Court Rules FCC Indecency Policy "Unconstitutionally Vague"
Jul 13, 2010
by Joyce Eng


A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy Tuesday, calling it "unconstitutionally vague" and a violation of the First Amendment.

The ruling is a big victory for broadcast networks, which challenged the policy in 2006 after the FCC said unscripted expletives said on live broadcasts violated indecency rules and were subject to fines.

The three-judge panel of the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the policy could create a "chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."






"By prohibiting all 'patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what 'patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive," the court wrote.

"To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment."






The court added that the FCC might be able to create a new, constitutional policy.

"We're reviewing the court's decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement.






The FCC implemented tougher guidelines after Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono uttered expletives that were not bleeped during live award shows on Fox and NBC between 2002 and 2003.

"While we will continue to strive to eliminate expletives from live broadcasts, the inherent challenges broadcasters face with live television, coupled with the human element required for monitoring, must allow for the unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through," Fox said in a statement Tuesday to Reuters.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/FCC-Indecency-Rule-1020527.aspx

Why do the networks have the audacity to contest these fines instead of just pay them and move on (preferably taking the Parents Television Council more seriously)? I mean, they're miniscule as a percentage of their assets. Sheesh...

My husband is in Denver, Colorado on business. He was telling me that he had already heard the "F" word used on THREE local radio stations since the ruling and in one day ( today of course ). 103.5 The Fox, HOT 107.1 and KBPI 106.7.

Time to move on !!!

I'm wondering if network tv is going to right away take advantage of this new freedom and start "pushing the envelope" further...

Welcome to the new age in broadcast standards where anything goes.

Let's be fair here, the FCC has been arbitarily fining stations for very stupid things ever since Janet Jackson superbowl. if you don't like something you don't have to watch it but don't tell me i don't have the right to here whatever i want to here.

I agree it's about time that someone stood up to the FCC and all the bs they pull.

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!Agree.

We should be able to watch the Superbowl without a Janet Jackson incident.

Agree.

We should be able to watch the Superbowl without a Janet Jackson incident.
Yea I agree. Sometimes they do go overboard and they need to make better guidelines so the networks know what to follow. Hopefully they will and things will go back to normal. I don't want to turn onto a network and hear a bunch of foul language. When I turn into an HBO or Showtime show, that is my choice. I do watch some of those shows. That's what separates them from the pack.

Why do the networks have the audacity to contest these fines instead of just pay them and move on (preferably taking the Parents Television Council more seriously)? I mean, they're miniscule as a percentage of their assets. Sheesh...
No offense, but I have to agree with the judge's favor of networks. FCC wasted taxpayers' money on pointless policies that may end up dead in the water, unless it is a breathable fish or a sea living thing.

If you do not like whatever you hear or see, talk about whatever, including infinite amount of reasons without thinking to type perfect construction.

There's a reason why remote controls were invented.

There's a reason why remote controls were invented.
They're no good if it's on every channel. lol

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!

But i don't have young children so why should some family with children be able to dictate what i can and cannot hear or see on tv or radio? And these fines often affect shows airing at 9, 10 or 11pm, and i'm sorry but if a kid is so young they'd be embarrassed to hear a curse word on a 9pm show then they should not be watching that late.

The FCC's job is to make regulations about broadcasting not to act as a censorship machine against our free speech. This is America and we do still have the First Admendtment right to speak freely and freely broadcast.

Hear, hear! factsoflife for the win!

But i don't have young children so why should some family with children be able to dictate what i can and cannot hear or see on tv or radio?

Neither do I! There should be guidelines to make television like it was in the good old days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave It To Beaver." (OK, I'll level with you, make it free of violence, sexual innuendo, and foul language.) I blame the proliferation of such shames and vices for the premature cancellation of The Wonder Years in 1993. It could have lasted longer if there were more restrictions in place for content. That's what makes the mission of the Parents Television Council so very dear to my heart.

The Wonder Years was canceled because the kids weren't cute anymore and the ratings were in the cellar. Let it go.

James, why do you care about these things that "offend" you? Are you victimized by these things that make no big deal to you? Do you teach your children the definitions of words that may offend you? Or are you trolling?

Neither do I! There should be guidelines to make television like it was in the good old days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave It To Beaver." (OK, I'll level with you, make it free of violence, sexual innuendo, and foul language.) I blame the proliferation of such shames and vices for the premature cancellation of The Wonder Years in 1993. It could have lasted longer if there were more restrictions in place for content. That's what makes the mission of the Parents Television Council so very dear to my heart.


But the world was different back then, people weren't as smart or savvy as they are now. People can handle more now than they did back then. Seriously.

Neither do I! There should be guidelines to make television like it was in the good old days of "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave It To Beaver." (OK, I'll level with you, make it free of violence, sexual innuendo, and foul language.) I blame the proliferation of such shames and vices for the premature cancellation of The Wonder Years in 1993. It could have lasted longer if there were more restrictions in place for content. That's what makes the mission of the Parents Television Council so very dear to my heart.
The violence isn't a problem with me after all if one really goes through the history of television without the rose colored glasses one will find that it was just as violent as it is today although not as graphic you still had shootem ups, pier 6 brawls, a stabbing here, a strangling there, plus the ocasional poisoning. As for the sexual innuendo and profanity I agree it was allot better when the sexual stuff was suggested or slipped in to where most wouldn't get the innuendo and the writing was much more clever when the writers had to figure out away to get the lines across without cursing.

I wonder how Howard Stern would feel about all this?

But the world was different back then, people weren't as smart or savvy as they are now. People can handle more now than they did back then. Seriously.
I don't know if I agree with that. My Grandparents and Parents were very smart. People back then just didn't want to put up with such things coming into their living rooms. I don't want it to go back to the way it was in the 50's. Some of my favorite tv shows were trend setters at the time like All in the Family, Three's Company and Soap. I just think there has to be a middle ground in all this. I don't want to turn on a network show and see a bunch of f words being thrown around. The same thing with a sporting event. One of my favorite HBO shows was Deadwood but I wouldn't want to see that uncut on a regular network. I was a big NYPD Blue fan and sometimes I felt they went over the line. I think the FCC does go too far some times. Some of these fines for live events are ridiculous when the network didn't do anything wrong except air the show live. I'm just afraid with no guidelines it will be a free for all to see who can outshock everybody. But hey, this might mean that Californication can have a very healthy syndicated life afterall. :lol:

I don't know if I agree with that. My Grandparents and Parents were very smart. People back then just didn't want to put up with such things coming into their living rooms.

My kind of people!

My kind of people!
What generation are you from? How and where were you raised?

So what does this mean for the title of William Shatner's new sit-com?

I don't know if I agree with that. My Grandparents and Parents were very smart. People back then just didn't want to put up with such things coming into their living rooms. I don't want it to go back to the way it was in the 50's. Some of my favorite tv shows were trend setters at the time like All in the Family, Three's Company and Soap. I just think there has to be a middle ground in all this. I don't want to turn on a network show and see a bunch of f words being thrown around. The same thing with a sporting event. One of my favorite HBO shows was Deadwood but I wouldn't want to see that uncut on a regular network. I was a big NYPD Blue fan and sometimes I felt they went over the line. I think the FCC does go too far some times. Some of these fines for live events are ridiculous when the network didn't do anything wrong except air the show live. I'm just afraid with no guidelines it will be a free for all to see who can outshock everybody. But hey, this might mean that Californication can have a very healthy syndicated life afterall. :lol:

I'm not saying people were less intelligent back then, just that simply society wasn't as accepting of new ideas as they are today. Back then one set of ideas was reflected in society. Today we have a lot more types of ideas and lifestyles being expressed; it's not going to please everybody but you have a choice; watch or don't watch; but don't tell me that because something makes you uncomfortable that I don't have the right to see that idea expressed. It's called censorship when one ruling class prevents another class from expressing their views or being heard.

If you don't like swearing or nudity or violence than watch the christian channel or the disney channel; but don't tell me that i am not allowed to see whatever i want on television. To me, hearing the F-word or seeing 7 seconds of a nude butt is not going to hurt me or anybody. if you don't like it you do not have to watch, but i have the right to watch and as a society we have the right to express whatever ideas we want.

I'm not saying people were less intelligent back then, just that simply society wasn't as accepting of new ideas as they are today. Back then one set of ideas was reflected in society. Today we have a lot more types of ideas and lifestyles being expressed; it's not going to please everybody but you have a choice; watch or don't watch; but don't tell me that because something makes you uncomfortable that I don't have the right to see that idea expressed. It's called censorship when one ruling class prevents another class from expressing their views or being heard.

If you don't like swearing or nudity or violence than watch the christian channel or the disney channel; but don't tell me that i am not allowed to see whatever i want on television. To me, hearing the F-word or seeing 7 seconds of a nude butt is not going to hurt me or anybody. if you don't like it you do not have to watch, but i have the right to watch and as a society we have the right to express whatever ideas we want.
and I have a right not to see it if I don't want to. And don't tell me to watch the Christian Channel or Disney. I don't watch those channels. And nobody's telling you what you can watch. If you want to watch HBO than order it. If you want to watch more adult shows than order the cable package. There are plenty of cable channels that have adult things on it. I have plenty of channels that have adult content on it. I get HBO and Showtime. Nobody is preventing you from watching those shows. But if I want to turn onto a network , I have a right not to hear the F word going across my screen. If you don't like wholesome shows than don't watch them. It seems to me that you are the one putting your values on people that don't want to watch it. It's like if you don't like it then don't watch TV because that's the only choice there is.

If the supreme court says it's okay to swear and curse on TV, TV will do it.You've come a long way,baby.

and I have a right not to see it if I don't want to. And don't tell me to watch the Christian Channel or Disney. I don't watch those channels. And nobody's telling you what you can watch. If you want to watch HBO than order it. If you want to watch more adult shows than order the cable package. There are plenty of cable channels that have adult things on it. I have plenty of channels that have adult content on it. I get HBO and Showtime. Nobody is preventing you from watching those shows. But if I want to turn onto a network , I have a right not to hear the F word going across my screen. If you don't like wholesome shows than don't watch them. It seems to me that you are the one putting your values on people that don't want to watch it. It's like if you don't like it then don't watch TV because that's the only choice there is.

here's the thing though; if a show has the f-word on it and you don't want to hear it, you can turn it off. you can change the channel. But if you prevent networks, writers and producers from being allowed to air the content than you are denying other people their right to free speech, you are taking away free choice.

Granted, i'm not advocating that shows at 8pm should be all filled with nudity and violence, that's absurd, but i do believe that guidelines should be less strict at 830pm; because at that point kids should be in bed and adults can handel more advanced stuff; and if they can't they do not have to watch it. There are plenty of options as you point out so why should the few prudish people be allowed to decide what's right for everybody else to watch? In the grand scheme of things hearing the f-word or seeing 7 seconds of nudity is not going to do any damage to you so it's really not harming you. However, censorship to please a minority of the population hurts everybody.

If the supreme court says it's okay to swear and curse on TV, TV will do it.You've come a long way,baby.
They sure have. lol

Maybe the networks should just cut out the affiliates and go cable. That way they can do whatever they want to.

here's the thing though; if a show has the f-word on it and you don't want to hear it, you can turn it off. you can change the channel. But if you prevent networks, writers and producers from being allowed to air the content than you are denying other people their right to free speech, you are taking away free choice.

Granted, i'm not advocating that shows at 8pm should be all filled with nudity and violence, that's absurd, but i do believe that guidelines should be less strict at 830pm; because at that point kids should be in bed and adults can handel more advanced stuff; and if they can't they do not have to watch it. There are plenty of options as you point out so why should the few prudish people be allowed to decide what's right for everybody else to watch? In the grand scheme of things hearing the f-word or seeing 7 seconds of nudity is not going to do any damage to you so it's really not harming you. However, censorship to please a minority of the population hurts everybody.
8:30, Times have changed. When I was a kid I didn't go to bed until 10. lol You can change the channel to what? They are all going to do it if there aren't any guidelines. The only ones that won't will be the kids channels and christian channels.

I will say this. I wish there was a way that everyone could pick which channels they want. I've always thought this was the best thing to do not only for content but there are a bunch of channels I don't even watch. You'd think that the cable companys would be able to do something like that nowadays.

I will say this. I wish there was a way that everyone could pick which channels they want. I've always thought this was the best thing to do not only for content but there are a bunch of channels I don't even watch. You'd think that the cable companys would be able to do something like that nowadays.

you can. you call the cable company and ask them to simply block out channels that you don't watch or don't want. I know lots of parents that used to block out MTV and other channels they didn't want their kids to watch.

you can. you call the cable company and ask them to simply block out channels that you don't watch or don't want. I know lots of parents that used to block out MTV and other channels they didn't want their kids to watch.

While I'm at it, if you call the cable company, not only ask to have the channels blocked, but also request to be exempt from paying for them! It's called a la carte programming or cable choice, being pushed by the Parents Television Council (yes, my group!).

While I'm at it, if you call the cable company, not only ask to have the channels blocked, but also request to be exempt from paying for them! It's called a la carte programming or cable choice, being pushed by the Parents Television Council (yes, my group!).

and that's the way it should be. You shouldn't pay for channels that you aren't watching..

you can. you call the cable company and ask them to simply block out channels that you don't watch or don't want. I know lots of parents that used to block out MTV and other channels they didn't want their kids to watch.


I can remember back in the 80s and 90s when many parents did just that. Blocking out MTV, VH1 and CMT over the content and "..gotta protect my kid"...but I can also remember the same parents had no problem at all allowing their children to listen to raunchy sex jokes, foul language and such ON THE RADIO !!! I can remember one parent telling me that he believed radio is a "safe haven for kids". Strange !!!

I wouldn't be surprised if more and more local radio stations jump into the "F" word bandwagon far more than broadcast TV will.

I can remember back in the 80s and 90s when many parents did just that. Blocking out MTV, VH1 and CMT over the content and "..gotta protect my kid"...but I can also remember the same parents had no problem at all allowing their children to listen to raunchy sex jokes, foul language and such ON THE RADIO !!! I can remember one parent telling me that he believed radio is a "safe haven for kids". Strange !!!

I wouldn't be surprised if more and more local radio stations jump into the "F" word bandwagon far more than broadcast TV will.


I found the same thing actually; many parents would block certian networks on the cable; but freely let kids listen to whatever music or radio station they wanted; when it is radio and music that typically has much more raunchy fare than TV. TV these days is pretty tame; espeically compared to what was aired in the late 80's and early 90's; if anything networks have become more aware and have pulled back on the content they air. The only difference is that society has changed and is now more accepting of different lifestyles and ideas than they once were. I really hate it when people say that we should go back to the restrictiveness of the 50's and 60's, who would really want that? in those days anybody different was censored, segregated and discriminated against.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/07/18/the_obscenity_police/


The Boston Globe
The obscenity police
By Joanna Weiss

Globe Columnist / July 18, 2010

WHAT I remember most about the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction,’’ during halftime at the 2004 Super Bowl, was how hard it was to figure out what was happening at all. Jackson’s breast was exposed for precisely nine-16ths of a second, and no matter how many times I pressed my TiVo’s “rewind’’ button, I still caught just a passing image of a star-shaped pasty.


Yet that moment came to symbolize a paranoid view of TV: At any moment, something naughty could jump out of the bushes and destroy what was left of American innocence. The FCC seemed to agree, with its policy of imposing stringent fines for flashes of nudity and the “fleeting expletives’’ emitted at the microphone at various live award shows.

On Tuesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the policy violates the First Amendment, a huge victory for the networks and the concept of free speech. How hard the FCC fights back will depend largely on politics. Paul Levinson, a communications professor at Fordham University, says the urge to squelch the media is bipartisan; Bill Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act, which attempted to control speech on the Internet, but it was later thrown out by the Supreme Court.

This is an election year, and family-values groups are howling about the Second Circuit ruling, suggesting that the floodgates have been opened. But save for the fact that some network executives will no longer get shpilkes when the Grammys are on, it’s doubtful that anything will change.

No one is better at censoring the networks, after all, than the networks themselves, mindful of the need to please their audiences and avoid alienating their sponsors. (Newspapers do the same, which is why this column will use awkward substitutions.) Even in the “safe haven’’ hours of late-night TV, the networks are notoriously careful; when Milton native Jenny Slate accidentally said the f-word last year on “Saturday Night Live,’’ it was considered a mini-scandal for NBC.

On basic cable, which is exempt from the FCC’s decency rules, swear words tend to be used sparingly, concentrated in the later hours and grittier shows. And the smartest artists understand that a shocking word loses its power when overused — and that a bleep or an artful euphemism can have much more comic effect. Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,’’ whose viewers wouldn’t flinch at swear words, almost always bleeps them anyway. On her late-night talk show on E!, Chelsea Handler talks about sex a lot but uses the word “penetration,’’ which always gets a laugh.

But sometimes, particulary in the news, swear words have power that a euphemism lacks. At a congressional hearing about Goldman Sachs this spring, senators kept quoting an internal Goldman e-mail that called one of its derivatives a “sh--ty deal.’’ On his blog, Levinson mocked MSNBC for telling viewers the word rhymed with “kitty:’’ Who were they fooling, he asked, and what was the point? It’s more disturbing that the broadcast networks bleeped out the word on their news shows; they felt threatened by the government for airing testimony direct from a government hearing.

Just as the language of business has evolved, TV’s internal standards have obviously changed. As Trinity College professor Mark Silk points out, NBC voluntarily preempted a Jack Paar joke in 1960 involving the term “W.C.’’ (It’s quaint, but still funny. Bathroom humor never gets old.) These days, as the New York Times had fun pointing out, network TV characters commonly call each other “douche.’’

But changing standards is hardly an argument for censorship. Groups like the Parents Television Council — which is responsible for the bulk of this decade’s complaints to the FCC — have every right to make their voices heard. They don’t need the threat of a government ax to do it.

And whatever standards they ask the networks to uphold, they need to understand that it will never be enough to shield a kid from words that are easy to find outside the relative safe zone of TV. Despite last week’s ruling, Elmo won’t be dropping the f-bomb on “Sesame Street’’ anytime soon. But he already does it on YouTube, far more than you’d think.

TV these days is pretty tame; espeically compared to what was aired in the late 80's and early 90's; if anything networks have become more aware and have pulled back on the content they air. The only difference is that society has changed and is now more accepting of different lifestyles and ideas than they once were. I really hate it when people say that we should go back to the restrictiveness of the 50's and 60's, who would really want that? in those days anybody different was censored, segregated and discriminated against.

You got that right :) TV today is pretty tame. However I tend to find TV 1978-1985 to be even more raunchy than the late 80's/early 90's simply because the big three networks at the time felt they had to compete with HBO and Showtime. I still remember that TV movie that ABC had aired around 1982 about a woman getting attacked and forced to perform oral sex on her attacker in the shower. Forgot the name of it but I do remember Baltimore's then ABC station WJZ refusing to air it though everyone else had no problem watching it out of Washington DC on WJLA.

Back in those days it seemed just about every made for TV movie had a bedroom scene even if it made sense to the plot or not. Then you had Benny Hill and even shows like 20 Minute Workout selling sex more than how to shape up one's body.

It really was a different time.

You got that right :) TV today is pretty tame. However I tend to find TV 1978-1985 to be even more raunchy than the late 80's/early 90's simply because the big three networks at the time felt they had to compete with HBO and Showtime. I still remember that TV movie that ABC had aired around 1982 about a woman getting attacked and forced to perform oral sex on her attacker in the shower. Forgot the name of it but I do remember Baltimore's then ABC station WJZ refusing to air it though everyone else had no problem watching it out of Washington DC on WJLA.

Back in those days it seemed just about every made for TV movie had a bedroom scene even if it made sense to the plot or not. Then you had Benny Hill and even shows like 20 Minute Workout selling sex more than how to shape up one's body.

It really was a different time.

People complain about the dumbest things today; i remember about a year after the Janet Jackson incident NBC forced producers of E.R. to blurr the image of a male chest because it was deemed indecent. Seriously a MALE CHEST on a hospital show, depicting an operation? it got so insane, i'm glad this ruling has come down.

I've also always felt it was a parents role to decide what a child watches, not the governments job. If you are so concerned about your child watching certain shows than use the tools that are readily available to block those shows; use your V-Chip or your parental access code to block shows you don't want them to see. Talk to your kids and explain what the consequences are of watching shows that are off-limits, set rules. Or god help us, UNPLUG the television, maybe lock the television in a room they don't have access to if you are so worried. Seriously; but don't tell me that because your kids might watch something that i as a full grown adult do not have the right to access that content.

Also, kids today are a lot more sophisticated than kids were in past generations and can handle a lot more than kids used to be able too, so the content that is so upsetting to these so-called moral groups is really nothing they haven't already been exposed too and likely disgarded. Kids know what's true and whats fake and understand the difference between them. And if a kid is young enough to be influenced by tv they shouldn't be watching it alone anyway. It's called doing your job parents.

If you don't like swearing or nudity or violence than watch the christian channel (...) I did, last night on Little House on the Prairie, Charles Ingalls (Michael Landon) sucker punched a man in the face out of anger. The man fell and that was that with no apology. Amen.

The Boston Globe
The obscenity police
By Joanna Weiss

But sometimes, particulary in the news, swear words have power that a euphemism lacks. At a congressional hearing about Goldman Sachs this spring, senators kept quoting an internal Goldman e-mail that called one of its derivatives a “sh--ty deal.’’ On his blog, Levinson mocked MSNBC for telling viewers the word rhymed with “kitty:’’ Who were they fooling, he asked, and what was the point? It’s more disturbing that the broadcast networks bleeped out the word on their news shows; they felt threatened by the government for airing testimony direct from a government hearing.
It wasn't bleeped on Canadian TV.

...they tried to "shame" CBS into changing the name of their upcoming new Thursday night sitcom, "S%*T MY DAD SAYS", on the grounds the first word is "unacceptable" at 8pm(et) in prime-time. Never mind that the series is based on the popular Twitter feed and book of the same name, which is widely available in book stores, libraries, and on the Internet, where apparently no one else seems offeneded by that very title...what did they expect the network to call it- "THE WILLIAM SHATNER SHOW"? I'm happy to report that they've ignored the PTC's suggestions, and that the series will appear under its original title!

I've always felt the PTC is a rather prude and conservative organization, whose opinons about TV mirror those of the late Kay "Granny" Gardella, who was a TV critic for the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS for over 40 years, and was once SO offended by a cable TV showing of "Young Lady Chatterly II" (1985), she devoted most of a column to how horrified she was that film was readily available for young viewers to stumble onto, and took great pains to point out the cast and how "dirty" it supposedly was. This, from the one TV critic who received "personal favors" from Bob Hope (including spending vacations at his Toluca Lake, California home) in return for "exclusive interviews" in her column and guaranteeing rave reviews for his various TV specials from the '70s through the '90s, no matter how lousy they eventually became. Yet, that's how the PTC works in political circles as well....

The FCC that levied the initial indecency fines that started this whole thing was a by-product of the Bush administration, that great bastion of "decency", "free speech" and "independent thinking". Sure it was, if you were a conservative Republican...let's see, how many of those Senators were forced to resign over personal sex scandals...?


:mad:

I HATE HYPOCRISY!!!! Political, media, personal, in any form!!!! And the FCC is among the worst offenders these days....

:rolleyes:

I HATE HYPOCRISY!!!! Political, media, personal, in any form!!!! And the FCC is among the worst offenders these days....

:rolleyes:

I agree with you on all counts. The Parents TV Council is a very prude, censorship friendly organization. I've always had a distaste in my mouth for them. I've always felt like their real goal was to simply squash any program they deemed below their standards. If they got their way the entire TV universe would be shows like "7th Heaven" and "Full House", and that's a scary thought. They always say it's to protect the kids; but lets be honest; what kids are up past 10pm anyway? and if they are it's likely they have been left un supervised or have already been exposed to whats on TV.

...they tried to "shame" CBS into changing the name of their upcoming new Thursday night sitcom, "S%*T MY DAD SAYS", on the grounds the first word is "unacceptable" at 8pm(et) in prime-time. Never mind that the series is based on the popular Twitter feed and book of the same name, which is widely available in book stores, libraries, and on the Internet, where apparently no one else seems offeneded by that very title...what did they expect the network to call it- "THE WILLIAM SHATNER SHOW"? I'm happy to report that they've ignored the PTC's suggestions, and that the series will appear under its original title!

I've always felt the PTC is a rather prude and conservative organization, whose opinons about TV mirror those of the late Kay "Granny" Gardella, who was a TV critic for the NEW YORK DAILY NEWS for over 40 years, and was once SO offended by a cable TV showing of "Young Lady Chatterly II" (1985), she devoted most of a column to how horrified she was that film was readily available for young viewers to stumble onto, and took great pains to point out the cast and how "dirty" it supposedly was. This, from the one TV critic who received "personal favors" from Bob Hope (including spending vacations at his Toluca Lake, California home) in return for "exclusive interviews" in her column and guaranteeing rave reviews for his various TV specials from the '70s through the '90s, no matter how lousy they eventually became. Yet, that's how the PTC works in political circles as well....

The FCC that levied the initial indecency fines that started this whole thing was a by-product of the Bush administration, that great bastion of "decency", "free speech" and "independent thinking". Sure it was, if you were a conservative Republican...let's see, how many of those Senators were forced to resign over personal sex scandals...?


:mad:


I agree with you on all counts. The Parents TV Council is a very prude, censorship friendly organization. I've always had a distaste in my mouth for them. I've always felt like their real goal was to simply squash any program they deemed below their standards. If they got their way the entire TV universe would be shows like "7th Heaven" and "Full House", and that's a scary thought. They always say it's to protect the kids; but lets be honest; what kids are up past 10pm anyway? and if they are it's likely they have been left un supervised or have already been exposed to whats on TV.

This just in from the PTC: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/TVTrends/2010/0723.asp

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the networks' "race to the bottom", at the expense of wholesome family programming and our morals, would NOT bother anyone. Is nothing sacred?

The violence isn't a problem with me after all if one really goes through the history of television without the rose colored glasses one will find that it was just as violent as it is today although not as graphic you still had shootem ups, pier 6 brawls, a stabbing here, a strangling there, plus the concessional poisoning. As for the sexual innuendo and profanity I agree it was allot better when the sexual stuff was suggested or slipped in to where most wouldn't get the innuendo and the writing was much more clever when the writers had to figure out away to get the lines across without cursing.

Writers today are lazy. Instead of trying to be creative and clever, they just drop curse words for an easy laugh in many instances. A well placed, occasional curse word can be funny. But when the writers just throw them out there just because...well, they lose their ability to be humorous.

And it's up to parents to police what their kids watch -- not the government. Parents today let kids watch way too much TV.

The other day, a friend's 10 year old posted this on Facebook: "I'm so bored. Somebody text me."

I felt like replying: "Go ride a bike. Play with your friends. Draw a picture."

I'm glad I grew up in a less technologically-intense time.

This just in from the PTC: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/TVTrends/2010/0723.asp

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the networks' "race to the bottom", at the expense of wholesome family programming and our morals, would NOT bother anyone. Is nothing sacred?

Because not everybody views TV content as a moral issue. It's entertainment, and not all entertainment should be partronizing or sugarcoated. Some people like having the ability to see shows the reflect wide viewpoints.

FCC Appeals Ruling That Threw Out Indecency Regulations
by Jean Bentley
posted Aug 27th 2010


The Federal Communications Commission is fighting back against a July court ruling that threw out the organization's regulations against indecency on broadcast television, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Last month, a New York appeals court threw out the organization's rules, saying they were unenforceable because they were so "unconstitutionally vague and chilling."



But, as expected, the FCC has appealed the decision made by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.







The Second Circuit court's 3-0 decision stated that:

"Under the current policy, broadcasters must choose between not airing or censoring controversial programs and risking massive fines or possibly even loss of their licenses, and it is not surprising which option they choose.

Indeed, there is ample evidence in the record that the FCC's indecency policy has chilled protected speech."






Despite the indecency rules, the FCC never actually fined FOX or NBC for their transgressions.

In fact, the LA Times reports that enforcement of the FCC's indecency regulations, which are in effect from 6AM to 10PM, has been "erratic".

http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/27/fcc-appeals-ruling-that-threw-out-indecency-regulations/

Remember the 1968 song by Harper's Bazaar called "Anything Goes?"The song goes like this:"In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking.Now,heaven knows,Anything goes"..That describes prime-time TV these days.(Yes,I know about you have an OFF button).

Remember the 1968 song by Harper's Bazaar called "Anything Goes?"The song goes like this:"In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking.Now,heaven knows,Anything goes"..That describes prime-time TV these days.(Yes,I know about you have an OFF button).

Ha, the only reason I know that song is because it was the opening of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (though it was sung in Mandarin).

Yay! Great news. :D