FCC getting out of hand? - Page 3

Short Hand · 11-20-2004, 01:59 PM

[quote="TGB!":96b92]There was no ABC movie problem (they self-censored themselves - and the FCC went out and said they would have had no problem with SPR airing) and Howard Stern CROSSED the line of decency which is spelled out in the laws set in 1979. He HAD It coming 9MM - for years. . .its just he enjoyed quite a bit of protection under Clintons FCC. . .what if someone put up hate speech against you and your family - and they said "ahh cmon - its just in good fun" - would you accept that? Or would you want some justice.[/quote:96b92]

there you go blaming clinton you miserable sot.

Howard Stern > You.

Coleman · 11-20-2004, 02:09 PM

[quote="Sergeant_Scrotum":b3d23]Everywhere else in the world censorship is becoming more lax except in the united states, which is taking steps backwards.[/quote:b3d23]well look at europe's culture. They have a bunch of nude beaches where kids are allowed to run around naked and it is viewed as normal by almost every person.

There are cultural differences going on. Plus, the USA is "more religious" compared to Europe.

TGB! · 11-20-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bukdez

decency is in the eye of the beholder...

Which has never been debated. Legislation of morality is NOTHING new. Community standards have exsisted for years. Its why murder, multiple marraiges, pedophilia, bestiality, robbery, etc - are illegal.

Yet I dont see anyone complaining when someone is prosecuted for murdering another person of for molesting children.

Godsmack · 11-20-2004, 02:44 PM

Censorship is wrong... its just wrong annoy:

Fireal · 11-20-2004, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GODSMACK

Censorship is wrong... its just wrong annoy:

It is far from wrong.

tomxtr · 11-20-2004, 03:28 PM

[quote="TGB!":8bced]There was no ABC movie problem (they self-censored themselves - and the FCC went out and said they would have had no problem with SPR airing) and Howard Stern CROSSED the line of decency which is spelled out in the laws set in 1979. He HAD It coming 9MM - for years. . .its just he enjoyed quite a bit of protection under Clintons FCC. . .what if someone put up hate speech against you and your family - and they said "ahh cmon - its just in good fun" - would you accept that? Or would you want some justice.[/quote:8bced]

What bothers me about the FCC is that they claim not to regulate the media, but respond to complaints filed after the fact. I heard just the opposite as far as SPR was concerned. Some of the affiliates were trying to get the FCC to grant permission to air the program, and they refused. The affiliates that chose not to air the program weren't self-censoring themselves because that's what they wanted to do, they were simply trying to avoid the fallout if the FCC decided, in their wisdom, that the material was inappropriate.

As far as Howard Stern is concerned, I think he is unfairly targeted. As others have said, decency is very subjective. Whether you think he is decent or not, I think he should be treated the same as others. Oprah got away with airing a segment where teens were discussing sex and they were talking about rainbows or some shit, where girls put on different color lipstick and suck dudes dicks all night. The FCC did not crack down on Oprah, but they lower the boom on Stern for things far less graphic. The reason is that the religious right organizes campaigns to file complaints against Stern and beloved Oprah some how gets a pass.

I guess my point is that if you are going to set decency standards, everyone should abide by them and be treated fairly. This crap about only responding to complaints is BS.

And Michael Powell's (fcc chairman), quote about Walt Disney not being proud of ABC made me want to puke. spank:

Mr.Buttocks · 11-20-2004, 04:14 PM

I've reported this thread to the FCC. nag:

Short Hand · 11-20-2004, 04:36 PM

As Stern said on Letterman, He was fined for saying words such as penis, cock, while on an episode of Oprah the exact same things were said, when he asked why was he fined and not oprah.. they said "Your Not Beloved". what a fucking laugh.

imported_Grim_Reaper · 11-20-2004, 05:02 PM

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":56abd]I've reported this thread to the FCC. nag:[/quote:56abd]
lmao.

TGB! · 11-20-2004, 06:23 PM

[quote=tomxtr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by "TGB!":44975

There was no ABC movie problem (they self-censored themselves - and the FCC went out and said they would have had no problem with SPR airing) and Howard Stern CROSSED the line of decency which is spelled out in the laws set in 1979. He HAD It coming 9MM - for years. . .its just he enjoyed quite a bit of protection under Clintons FCC. . .what if someone put up hate speech against you and your family - and they said "ahh cmon - its just in good fun" - would you accept that? Or would you want some justice.

What bothers me about the FCC is that they claim not to regulate the media, but respond to complaints filed after the fact. I heard just the opposite as far as SPR was concerned. Some of the affiliates were trying to get the FCC to grant permission to air the program, and they refused. The affiliates that chose not to air the program weren't self-censoring themselves because that's what they wanted to do, they were simply trying to avoid the fallout if the FCC decided, in their wisdom, that the material was inappropriate.

As far as Howard Stern is concerned, I think he is unfairly targeted. As others have said, decency is very subjective. Whether you think he is decent or not, I think he should be treated the same as others. Oprah got away with airing a segment where teens were discussing sex and they were talking about rainbows or some shit, where girls put on different color lipstick and suck dudes dicks all night. The FCC did not crack down on Oprah, but they lower the boom on Stern for things far less graphic. The reason is that the religious right organizes campaigns to file complaints against Stern and beloved Oprah some how gets a pass.

I guess my point is that if you are going to set decency standards, everyone should abide by them and be treated fairly. This crap about only responding to complaints is BS.

And Michael Powell's (fcc chairman), quote about Walt Disney not being proud of ABC made me want to puke. spank:[/quote:44975]

Dunno where you read that about the FCC but its wrong. If anyone at the FCC made such a comment they sure werent speaking for the entire agency. Just like the Supremes cant make a ruling on something BEFORE it happens, neither can the FCC. It has to look at the context of how the situation is framed which is why Stern gets it in the ass in Oprah doesnt. SERIOUSLY do you think Stern is innocent in all this? His material does NOT belong on the air at the time he is. . .he could choose to move his program to late night - but he doesnt. Why? Money. Bottom line. Hes not concerned about "free speech" - hes concerned about being the "King Of Shock Rock" - and he cant be the King of shit if hes on at a later time. The FCC has said NUMEROUS times that their rulings are often reflected on the overall context the shows are presented in. . .which is why Oprah did not get fined. . .not because shes freaking "beloved".

Honestly I'd be pissed if Stern was even half as funny as he thought he was - if youve seen one Stern show recently than youve seen them all.

tomxtr · 11-20-2004, 09:52 PM

[quote="TGB!":6109e]
Dunno where you read that about the FCC but its wrong. If anyone at the FCC made such a comment they sure werent speaking for the entire agency. Just like the Supremes cant make a ruling on something BEFORE it happens, neither can the FCC. It has to look at the context of how the situation is framed which is why Stern gets it in the ass in Oprah doesnt. SERIOUSLY do you think Stern is innocent in all this? His material does NOT belong on the air at the time he is. . .he could choose to move his program to late night - but he doesnt. Why? Money. Bottom line. Hes not concerned about "free speech" - hes concerned about being the "King Of Shock Rock" - and he cant be the King of shit if hes on at a later time. The FCC has said NUMEROUS times that their rulings are often reflected on the overall context the shows are presented in. . .which is why Oprah did not get fined. . .not because shes freaking "beloved".

Honestly I'd be pissed if Stern was even half as funny as he thought he was - if youve seen one Stern show recently than youve seen them all.[/b][/color][/quote:6109e]

[url:6109e]http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=54675[/url:6109e]

Well it seems as though this has a lot to do with if you enjoy his program or not. Even if you don't this article below shows that the FCC chairman fancies himself the arbiter of decency for the country.

[quote:6109e]NY Rep Calls For Powell To Recuse Himself If MNF Complaint Is Filed
November 19, 2004

After speaking out on CNBC about the now-infamous Monday Night Football parody skit of Desperate Housewives, FCC Chairman Michael Powell now has a new public critic in addition to Howard Stern. New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement criticizing Powell on his comments.

In an official statement, Nadler says Powell's comments about the controversy "make it abundantly clear that he is less interested in doing his job than he is in becoming the country's chief censor. After first stating that, if it received a complaint, the Commission would review the facts fairly, Powell went on to say, 'But, I think it's very disappointing. I wonder if Walt Disney would be proud.'"

Nadler continued, "This is no different from a judge announcing before a hearing that 'We need to examine the facts that will be presented in this case fairly, but if you ask me, I think this guy is guilty.' Chairman Powell has essentially announced his opinion before a fair and proper examination could be held. He cannot now be a fair and impartial judge if a complaint is filed. Chairman Powell needs to rethink the role of the Chairman of an impartial Federal regulatory agency. If this matter makes it's way in front of the Commission, Chairman Powell must recuse himself, because he has shown his inability, or unwillingness, to be impartial and to provide due process in this case."[/quote:6109e]

Pick Axe · 11-20-2004, 10:33 PM

I don't believe the FCC has the right to regulate anything but public media.

But, they are getting out of hand. Still, though, I see the need to keep kids from turning onto local stations and seeing a buch of nudity. Where do you draw the line though? That question will never be answered.