or heads exploding all over? Shows like 24, Supernatural, some of the Law and Order shows and others show some really gruesome things that I wouldn't want Aunt Alice or the kids to see either, but that seems ok. I'd almost rather see some butt than some splattered brains. Why do we and the FCC allow that but not nudity? And it seems like some of the violence on tv gets more and more graphic and we don't seem to say too much about it. How'd we ever get to where seeing our insides is better than seeing our outsides?
Law & Order? LOL. That's the tamest show going. The blood splatters in the rug upset you? I watched a couple of seasons of 24, and my husband's never missed an episode. Never saw any kind of the the violence you described. No splattered brains, nobody impaled, no exploding heads, nothing crazy gruesome. There's implied violence, where they start something, and the viewer knows what's going to happen. I don't know what you're watching. Must be on cable. I'm talking about Primetime Network TV. The Big 3. I see that raw violence in the many, many movies we rent from Netflix, at least five a week.

Besides, I think that the kind of nudity in that clip, which ran on ABC, is 100 times worse than a kid seeing a shoot-out between cops and robbers. If I had kids or someone over, I wouldn't have the Sci-fi Network on. They get crazy on that station, which is cable. I don't want anything thrust at me, without my consent. No wardrobe malfunctions at 8 pm, during a family Superbowl Halftime Show. I like to make my own viewing decisions.

I agree with you. Look, I have no problem if an drama airing at 10PM wants to get a little "adult" from time to time, but NYPD Blue did the nudity thing for no other reason than to get attention. And nudty just for nudity sake is just dumb.

Remember that HBO comedy "Dream On" from about twenty yers ago? Pretty decent show, good cast, but since it was HBO and they could show nudity, well then darn it, a naked girl will be in every epsisode.

It was pointless. And this is coming form a man who has no problem with pointless nudity.

;)

I watched the DVD of "Dream On", scouting for naked women. And I saw a few but not in every episode and nothing to write home about. Of course, I wouldn't write home about any naked women I saw on television anyways.

I understand what Janice is saying. I mean, my mom is always accusing my dad of looking at some woman's cleavage on the TV. Imagine if they had turned past that scene of NYPD Blue. While I'm downstairs enjoying it, they'd be up there arguing about it. It would totally have ruined the viewing pleasure for me. :)

And to quote myself of something I once said to, well, myself... "There is nothing wrong with pointless nudity. As long as it's pointless nudity of a woman." :)

Where was the FCC all those years ago when Charlotte Ross and other NYPD Blue cast members were dropping thier drawers during prime time?

Why now this big crackdown on a show that has been off the air for so long?

I guess I'd better go cancel that new show I'm in on ABC before the FCC sees it! :seeya:



:lol: ;)

I guess I'd better go cancel that new show I'm in on ABC before the FCC sees it! :seeya:



:lol: ;)
AfterAfterMASH?

AfterAfterMASH?

That's it, how did you know? ;)

That's it, how did you know? ;)
LOL just guessed

As much as I enjoyed that scene, it definitely did not have a place on network tv. The problem is, these networks want to compete with HBO and Showtime for "compelling" tv. The thing is, they just can't do that. They have more of a responsibilty to audiences.

Law & Order? LOL. That's the tamest show going. The blood splatters in the rug upset you? I watched a couple of seasons of 24, and my husband's never missed an episode. Never saw any kind of the the violence you described. No splattered brains, nobody impaled, no exploding heads, nothing crazy gruesome. There's implied violence, where they start something, and the viewer knows what's going to happen. I don't know what you're watching. Must be on cable. I'm talking about Primetime Network TV. The Big 3. I see that raw violence in the many, many movies we rent from Netflix, at least five a week.
:eek: Wow, I guess you just proved my point there. See what I mean about that stuff seems ok...but not a naked butt? You even softened the words up to make it sound ok, like saying "implied violence" and saying kid-friendly "cops and robbers." Wow. Interesting. :lol:

Everything I mentioned I saw on one of those shows I mentioned (it was L&O SVU) and I can do a little research if you want and get episode numbers and you can see for yourself if you'd rather see that than some mild nudity. Or better yet, decide which you'd like the kids to see. I'd like kids to see neither, which is precisely my point. And by the way...are you thinking "implied violence" isn't as dangerous as actually seeing it? Is that why my 17 year old niece threw up after seeing the SVU episode where the FBI agent spontaneously blew her head off at the end?

Do we need to see on tv a child walk in on a naked woman getting ready to take a shower? No, nor do we need to see people obliterated to pieces on tv, either. But at least taking a shower (nude :lol: ) is a normal thing we do every day, and the human body is in a normal condition in that situation. I still don't want it on my tv in prime time.
I think it's all harmful and our perception is off when it comes to both nudity and violence on prime time tv, but in the media as a whole in general.

As much as I enjoyed that scene, it definitely did not have a place on network tv. The problem is, these networks want to compete with HBO and Showtime for "compelling" tv. The thing is, they just can't do that. They have more of a responsibilty to audiences.
Nicely put. :)

:eek: Wow, I guess you just proved my point there. See what I mean about that stuff seems ok...but not a naked butt? You even softened the words up to make it sound ok, like saying "implied violence" and saying kid-friendly "cops and robbers." Wow. Interesting. :lol:

Everything I mentioned I saw on one of those shows I mentioned (it was L&O SVU) and I can do a little research if you're going to make me and get episode numbers and you can see for yourself if you'd rather see that than some mild nudity. Or better yet, decide which you'd like the kids to see. I'd like kids to see neither, which is precisely my point. And by the way...are you thinking "implied violence" isn't as dangerous as actually seeing it? Is that why my 17 year old niece threw up after seeing the SVU episode where the FBI agent spontaneously blew her head off at the end?

Do we need to see on tv a child walk in on a naked woman getting ready to take a shower? No, nor do we need to see people obliterated to pieces on tv, either. But at least taking a shower (nude :lol: ) is a normal thing we do every day, and the human body is in a normal condition in that situation. I still don't want it on my tv in prime time.
I think it's all harmful and our perception is off when it comes to both nudity and violence on prime time tv, but in the media as a whole in general.
Wow. :eek: I just proved your point? On what planet? I didn't soften anything. By implied violence, I mean that you'll see a scene where something violent is about to happen, but the camera breaks away. It's implied, but not shown, and no, I don't think it's as dangerous as showing it. I told you that I haven't see this over-the-top violence on Network tv that you described. Cable tv, yes. Network tv, no. If it's there and I haven't seen it, I'm against it. It still doesn't mean that I can't be against a nude woman being shown on tv. Your red herring argument stinks.

I haven't seen anyone get obliterated to pieces. Sure, you're claiming it, so back it up if you want. Doesn't matter to me. And what's with the laughing at me? Is that how you discuss and debate, you Wow the person and laugh at them? That's mature, not. That's usually a sign of desperation when people start in with the personal attacks or laugh at a person. What's next, the on-the-back rolling smiley? You tell Brian his post is nicely put with a smiley face, when he's agreeing with me. Why not get all over his case and grill him about violence? I'm not in favor of violence on tv, never said I was. I'm discussing the topic of this thread. That wasn't mild nudity either.

:eek: Wow, I guess you just proved my point there. See what I mean about that stuff seems ok...but not a naked butt? You even softened the words up to make it sound ok, like saying "implied violence" and saying kid-friendly "cops and robbers." Wow. Interesting. :lol:

Everything I mentioned I saw on one of those shows I mentioned (it was L&O SVU) and I can do a little research if you want and get episode numbers and you can see for yourself if you'd rather see that than some mild nudity. Or better yet, decide which you'd like the kids to see. I'd like kids to see neither, which is precisely my point. And by the way...are you thinking "implied violence" isn't as dangerous as actually seeing it? Is that why my 17 year old niece threw up after seeing the SVU episode where the FBI agent spontaneously blew her head off at the end?

Do we need to see on tv a child walk in on a naked woman getting ready to take a shower? No, nor do we need to see people obliterated to pieces on tv, either. But at least taking a shower (nude :lol: ) is a normal thing we do every day, and the human body is in a normal condition in that situation. I still don't want it on my tv in prime time.
I think it's all harmful and our perception is off when it comes to both nudity and violence on prime time tv, but in the media as a whole in general.
Are you Okay? :lol: I watch L&O SVU and I've never seen awhole lot of violence on it. In fact the whole L&O franchise is kind of boring if you're just watching it to see violence. It's mostly a lot of talk. As for 24 most of the violence on there is comedic anyway....I never take it too seriously and it's nowhere as graphic as cable. What NYPD Blue aired was suited more for HBO than ABC. And yes I was an NYPD Blue fan. For the most part they didn't show a lot of nudity...probably a couple episodes a season but that was too much for network tv.

Are you Okay? :lol: I watch L&O SVU and I've never seen awhole lot of violence on it. In fact the whole L&O franchise is kind of boring if you're just watching it to see violence. It's mostly a lot of talk. As for 24 most of the violence on there is comedic anyway....I never take it too seriously and it's nowhere as graphic as cable. What NYPD Blue aired was suited more for HBO than ABC. And yes I was an NYPD Blue fan. For the most part they didn't show a lot of nudity...probably a couple episodes a season but that was too much for network tv.


Exactly, I was expecting to see the top of the crack...not the FULL MOON! :lol:

As much as I enjoyed that scene, it definitely did not have a place on network tv. The problem is, these networks want to compete with HBO and Showtime for "compelling" tv. The thing is, they just can't do that. They have more of a responsibilty to audiences.
exactly. The reason people pay extra is to see shows like that. I got a kick out of when Court TV bought the reruns to NYPD Blue. They had 2 versions. A tamer one aired in the early evening and the regular ABC version aired real late at night. :lol:

Exactly, I was expecting to see the top of the crack...not the FULL MOON! :lol:
and they did come close to frontal nudity in that scene..they were pushing the censors there. :lol:

and they did come close to frontal nudity in that scene..they were pushing the censors there. :lol:


They definitely were, I ASSume that was during one of the Sweeps times.

They definitely were, I ASSume that was during one of the Sweeps times.
Yea I just checked over on the episode guide and the episode titled " Nude Awakening" aired on February 25, 2003.

Yea I just checked over on the episode guide and the episode titled " Nude Awakening" aired on February 25, 2003.


LOL

Just what I thought.

We're not prudes in any sense. Suppose my husband's 14 year-old granddaughter was sleeping over and walked into the room while that NYPD scene was on.

that's true, but the same thing could happen if you're watching Nip/Tuck or something off HBO/Showtime as well though.

that's true, but the same thing could happen if you're watching Nip/Tuck or something off HBO/Showtime as well though.


That is very true, but the main difference is you are paying for those channels, where as ABC is there regardless

that's true, but the same thing could happen if you're watching Nip/Tuck or something off HBO/Showtime as well though.
We know what channels to not have on when the kids are over. I trust ABC, CBS, and NBC to not have boobs and asses splashed all over my tv set. Like I've said to you a few times, paying for something as opposed to network tv is a completely different story. You keep bringing that up though. I don't understand why you're not grasping that basic concept.

I personally believe people worry too much about sex and not enough about violence. The FCC is ready to pitch a fit if something is too sexual, but there's never a fuss made about shows like CSI, Supernatural (which I love and the intensity adds to the plot, but still...) and the sort that can be really graphic.

South Park completely hit the nail on the head in the episode where they spoofed the Janet Super Bowl "Wardrobe Malfunction". That episode had the boys buy ninja weapons and become ninja characters (with anime), and then Kenny throws a star that ends up accidentally hitting Butters in the eye, and they do humilating things to Butters like dressing him up as a dog so they won't get in trouble. But then, in character mode, Cartman goes "invisible" but ends up being naked in public where a show was being filmed. The entire town was morally outraged at Cartman's nudity, but nobody gave what happened to Butters a second thought.

Where was the FCC all those years ago when Charlotte Ross and other NYPD Blue cast members were dropping thier drawers during prime time?
Just a guess, but perhaps this scene was worse.
Why now this big crackdown on a show that has been off the air for so long?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503137.html?hpid=sec-business

Last paragraph:

FCC indecency investigations begin when the agency receives a viewer or listener complaint about a program and can drag on for months or years. The lightly staffed FCC enforcement bureau must go up against broadcasters, which have more legal and financial resources to battle the proposed fine and have a vested interest in dragging out the proceeding. After the enforcement bureau makes a finding, it must be voted on by the FCC's five commissioners, who were occupied with cable television and wireless spectrum issues through much of 2007.

FCC indecency investigations begin when the agency receives a viewer or listener complaint about a program and can drag on for months or years. The lightly staffed FCC enforcement bureau must go up against broadcasters, which have more legal and financial resources to battle the proposed fine and have a vested interest in dragging out the proceeding. After the enforcement bureau makes a finding, it must be voted on by the FCC's five commissioners, who were occupied with cable television and wireless spectrum issues through much of 2007.

I think that's stupid. I mean what if (or maybe they have) ABC has changed staff members and no one who was around in 2003 is there now? The new people who come to the network have to pay for their predecessor's actions against a show that's not even on the air anymore.

Now if it was immediate action, I'd be okay with it. But taking years to give a fine, seems stupid to me.

Just a guess, but perhaps this scene was worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012503137.html?hpid=sec-business

Last paragraph:

FCC indecency investigations begin when the agency receives a viewer or listener complaint about a program and can drag on for months or years. The lightly staffed FCC enforcement bureau must go up against broadcasters, which have more legal and financial resources to battle the proposed fine and have a vested interest in dragging out the proceeding. After the enforcement bureau makes a finding, it must be voted on by the FCC's five commissioners, who were occupied with cable television and wireless spectrum issues through much of 2007.

So, if let's say a channel that airs the movie THE GODFATHER uncut, as I have seen several times air on local channels (not premium channels mind you) does that mean someone can complain abt the nudity and cussing that is aired and the FCC will do something abt it?

Also, I believe there should be a "cap" on how long it has been since the "offense" took place. Just like in criminal matters there is a statute of limitations.

^ Thanks for posting that link Janice. It's amazing how these things can get bogged down in procedures and red tape.

I think that's stupid. I mean what if (or maybe they have) ABC has changed staff members and no one who was around in 2003 is there now? The new people who come to the network have to pay for their predecessor's actions against a show that's not even on the air anymore.

Now if it was immediate action, I'd be okay with it. But taking years to give a fine, seems stupid to me.


It's just a case of tough luck I guess. Networks have to be responsible.

I think that's stupid. I mean what if (or maybe they have) ABC has changed staff members and no one who was around in 2003 is there now? The new people who come to the network have to pay for their predecessor's actions against a show that's not even on the air anymore.

Now if it was immediate action, I'd be okay with it. But taking years to give a fine, seems stupid to me.
I see your point, but it's the network, not the actual people. The network pays the fine. The people themselves don't get in trouble.

It's just a case of tough luck I guess. Networks have to be responsible.
I think sometimes that the networks take a calculated risk. They know they'll get in trouble by airing something offensive, but the ratings and revenue are worth it, so they go for it anyway.

So, if let's say a channel that airs the movie THE GODFATHER uncut, as I have seen several times air on local channels (not premium channels mind you) does that mean someone can complain abt the nudity and cussing that is aired and the FCC will do something abt it?

From what I've been reading, the FCC takes action when people call or write letters to complain. Even one letter can spark an investigation and a fine. I've read that about 10 times in the last day.

From what I've been reading, the FCC takes action when people call or write letters to complain. Even one letter can spark an investigation and a fine. I've read that about 10 times in the last day.
I am just shocked that something that aired YEARS ago can be fined if someone should write a letter complaining abt it now.

I am just shocked that something that aired YEARS ago can be fined if someone should write a letter complaining abt it now.
It wasn't that. It's in the link I gave TJL. The FCC is understaffed and outgunned by the networks, so some things take a long time.

am I the only person who thinks the FCC and people of the sort worry too much about sex while violence gets a free pass? I noticed nobody responded earlier. Personally, I think people are so worried about what nudity will do to a kid when I think graphic violence is probably even worse for a child to see since it numbs them.

^ an example of what I mean was right after the 9-11 attack. I seriously heard with my own ears a person say that the footage of the attack that constantly aired was "bad ass" and reminded him of something you'd see in a big budget action movie.

Can you believe that ****? This is what you get for conditioning children that violence is just fine but sex is a no-no.

It wasn't that. It's in the link I gave TJL. The FCC is understaffed and outgunned by the networks, so some things take a long time.
Wow, that really is a long time though don't you think? I mean, I am all for fining the networks, that is not the problem I have. It's just once the FCC get their act together, I believe there should be some limitation on WHEN the networks can be fined. If they are back-logged and haven't been able to get to the issues at hand, fine, no problem, but at what point is there a limitation? I would hate to see the FCC waste time on a nude scene or bad language from a program or movie that aired TEN YEARS ago and someone who was bothered by it then can now complain.

Am I making sense here Janice? :crazy:

am I the only person who thinks the FCC and people of the sort worry too much about sex while violence gets a free pass? I noticed nobody responded earlier. Personally, I think people are so worried about what nudity will do to a kid when I think graphic violence is probably even worse for a child to see since it numbs them.
There was an entire conversation on this thread about violence. Read the thread. You came in late. As for me, excessive violence or sex has no place on network television.
^ an example of what I mean was right after the 9-11 attack. I seriously heard with my own ears a person say that the footage of the attack that constantly aired was "bad ass" and reminded him of something you'd see in a big budget action movie.

Can you believe that ****? This is what you get for conditioning children that violence is just fine but sex is a no-no.
Who said that?

I remember a newscaster saying that it looked like something out of a disaster movie, (or something like that), and it did. Those poor people, covered in white debris, running from the rolling cloud of smoke and debris, did look like something out of a big budget action film. I never heard a bad ass remark. You can't build an argument over the remark of a moron.

Wow, that really is a long time though don't you think? I mean, I am all for fining the networks, that is not the problem I have. It's just once the FCC get their act together, I believe there should be some limitation on WHEN the networks can be fined. If they are back-logged and haven't been able to get to the issues at hand, fine, no problem, but at what point is there a limitation? I would hate to see the FCC waste time on a nude scene or bad language from a program or movie that aired TEN YEARS ago and someone who was bothered by it then can now complain.

Am I making sense here Janice? :crazy:
Like the article stated, the FCC is outgunned by the network's legal teams. Regarding the NYPD Blue case, who knows how long it's been in the works, and they finally decided to lower the boom. The infamous wardrobe malfunction battle is still raging in the courts, last I read. I don't think anything is going back TEN years, with the FCC, but who knows.

Legal issues drag on forever. You should understand that better than anyone. Look at Anna Nicole's case with her rich elderly husband. The case outlived Anna and her husband's late son, and we're never going to hear the end of it. There are plenty of cases that take forever and a day. The wheels of justice turn very slowly. ABC is going to fight this fine, so count on another three years, at least. I'm not surprised or even bothered by it.

Like the article stated, the FCC is outgunned by the network's legal teams. Regarding the NYPD Blue case, who knows how long it's been in the works, and they finally decided to lower the boom. The infamous wardrobe malfunction battle is still raging in the courts, last I read. I don't think anything is going back TEN years, with the FCC, but who knows.

Legal issues drag on forever. You should understand that better than anyone. Look at Anna Nicole's case with her rich elderly husband. The case outlived Anna and her husband's late son, and we're never going to hear the end of it. There are plenty of cases that take forever and a day. The wheels of justice turn very slowly. ABC is going to fight this fine, so count on another three years, at least. I'm not surprised or even bothered by it.
I am not into the FCC and other behind the scenes stuff as far as the legal wranglings of networks. I had no idea that it was similar to taking a matter to court. I assumed that when the FCC received a complaint or they themselves found something that crossed the border of indecency, they had the power to do what they had to do, no ifs, ands or buts abt it. Which is why I am confused abt this whole issue. Had I known all that I would not have inquired. I also didn't know abt the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction still being an issue. I didn't follow it simply because I thought that issue was dead already. That is why I am confused.

I am not into the FCC and other behind the scenes stuff as far as the legal wranglings of networks. I had no idea that it was similar to taking a matter to court. I assumed that when the FCC received a complaint or they themselves found something that crossed the border of indecency, they had the power to do what they had to do, no ifs, ands or buts abt it. Which is why I am confused abt this whole issue. Had I known all that I would not have inquired. I also didn't know abt the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction still being an issue. I didn't follow it simply because I thought that issue was dead already. That is why I am confused.
I know about as much as you on these matters, Irene, so I'm sorry that I can't be that helpful. I've sort of had a crash course, of sorts, lol. You know how it goes when you research a lot of stuff all at once, during a discussion like this. From what I'm getting, when a fine is issued, the network (or radio station) can pay it or fight it. If they fight it, it winds up in court and can be there for years. That's the story with the wardrobe malfunction, and why CBS is still in court. They're fighting it.

I know about as much as you on these matters, Irene, so I'm sorry that I can't be that helpful. I've sort of had a crash course, of sorts, lol. You know how it goes when you research a lot of stuff all at once, during a discussion like this. From what I'm getting, when a fine is issued, the network (or radio station) can pay it or fight it. If they fight it, it winds up in court and can be there for years. That's the story with the wardrobe malfunction, and why CBS is still in court. They're fighting it.
Ah, I see. That makes sense. Like I said, I thought once the FCC levied a fine, that was it. Learn something new everyday. Thanx.

To recap:
I guess NYPD Blue was able to show glimpses of bare butts (both male and female) throughout it's run. And this was a time when they probably felt they needed to push it a little further. And while it worked for me, and many other guys out there, it was still inappropriate for network television and many years later, they were fined for it (or might be fined for it).

To Charlotte Ross,
LOOK WHAT YOUR BARE BUTT HAS CAUSED! The FCC has come down on ABC, and we're on our 6th page of this thread. I hope you're happy Charlotte!

To Myself:
Calm down, Adam. People are gonna think you're strange.

To recap:
I guess NYPD Blue was able to show glimpses of bare butts (both male and female) throughout it's run. And this was a time when they probably felt they needed to push it a little further. And while it worked for me, and many other guys out there, it was still inappropriate for network television and many years later, they were fined for it (or might be fined for it).

To Charlotte Ross,
LOOK WHAT YOUR BARE BUTT HAS CAUSED! The FCC has come down on ABC, and we're on our 6th page of this thread. I hope you're happy Charlotte!

To Myself:
Calm down, Adam. People are gonna think you're strange.
:lol:

I thought Janet Jackson was to blame for this? :lol: Didn't her boob get this whole ball started?

:lol:

I thought Janet Jackson was to blame for this? :lol: Didn't her boob get this whole ball started?

Maybe so. I just like talking about Charlotte Ross's bare butt. It's fun for me. :)

Plus, I was watching NYPD Blue the night this episode aired and I saw the butt scene "live". So I feel special having seen that controversial scene when it first aired. Whereas with the Janet Jackson thing, I didn't see that until it was replayed on various programs.

am I the only person who thinks the FCC and people of the sort worry too much about sex while violence gets a free pass? I noticed nobody responded earlier. Personally, I think people are so worried about what nudity will do to a kid when I think graphic violence is probably even worse for a child to see since it numbs them.
Well I agree with you but I'll be damned if I'm going to bother stating an opinion on this site again. Nobody is going to respond to you, Dean Winchester, because everybody already knows what I didn't realize. I apologize to Janice for apparently causing her to spontaneously combust and I apologize to anyone else I offended for failing to realize that this isn't really the place for opinions and disagreeing or analyzing and expecting a somewhat reasonable discussion to come of it. I had no idea you all were wound so tightly and I guess analysis doesn't mix with that. And I apologize for thinking a smilie was just a smilie.

Well I agree with you but I'll be damned if I'm going to bother stating an opinion on this site again. Nobody is going to respond to you, Dean Winchester, because everybody already knows what I didn't realize. I apologize to Janice for apparently causing her to spontaneously combust and I apologize to anyone else I offended for failing to realize that this isn't really the place for opinions and disagreeing or analyzing and expecting a somewhat reasonable discussion to come of it. I had no idea you all were wound so tightly and I guess analysis doesn't mix with that. And I apologize for thinking a smilie was just a smilie.
Awww, the victim mentality. I was having what I thought was a reasonable discussion with you, when you started acting like a petulant child, laughing at me, :lol: Wowing :eek:, trying to make me look like a fool, as if had stated something terrible. If that's your idea of reasonable discussion, then I'll pass. I call you on it, and it's my fault. Spontaneously combust? How about you lighten up on the dramatic hyperbole.

You don't have to carry Dean's water for him either. I explained to him why, at least I wasn't responding to him, that a conversation on violence had already taken place. So, you can drop the act of trying to drag him in your case of, WE WERE MISTREATED. Everyone's opinon is welcome here, but when someone laughs at me, continuously in one post, I'm going to speak up. I would expect anyone to. Nobody was mistreated here, and no rules were broken. People have a right to defend themselves, and that includes me. Debates get heated. Only the strong survive.

Well I agree with you but I'll be damned if I'm going to bother stating an opinion on this site again. Nobody is going to respond to you, Dean Winchester, because everybody already knows what I didn't realize. I apologize to Janice for apparently causing her to spontaneously combust and I apologize to anyone else I offended for failing to realize that this isn't really the place for opinions and disagreeing or analyzing and expecting a somewhat reasonable discussion to come of it. I had no idea you all were wound so tightly and I guess analysis doesn't mix with that. And I apologize for thinking a smilie was just a smilie.
What are you talking about? The only one having a fit is you. Nobody said violence on TV wasn't a problem. You brought up L&O SVU as being violent and I told you that most of the violence on that show and the other L&O shows take place off screen. Instead of giving more examples you come back here and cry. You say you don't like all the sex on TV but you don't act like it. You seem to be deverting attention from it by going after all the violence. Usually when people are losing a debate they yell and storm off and that's what you have done. As for the smilie...they are used in many different ways.... Yea a smilie is just a smilie , until you've got someone laughing over and over at you. There's a difference between laughing with someone and laughing at someone. We all analyze and debate here with few problems. Disagreements are bound to happen, but there's no need to slam Janice. She's not bothering anyone, and she's one of the fairest and best debaters here. She's not a dirty fighter. I enjoy reading her debate threads.

Nobody was mistreated here,
I agree, including YOU.

You can lighten up now. I can appreciate your perception of what you believe happened here without anymore verbal machine gunning in my direction. I get it. You deal with a lot of ugly situations as a moderator here and you have to get nasty sometimes. That's fine, but this time you misfired, beginning all the way back there with that first reply you made to me. Something I said in expressing my opinion got misconstrued by you and that's all. After that I responded in a heated way to your heated response. You as a moderator set the climate here, and this one belongs to you just as much as it belongs to me. Virtually nothing of what you said in your last few posts was my intention at all, nor do I deserve all that name calling, and if you reread my initial post you'll see that I was agreeing with you.
Contrary to what you think, I didn't come here to personally pick a fight with you or make you look like a fool or even to speak with you at all. I came here to join in this discussion. I didn't ask for this, there's no reason for this, and it is my humble suggestion that you might have less trouble on this board if you dealt out less negative energy yourself.

I agree, including YOU.

You can lighten up now. I can appreciate your perception of what you believe happened here without anymore verbal machine gunning in my direction. I get it. You deal with a lot of ugly situations as a moderator here and you have to get nasty sometimes. That's fine, but this time you misfired, beginning all the way back there with that first reply you made to me. Something I said in expressing my opinion got misconstrued by you and that's all. After that I responded in a heated way to your heated response. You as a moderator set the climate here, and this one belongs to you just as much as it belongs to me. Virtually nothing of what you said in your last few posts was my intention at all, nor do I deserve all that name calling, and if you reread my initial post you'll see that I was agreeing with you.
Contrary to what you think, I didn't come here to personally pick a fight with you or make you look like a fool or even to speak with you at all. I came here to join in this discussion. I didn't ask for this, there's no reason for this, and it is my humble suggestion that you might have less trouble on this board if you dealt out less negative energy yourself.
Wow, a complete psychological evaluation by you. I'll send you my address, so you'll know where to send the bill, NOT.

This has nothing to do with my being a moderator. I wasn't warning you, or anything moderator related. I only get nasty when I'm treated nasty. You get what you give with me, always. You fired the first shot. I haven't called you any names either. I get along with mostly everyone on this site, and have many, many friends. I don't set the climate here either. All I do is make sure that TJ's rules are followed. It begins and ends there. Verbal machine gunning in your direction? More whining from the dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it crowd, but you sure love that hyperbole. You're the one that needs to lighten up. I've been having a blast on this thread, with the exception of your whining and nasty posts. Past situations have nothing to do with this, and I know what happened. Anyone with eyes can see what happened. You messed with the wrong person, and that has nothing to do with my status as a moderator, so stop playing the moderator card. It's not a winning hand anymore.

I agree, including YOU.

You can lighten up now. I can appreciate your perception of what you believe happened here without anymore verbal machine gunning in my direction. I get it. You deal with a lot of ugly situations as a moderator here and you have to get nasty sometimes. That's fine, but this time you misfired, beginning all the way back there with that first reply you made to me. Something I said in expressing my opinion got misconstrued by you and that's all. After that I responded in a heated way to your heated response. You as a moderator set the climate here, and this one belongs to you just as much as it belongs to me. Virtually nothing of what you said in your last few posts was my intention at all, nor do I deserve all that name calling, and if you reread my initial post you'll see that I was agreeing with you.
Contrary to what you think, I didn't come here to personally pick a fight with you or make you look like a fool or even to speak with you at all. I came here to join in this discussion. I didn't ask for this, there's no reason for this, and it is my humble suggestion that you might have less trouble on this board if you dealt out less negative energy yourself.
and anything else....:rolleyes:


Talk about a broken record. I need a couple of aspirins after reading your posts. Give it a rest, will you. You have totally hijacked this thread. Everyone was having a nice discussion until you started throwing insults. Look you made a very nasty post, and you're trying to turn it around and make it about Janice's moderating. Give me a break! She devotes more to this site than most anyone. You need to get a clue before you start making claims that you know nothing about.

I suggest we get back to talking about Charlotte Ross's butt. I mean that's what's really important here. :happyface

I suggest we get back to talking about Charlotte Ross's butt. I mean that's what's really important here. :happyface
I agree Adam., LOL

We need to get back to this ------>:mooner: ;)

Well I'll stay out of the way so you can get back to the butt talk but if anyone including Janice cares to fill me in by private message on where I went wrong in this topic as far as what is being construed as "throwing insults" and "a very nasty post," I invite you to do so. There's only a few pm's in there so go right ahead and fill it up if you want. I don't care to ever have a reaction like this again and I'd love to know what I did wrong here so I can avoid it in the future. And you won't hurt my feelings, and I won't share your opinions with anyone else or respond to you either unless you ask me to, and I'd prefer you not focus on anybody's posts but mine.

Ok, I'm out of your way.