FCC Levies Record Indecency Fine

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "The FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine against a single TV show, penalizing CBS and its affiliates for an episode of 'Without a Trace' that suggested a teenage sexual orgy, in the first batch of indecency fines proposed in more than a year, the Wall Street Journal reports. 'Overall, the FCC's action didn't provide a broad sweeping vision for broadcasters about what is appropriate for television,' the WSJ says. 'Notably, the FCC backed away from an effort to impose higher fines by holding all network affiliates responsible for a broadcast, instead of just the stations that had been flagged by a viewer in a complaint.'"

sex is immoral

[Adult film producer]

Good thing we have the Bush administration to help us with these ultra liberal television networks. Next thing you know gays will be marrying giraffes and marriage will be worthless. Shame on them.

Re:sex is immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

But in America, marriage IS already worthless!

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[causality]

Particularly if you happen to be a male who failed to plan ahead and insist on a prenuptual agreement. If you are such a person, you have little to gain and much to lose by entering into such a contract as marriage. Especially when you consider that women rarely marry a man who earns less money than they do, (that need for "security") and when you consider that the courts tend to be heavily biased against men in the case of divorce (child custody and most especially, alimony). This bias, by the way, originates from a time when women were second-class citizens who would have had a very difficult time earning their own living alone. Apparently I am unique in believing that equality does not mean you get to retain special privileges. Either way, consider the divorce rate and ask yourself how lucky you feel.

Please forgive me for the off-topic post. The subject came up via the A.C. and I honestly feel that few men consider the implications of choices like this. Thankfully I have not had to learn any of the above the hard way; I was fortunate enough to be able to learn this by simple observation. Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[drsmithy]

Remember guys, if she really loves you and it really is "always and forever," she will have no problem signing that prenup.

Yes, she will - and justifiably, IMHO, because a pre-nup is demonstration of a lack of trust (in either the other party or themselves). Without trust, a relationship will not work.

While I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the economical and statistical realities of marriage and divorce, and that men in particular should think long and hard about financial consequences be

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[Bazzalisk]

And having to stand up in church or registry office and sign a contract saying that you will stay with your parttner until death do you part isn't an insult to one's honour?

If I say I'll love my girlfriend for the rest of my life then I would expect to be taken as being honest, not be required to go through a marriage ceremony to "prove" it.

My parents' marriage broke-up, my paternal grandparents were divorced, and my maternal grandparents damned well ought to have been divorced if the catholic church would only allow it. Marriage proves nothing, and requiring it is as much of an insult as requiring a pre-nuptual agreement would be.

(Just glad that my girlfriend feels the same way)

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[mboverload]

Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.

If you don't get a prenump, you're a...well you know what I mean. These people who got married thought they met their lifetime partner, just like you. You just got lucky.

Assuming you're someone else here, when your wife cleans you out of half of the stuff you own, plus a car and the summer house, you'd be asking yourself how you could be so stupid.

We all want the dream, but that doesn't mean you can't take a little dose of reality along with it.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[eno2001]

Sort of... But that's why it's KEY that you have the trial marriage before you do the real thing. My first relationship in high school lasted 2.5 years. My second in college lasted 4 years and almost made it to marriage except neither of us got the timing right (wanted to get married at a time when the other wasn't sure). And the woman who I married, I dated for ten years before we actually got married. THAT was the "trial marriage". By the time we decided to get married we weren't really doing it for

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[dwandy]

"Over 50% of marriages end in divorce."

...yeah, but fully 100% of divorces start with marriage... that's the real culprit here.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[rubycodez]

all about love? there are times when a husband and wife don't love each other much. be married long enough, you'll see. Hopefully, you'll be able to communicate and work things out and rekindle love again, and a marriage is always worth saving. There's also the case where sometimes "love just ain't enough".

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[coolgeek]

Congratulations! You have likely invested the work necessary in selecting a good match as your mate and all the subsequent work in keeping the relationship healthy. One day I may be so lucky...until then I'm in this never ending cycle of dating various women, many of whom could have been a quickie character on Seinfeld.

But don't delude yourself, your utopia is not the norm. I'll keep it real short and simple. When I met my accountant to help me out of some tax problems some years back, he had a little talk to me about marriage and divorce. He said marriage can be about a lot of things, true love, insecurity, combining efforts, companionship, social status, etc. but he made it clear on no uncertain terms that divorce was always about money. He probably has the right position in our society to make the observation, being an accountant and all. I think he's right.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[king-manic]

You sick fuck. You obviously have no idea why you should get married. HINT: It's ALL about love. Money should have nothing to do with it on either side. If it does, you have two sad and sorry victims of capitalist propaganda. I married my wife because I love her and she did the same with me. I don't make much money and she doesn't care. We live comfortably enough, have a great sex life and have made it to our late 30s and early 40s with only one kid (in 2004 and planned in advance) in 16 years of sex. But outside of the sex we love to actually BE with each other. I don't run screaming from the house to hang out with my male friends because she's just too much fun to hang out with no matter what we do. And she doesn't run screaming from me because she has a good time with me.

Little note: Marriage has nothign to do with love it started as a property contract between a man and the family of a girl. It's shifted a bit over the last 200 years (yes the chaneg was very recent). Even now it's more about propperty then about love since the state doens't care if you love the one you marry.

Re:sex is immoral (Off-topic)

[eno2001]

Ahhh... a response from someone who doesn't "get" (as in; understand) women. There ARE a lot of screwed up women out there. I was back in the dating scene for a while a few years ago and I met nothing but screwed up women. Mostly they wanted to play head games. But not every woman is like that. I also think that a lot of guys are to blame due to their expectations and lack of patience. It takes a while to actually understand women, but it's not impossible. I takes even more time to sift through them

Morality

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you were modded 'Funny' and I get your 'Joke'.
 
Sex in itself is not immoral, but perhaps a group of teenage sons and daughters (who likely do not understand the responsibilities that come with sex) having an orgy is. Of course, if there is a problem with teenage orgies in America, ignoring the problem is not the answer either.

Re:Morality

[coleblak]

Yeah, finding and joining them is the answer. Mmm.... Orgy.

Re:Morality

[jmv]

Teenagers being murdered isn't right either. Yet, showing it in a movie (or TV show) never caused any problem (as long as it's rated 13 or so).

Re:Morality

[HUADPE]

Sex in itself is not immoral, but perhaps a group of teenage sons and daughters (who likely do not understand the responsibilities that come with sex) having an orgy is.

The terms "son" and "daughter" apply to everyone last time I checked my biology textbook. While I understand that parents (rightly) have a strong emotional bond with their children, using those terms in this context simply serves to have emotional response override reason in a debate of ideas.

Re:Morality

[eno2001]

Do not judge everyone by the same standards. I had a healthy interest in sex from a very young age. I was lucky enough to live in a very liberal city with a well stocked public library. When I was 11 and my curiostiy began getting too strong to control, I went there and began researching sex in a very serious way. I learned the mechanics of sex, the structure of the genitalia, the biological purpose of sex, the psychological effects of sex and the various positions and techniques. I spent about four ye

Re:sex is immoral

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Holland [foxnews.com]

Man, the Dutch are so far ahead of us it's not funny.

Re:sex is immoral

[drsmithy]

For instance, only Arab immigrants are required to watch the racy film, immigrants with blond hair and blue eyes won't have to.

False.

There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $54,000 per year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.

Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Switzerland are exempt.

There's a rather large chunk of the world not covered by those exemptions who aren't "Arab".

Re:sex is immoral

[d34thm0nk3y]

From here: [benton.org]

On Wednesday, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Deborah Taylor Tate and Michael Joseph Copps to serve as commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission.

So yes, we can actually thank Bush personally.

Re:sex is immoral

[msobkow]

Fundamentalists of any stripe are a problem in society.

Fundamentalists with power are the root of dictatorships, police states, and government control.

Fundamentalists are people who made a decision a long time ago and stopped thinking about the possibility that they could be wrong.

The decisions made so long ago are rarely based on a thorough education or understanding of the material. Most of the time it's rote and ritual, and damnation for those who question "the way" -- the same as any cult.

Re:sex is immoral

[trippin_efnet]

I could not agree more. After watching the teen orgy [parentstv.org] from Without A Trace, I had to wonder what was so offensive about it. I mean, its a night time drama, aimed at adults. It's not like they had little dancing, beeping, cartoon characters advertising this show. If there were children watching it, they were most likely watching it because the parents were watching.

I'm sure they were so offended by that clip because they were actually aroused by the idea, and this caused a bit of double think, which turned it into sexual repression. Maybe they were jealous they didnt think of it when they were kids?

Heres the clip of the 'teen orgy' [parentstv.org] that won CBS this fine.

If they decide to block direct linking to the video, go to "parents tv" [parentstv.org]. The link to the video will be in the middle of the page inside the little box saying something like WARNING TAKE CAUTION

This way, you can not only view the clip, but see how over-the-top upset they were about it. we also have the added benefit of sucking their bandwidth dry.

Any organization willing to focus so much time trying to decide what I, as an adult, get to watch on TV in the name of protecting THEIR children, makes me a bit nervous.

Re:sex is immoral

[doubledoh]

When it comes to politics, no one's guiltless for trampling on our rights

Almost no one. Libertarians [lp.org] are the only party that actually believes in restoring all of the rights republicans and democrats stole long ago (and continue to steal). Libertarians are the only group that believes in the philosophy of liberty [free-market.net] and don't waver from its principles when facing difficult scenarios.

Re:sex is immoral

[ultranova]

Libertarians are the only party that actually believes in restoring all of the rights republicans and democrats stole long ago (and continue to steal).

Libertarians are free-market fundamentalists who want everyone to be slave to the rich rather than the government. In a libertarian utopia, nothing will stop those with money from trampling your rights as much as they want, only the government (which at least in theory has some obligations to you) is not allowed to do so.

Libertarians are the only group that believes in the philosophy of liberty and don't waver from its principles when facing difficult scenarios.

Trying to solve every problem with the same tool - free market - is the mark of a fundamentalist. Do you honestly think that free-market fundamentalism is any different from christian fundamentalism or islamist fundamentalism or communist fundamentalism ? It isn't.

In a libertarian utopia, the poor will starve in the streets since there is no social security to feed them. The companies will happily form cartels since the government doesn't have the power to stop them. Your employment contract will force you to spend your "free" time by guarding your place of employment - and no, you cannot simply refuse to sign, since nothing stops the cartel from agreeing that every potential employer will require such conditions. Public libraries will cease to function, since they are funded by the state - if you can't pay for all the information you want or need, too bad.

Libertarian utopia is a heaven for the rich, since nothing limits their ability to exercise power over everyone else anymore. It is a hell to everyone else, since nothing limits the ability of the rich to trample on them anymore.

There's a reason why communism was born. That reason is that life for a worker during the unfettered capitalism of industrial revolution was a living hell, with 16-hour work days, child labor, and the absolute lack of any kind of safety regulations leading to regular mutilation of machine operators, after which they would simply be thrown out to starve and replaced with new victims. Compared to that, the Soviet Union really was a workers paradise, where you at least had to be sent to Siberia before the hell would begin. By trying to repeal all labor laws (since they interfere with their free market utopia), the libertarians are working for the return of those conditions.

Don't vote libertarian, unless you are filthy rich. You are going to hate to live under them otherwise.

Re:sex is immoral

[teromajusa]

Which part are you calling BS: his description of how things were before labor laws and anti-trust legislation, or his assertion that if we remove these things it will be that way again? The former is widely documented and can be read about in virtually any history of the industrial revolution. The latter is pretty much just common sense.

Re:Bush? Remeber Tipper?

[2short]

Dude, I almost remember Twisted Sister, and I'm like, old.

Let's see, Tipper Gore did some stuff as a private citizen, and years later when her husband ran for President, it was definitely an issue that gave people concern about his position on censorship.

Now members of the Bush administration, appointed by Bush, are doing stuff in their official capacities, and you object if we blame "the Bush administration"?

I mean, if people are brining this up in an irrelevant attempt to defend a poitical opponent of Lau

Logic go backwards

[Mr. Freeman]

Then why is it that I keep seeing commercials for "Girls gone wild" at around 5 PM on popular channels (not premium or pay-per-view). They blur out the bare minimum and the language is somewhat more than explicit.

So, pornography is just fine, but seeing an episode of T.V. that happens to make an allusion to sex is simply too much?

Re:Logic go backwards

[sqrt(2)]

Those are cable channels. They can show whatever they want, as long as the advertisers agree.

Re:Logic go backwards

[gEvil (beta)]

The FCC only regulates broadcast (air).

You forgot to add the all important part--"at the moment."

Re:Logic go backwards

[a_nonamiss]

None, at the moment, but that's not stopping them from looking into the possiility. There have been several recent "discussions" in Congress to pass bills that would allow the FCC (not Congress directly, but surely indirectly) to regulate cable content. It's not going to happen any time soon, but I believe that there is groundwork being laid right now.

http://penusa.org/go/programs/action-alert/241/4/f irst-amendment-updates [penusa.org]
http://www.slate.com/id/2095398 [slate.com]

I know that those articles are kind of dated. With Howard Stern off terrestrial radio, a lot of the censorship talk has quieted a bit in the last year, but I do believe that if this administration had its druthers, you'd see an end to free speech in any broadcast medium, whether it be radio, satellite, cable, or even (and this would be neigh impossible, but "they" would still love to see it) the Internet. It's a scary prospect, but we citiznes just need to keep our eye on the ball and stop getting upset when a boobie accidentally flashes on the screen.

Whoa..

[necro2607]

Um, they're getting fined 3.6 million for "suggesting" a "teenage orgy"?

What about shows like Family Guy which have untold amounts of adult-oriented innuendo and jokes??! I can't see this as a legitimate endeavour whatsoever...

Link to clip

[vkapadia]

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm [parentstv.org]

Here is a link to the clip in question.

You can decide for yourself if it constitutes a "teenage orgy" or not

Re:Link to clip

[madHomer]

<sarcasm>Good thing they put that on the interweb where there are no kids that can be offended by it!</sarcasm>

Re:Link to clip

[Hrodvitnir]

Ok, the next time you link pr0n on the internet, please have the decency to link to something worthwhile! I didn't see one nipple. I will never get those 3 minutes back.

Re:Link to clip

[Sylver Dragon]

Thanks for the link, it helps put this in context.

Having watched the clip, I could sort of see a complaint about indecency (assuming that such are ever justified). I just wouldn't accept that the indeceny is in depicting a rather wild party of underage people. Maybe it was just the resolution of the clip, but I would swear I saw some nipples at one point, which seems to fall under current indecency standards.
Whether the Parents Television Council cares to accept it or not, drunken underage parties happen. At said parties underage people often engage in sex. As this seems to have been part of the story, I can understand why it was depicted. Yes, it probably rubs many people the wrong way, since they wish to ignore reality; sorry, but the right to not be offended still isn't in the US Constitution anywhere.

Re:Link to clip

[andreMA]

I wonder too if their real outrage is more at the interracial aspects - there were at least a couple of brief shots of a white girl making out with a black guy. Of course they can't openly complain about that, so they whine in a more general sense. Just a theory.

Re:Link to clip

[Matilda the Hun]

Actually, they do have the right not to be offended. I mean, it's not like we're forcing them to be offended. There's plenty of people who could care less.

Re:Link to clip

[Bazzalisk]

Couldn't care less.

Hmm - gotta start watching that show

[spineboy]

Sounds like "advertising" dollars well spent. But seriously how is it ok to show people being blown up/slaughtered, but not ok to show some skin, or a hint at some questionable activities?
Since the USA already has a violence problem, should we continue to show people being blown up/shot at, or participating in an orgy? I vote for the later, since I'd rather be invited to an orgy, than be shot.

Re:Hmm - gotta start watching that show

[darkmeridian]

"I vote for the later, since I'd rather be invited to an orgy, than be shot."

How about shooting someone?

Re:Hmm - gotta start watching that show

[radtea]

Watching The Matrix doesn't give you blood lust, but watching sex does give most people the regular kind.

You give no evidence to support either of these claims, which is not surprising because no evidence exists. It is a matter of hot debate as to whether or not violent images encourage violent actions, or sublimate them. It is likewise indeterminant whether explicit sexual depictions encourage or sublimate sexual actions.

To blandly make the assertions you do lets the rest of us know your opinions, but it

Re:Link to clip

[clem]

Having read the description, I guess what bothers me most is a group of teenagers having sex sans any awkwardness whatsoever. No accidently leaning on the girl's hair. No premature "exuberance". No fumbling with birth control. No overly eager groping. There's not even any shyness or strained silence. It appears that when these kids turned 16 the "hump like a porn star" gene was triggered. Did we all just go to the wrong high schools?

CSI

[Dadoo]

I don't know if I'd really want my kids to see this, but if I was forced to choose between this and "CSI", I'd choose this, every time. As I'm sure most of you know, "CSI" is on the same network as "Without a Trace", they show all kinds of violence, and it's on an hour earlier, yet no one complains.

And they wonder why this country is messed up...

Re:Link to clip

[BobSutan]

Thanks for the link. Here's what I sent them

This is a formal commentary of claimed indecency on broadcast television.
NETWORK: CBS
PROGRAM TITLE: Without a Trace
BROADCAST DATE: December 31, 2004
BROADCAST TIME: 9:00 PM Eastern and Pacific Time, 9:00 PM Central and Mountain Time

Documentation --------------
The depicted scene of the show Without a Trace was NOT offensive to many, despite what the minority of the viewers at the PTC felt. Please be advised that their automatic letter generation makes it easy to spam the FCC with complaints. This is exactly how I've written this letter, though I've made some changes to the "content". In respect to the general population, what was shown does not warrent the fines levied against CBS.

All things considered, a very small percentage of American viewers are creating the vast majority of complaints recieved by your offices. This does not warrant the actions taken when viewed in the context of those that were obviously NOT affected by said show. The bottom line is that a small percentage of the US population is taking advantage of the FCC by spamming it with complaints to make it appear there are more people offended than actually were.

Please investigate these actions made by the PTC and balance prospective fines against the unique complaints per person over the spectrum of viewers a given show has. Context and common sense should rule the day, not an overreactive, easily offended minority intent on controlling the media consumed by the majority.
Documentation --------------

PLEASE KEEP ME INFORMED OF THE PROGRESS AND RESULTS OF YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER.
Sincerely,
Me

USA: the land of the free?

[bogaboga]

> ..."The FCC proposed a record $3.6 million fine against a single TV show, penalizing CBS and its affiliates for an episode of 'Without a Trace' that suggested a teenage sexual orgy, in the first batch of indecency fines proposed in more than a year, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Can the USA still be regarded as the land of the free, where any citizen san say whatever they like?

Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show? I have seen a level of indecency I'd never imagined! Can anyone figure how a mother could compete with a daughter for a man? I watched on such episode on Jerry Springer. To say the truth, I almost fell sick!

I guess it's all about the money.

Re:USA: the land of the free?

[techno-vampire]

Talking of indecency, why don't the authorities shut down the Jerry Springer Show?

Because people aren't complaining to the FCC about it. If enough people did, they'd get slapped with fines too. It's the squeeky wheel syndrome: the FCC isn't going to do anything on its own, becuause if they're not receiving complaints, viewers must think it's OK.

Re:USA: the land of the free?

[emmons]

Sure, just not on radio frequencies licensed from the FCC. You can say pretty much whatever you want on cable.

The Clip in Question

[Castar]

I posted this in another thread, here's the clip in question, thoughtfully brought to you by the Parents' Television Council! Let's hear a round of applause for their diligence in bringing teenage orgy footage online.

http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm [parentstv.org]

Re:The Clip in Question

[Naviztirf]

Gee, isn't that also copyright infringement? To post a clip on their site?

Re:The Clip in Question

[Castar]

But thanks to them, you didn't have to watch what was probably a tedious hour of television! They thoughtfully found the very best bits and put them up. That's why I love the PTC. ;-)

This is just like time-shifting, it's just awesomeness-shifting.

What I don't Understand

[bloodstar]

Barring improper language or nude bodies. How can implying something be considered 'improper'. Personally, I find the mindless violence abhorrant on TV, but I don't see the FCC giving a damn about that.

South Park had it right: "Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"

Re:What I don't Understand

[Stevyn]

Did you see the video? "Implying" is treating it lightly. It's not like someone said "hey let's have a teenage orgy" It was a little more graphic than that. I'm not saying it was bad or imoral, but it was a little graphic for the time and channel.

Re:What I don't Understand

[grub]

So turn the channel. Or monitor your kids' viewing habits more closely. Or, better yet, trash the TV.

These types of fines are just a way for the FCC Morality Police to justify their existence.

Re:What I don't Understand

[Brandybuck]

I'd rather see people writhing against each other like a bad Britney video than seeing a bunch of bloodied bodies and violence.

And yet like most Slashdot posters parroting this sentiment, you probably stood in line for hours to see Anakin get his limbs graphically sliced off and dunked in lava.

Re:What I don't Understand

[freeweed]

And yet like most Slashdot posters parroting this sentiment, you probably stood in line for hours to see Anakin get his limbs graphically sliced off and dunked in lava.

And like most Slashdotters, I would have stood in line for MANY MORE hours to see Anakin get his "limb" graphically inserted into Natalie Portman.

Re:What I don't Understand

[jroysdon]

10pm EST & PST on New Years Eve, a night tons of children will be staying up late, for one. Second, it was aired at 9PM CST & MST, which is what I believe got them in the most trouble.

Here is a story mentioning the New Years and 9pm [semissourian.com] time info. "... the FCC requires that no indecent programs be aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m."

Here is another story [medialifemagazine.com] stating the same thing and more details. "The Dec. 31 episode was actually a rerun, but the PTC's complaint the first time around wasn't addressed because it fell under CBS parent Viacom's $3.5 million deal with the FCC to clear up all indecency fines. The PTC's latest complaint is on behalf of viewers in the Central and Mountain time zones, because on the East Coast the show aired at 10 p.m., within the FCC's 10 p.m.-6 a.m. window of relaxed indecency standards."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Which is more indecent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is an orgy worse than rape or murder?

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Darth_brooks]

The AC brings up a very good point, and that point leads to another point.

As far as primetime TV is concerned, Violence is ok, Sex is evil. We can thank the moral majority for that. Ward and June Cleaver sleeping in separate beds, Homosexuality not existing until the 1970's (soap), open homosexuality not being addressed until the 1990's (roseanne, ellen). No sir, we can't ever imply that people have sex, because that's evil and naughty. In fact, we need standards that keep filth like sex off of the tube.

But violence is a-ok. Cop shows can show murders and beatings because "that sort of thing happens all the time" or "that's the way it is." It's gritty, "life on the street" sorts of things. Drug abuse, murder, beatings, that's cool. That happens all the time, but God forbid we show a boobie. Because people don't have sex.

Which leads us down the path we're on now. TV shows cannot show sex, but they can show violence. So how to the writers skirt that little detail? SHOW VIOLENT SEX! Brutal Rape! Orgies! Kinky prostitutes being beaten do death by druggies!

I'm no expert on sex, but I think men and women (or two men. Or two women.) tend to have have normal (or comparitively normal) sex more often than people get raped, murdered, or skinned by a serial killer after freaky sex rituals. But we can't show that on tv. We've got to show violent sex.

Re:Which is more indecent?

[TubeSteak]

Don't forget Bert and Ernie.

They used to sleep in the same bed and as a kid, I thought nothing of it.
Then some people started screaming "ZOMG teh h0m05!!11eleven"

Bert and Ernie then got separate beds.
Not good enough.
Bert and Ernie then got separate rooms.
Okay, finally they're not gay.

The fact is that kids don't think about that stuff, unless some adult points to it and says "See those two men? They're living in sin." Or some other such bullshit. Ultimately, suppressing/repressing stuff like sexuality just creates groups of sexually disfunctional people.

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, in the old days REAL HUMAN PEOPLE slept in the same bed and didn't have sex. Beds, bedding, and insulation were expensive, space was short, and insulation was poor.

Re:Which is more indecent?

[Sathias]

But violence is a-ok. Cop shows can show murders and beatings because "that sort of thing happens all the time" or "that's the way it is." It's gritty, "life on the street" sorts of things. Drug abuse, murder, beatings, that's cool. That happens all the time, but God forbid we show a boobie. Because people don't have sex.

The reason for this is very simple. Showing violence on TV breeds fear and paranoia, and afraid paranoid people are easy to control and buy things to try and distract themselves from what is bothering them. People having sex just lock themselves in a room and forget about any of the crap which the modern world tries to fill our heads with. Content people don't consume.

V-chip?

[Joe5678]

Isn't this why we have the damned V-chip [wikipedia.org]?

So that should cover the "somebody think of the children" crowd. Beyond that, if you don't like what they are showing, don't watch their show/network. Last I checked, "having what you want on T.V" wasn't one of those inalienable rights from the constitution.

Yes! I was thinking about this other day...

[Hamster Lover]

The complaint form should include a box that asks, "Are you aware of the V-Chip parental access controls and it's operation?" or something to that effect. If the answer is "no" the complaint should get tossed and if the answer is "yes" then an automated reply should be sent to the effect that the viewer should tailor the V-Chip controls to suit their particular tastes.

No one ever mentions the V-Chip anymore because it's not their own viewing habits that concern them, but their neighbor's.

Fuck indecency rules

[Reality Master 201]

Great, some people are offended by something on TV. Stop fucking watching TV, or when you see a promo and find out that the show will somehow involve teen sex orgies, don't tune in.

This isn't really a free speech issue. It's a "why is America so full of whiny-ass bitches who thing the whole world ought to cater exclusively to them" issue.

Re:Fuck indecency rules

[stor]

Nah, I think he got modded up for the "whiny-ass bitches" bit.

"Whiny-ass bitches": I couldn't agree more.

Cheers
Stor

Wow

[liangzai]

I guess they didn't object to primte time TV footage of American troops leading naked Iraqi prisoners leashed through the prison catacombs... now that is really indecent.

Makes me wonder... why are the Americans thinking of invading Iran? The two countries are equally fucked up in my humble mind, about the same attitudes toward "indecency".

Ayatollah Bush of the Intelligent Design priesthood, the leader of the world, mwahhahhahha!

Not yet

[Tony]

Give it time, my friend. Give it time.

Why didn't they fine the news media?

[symbolic]

I remember a few years ago, a story about an odd occurrence in an upper-class neighborhood. For some unexplained reason, a significant number of teens (some kind of young) started showing up at doctors' offices to report symptoms characteristic of at least one STD- mostly the same one. They thought it was kind of strange that it would not only happen to so many within a small geographic area, but within such a short period of time. After somes investigation, it was dicovered that these kids were doing exactly what the show suggested - having sex parties/orgies while parents weren't around to supervise. Oh, the horror. I'm not sure what value the FCC sees in burying these kinds of issues by sweeping them under a carpet of fines. Oh that's right...if people don't hear about it, that must mean that it's simply not happening.

Just saw this

[Stevyn]

on Bill O'Reilly. The issue here is not that "sex is evil" but that this scene was a violation of the stated rules. This was shown in primetime and not after 10PM. Based on the time of day, there are rules for public broadcasters. So this can turn into a big argument, but those are the rules. If you don't like the rules, then contact your congressman or congresswoman.

And btw, I love when the southpark movie is shown after 1:30 PM occasionally. There's nothing like hearing, "you butt fucking uncle fucker" to celebrate our nation's tolerance on "foul" language.

Re:Just saw this

[Stevyn]

You can discuss it all you want. But it's been done so many times on slashdot what's the point? Thousands of bible thumpers complained about Howard Stern and it led to him quitting. Why? Because they acted. While others were complaining amongst themselves, free speech got trampled on and laws like this got enacted. So the point I was trying to make was complain all you want here, but back it up with action so the people elected to power hear it.

If China censors indecent material it's communism,

[merc]

When the FCC enforces standards of decency they're just thinking of the chilren ... yeah, that's it.

The Show Aired at 9:00

[Jazzer_Techie]

I think a big part of this fine is because the show in question aired at 9:00 in the Central and Mountain time zones. Considering the climate, I think CBS would have been wise to tone it down or move it to a later slot. I personally am quite anti-censorship. If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. If you don't want your kids to watch it, then you need to take parential initiative. But I watched the clip and read the description, and I can understand where people who are very offended by that type of material are coming from. If I had young kids, I don't think I'd want them stumbling across that, especially if I weren't there to discuss with them the consequences of teenage orgies. Still, I can't say that I agree with the FCCs actions.

The clip

[ENIGMAwastaken]

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/worst/WithoutaT race_orgy.wmv [parentstv.org]

That's not an 'orgy', that's underwear sex.

There's a huge difference. Or so I hear...

Seriously, this isn't with 3.6 mil, no way, no how. I mean, I could barely get off to it...

Have any of you actually seen it?

[IHSW]

Ignoring all the knee-jerk reactions, you should watch the video yourself before you post.
Here: http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/withoutatrace/ content.htm [parentstv.org] [wmv alert]

Rated PG and airing at 10PM on CBS, it's a drunken teen party where everybody not afraid to find a partner (or 2, 3, ...) and get busy. Granted, that's not what the show is all about.

According to CBS.com [cbs.com]:
WITHOUT A TRACE is a riveting procedural drama about the New York Missing Persons Squad of the FBI. The sole responsibility of the special task force is to find missing persons by applying advanced psychological profiling techniques to peel back the layers of the victims' lives and trace their whereabouts in an effort to discover whether they have been abducted, been murdered, committed suicide or simply run away. The team reconstructs a "Day of Disappearance" timeline that details every minute of the 24 hours prior to the disappearance and digs into every facet of the victim's life, following one simple rule: learn who the victim is in order to learn where the victim is.

Watered down CSI? Maybe. The show focuses on teen victims, so that probably explains the placement of that scene (flashback, actually).

I really don't think CBS deserved this, but they'll likely take it for fear of negative PR. It shows at 10PM for chrissake's! Who watches TV at that hour and isn't a pervert?

2c

Billionaires and Humorists unite

[murderlegendre]

Just think about this one.. If you've got the cha-ching, and a dry sense of humor, the possibilities are about unlimited. Buy a block of network airtime, and just say any old god damn thing that amuses you. You could say things like shit, fuck, cunt, or even "I shit your fucking cunt lol!1!1". Just pay the fines on the way out the door, and you are gold.

Take a guy like Gates.. he could sing "Uncle Fucker" from the South Park movie, quote highlights from "The Aristocrats" and finish up with an 8mm snuff flim, and the fines would be below the noise floor on his balance sheet.

But no.. it's all about the medicine for African childern. If they're really so poor, why are they living in Africa? I can't even afford to visit that place..

Sorry, what was I saying?

seriously

[superwiz]

Why do religious people insist on ruining OTHER people's fun?

When will we have 'uncensored' Tv ?

[zymano]

Why do we mock the governments of Russia and China for censorship when we can't even show live TV ?

We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.

We need to 'RETAKE' our airwaves from the rightwing.

Re:When will we have 'uncensored' Tv ?

[hvatum]

We need a workaround for the FCC. Why not have local rules instead of national.

We already have that! It's called the internet.

Or cable television if you actually pay for content.

Free Society?

[QAPete]

If you're living in a free society, that society does not restrict 'offensive' or 'indecent' speech. This is Christian fundamentalism, right-wing Republican bullshit, and is actually one of the telling signs of Fascism, not Democracy. By the way, there is no such thing as 'indecent' speech. This was an FCC fabrication to suit their purposes.

By the way, the FCC was established to govern the FREQUENCIES that over-the-air broadcasts and electrical devices use. In today's age of cable and satellite, the FCC should be little more than a VERY small government organization that tries to make sure that your cell phone doesn't interfere with your TV set, and that the government can jam any consumer electronic device they choose. They should not be involved, in any way, in censorship, broadcast licensing blackmail or fining anyone for content.

I am an American, and I'm ashamed at what our society and government have become.

Re:Free Society?

[drooling-dog]

I don't recall anyone here defending or excusing the tyrants that you mention here. The fact that you cite them as Bush's peers speaks volumes, though. Maybe it's you that needs to re-examine the worthiness of your heroes.

What's that hammering sound?

[duncan bayne]

... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.

FCC overstepping its legal boundaries?

[Anonymous Coward]

The authority of the FCC of censoring broadcasting companies stands legally on shaky grounds and is subject of increasing controversy. This case is just another one in which the FCC has not only come up with some arbitrary and insane fees but it seems to have clearly overstepped its legal boundaries. Hopefully CBS takes the matter to the Supreme Court so that the right-wing conservative censorship in our country can be finally put to rest and the constitutional right of Free Speech and Expression reinstated again.

The old money in the US is...

[Bullfish]

The old money in the US that really governs the country is made up of families that had their roots in a lot of quirky religions that were run out of Europe. Hence you can have tits in a margarine commercial in Europe, but if a shrouded nipple shows up in a TV show it is chased down by investigators. Ironically, it is pretty much only in the fundamentalist whacky Muslim sect countries where you will find the equivalent of a Pat Robertson and his ilk claiming god kills millions for considering gay marriage and teaching evolution. You wonder why youth is violent, but consider that the unintended message is that American society prefers extreme violence to demonstrative physical love between people. The reality is each one of us is here because two people got laid. If they had been killed...

Frankly, it would appear, the Europeans had the right idea with these whack-jobs.

How Strange some people can't change channels

[thunderpaws]

It appears to me that the folks who are upset about this so called indecency have issues. I saw the program, and as so often is the case in "Without a Trace" when the subject is a young person or child, the "message" is along the lines of 'Do you know where your children are, or what your children are doing?' I can only assume that these folks are really upset because they they don't know what thier children are doing, and this program showed them up.

PBS station fined for Documentary

[TheSync]

Even a PBS station was fined by the FCC today.

KCSM-TV, a San Mateo, CA Community College District noncommercial station was fined $15,000 for airing an episode of the Emmy-award-winning Martin Scorsese-produced documentary "The Blues." In it, a hip-hop musician says "I'll buy some [expletive].. This is the kind of [expletive] I buy!"

For a station their size, $15,000 is a major hit!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tricky Congresspeople...

[Randym]

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;....

No problem, we'll just establish a separate entity called the Federal Communications Commission to do our dirty work!

No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...

No problem, we'll just make it an administrative fine -- no trial necessary!

If the Bill of Rights were proposed on the floor of Congress today, it would be: 1) excoriated as too liberal, 2) vetoed by the President (if, by some miracle, it passed both Houses of Congress), and 3) ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court as insufficiently respectful of the government's right to secrecy and duty of national security.

So much for "protecting and defending the Constitution".

The solution is overflow

[Pig Hogger]

Overflowing the complaint system is the solution. Most complaints come from a very narrow set of individuals. This could be easily defeated:

Let's organize a loosely coordinated network that would, for every given TV programme, send, say, some 120 complaints or so. Each sender sould not sent more than 1 complaint per week, in order to sufficiently randomize the sample; the idea is that the onslaught of complaints coming from all over the place will overwhelm the FCC complaint-reception system, thus diluting the whole effot by those right wingnuts.

Ruled by fucking madmen

[Kirth]

Alright, this looks like an orgy; however, its not explicit in any way, and the people in it sure don't look like teens, I'd say they're in their early twenties.

But: What kind of crack does your government smoke to put up a law against "indecency" and regulators who think this is "indecent"?

Grow up. Overthrow your government.

Got to love the difference between EU and US

[SmallFurryCreature]

Well, parts of the EU anyway. Dutch tv has had kids programs with nudity in it for ages. Stricly educational off course. [smirk]

The extremely tame clip would barely register here. Not when a program during the daytime aimed squarely at kids has full frontal nudity in it.

But don't worry, with dutch parties like CDA (Christian Dicks & Assholdes) we will soon have the same puritan system as the good old US of A.

What happened to the idea of free speech anyway?

Re:Huh?

[Mr. Freeman]

From a Google search:
"Orgy has several meanings, including "a drunken revelry", a religious rite involving ecstatic dancing, an "unrestrained indulgence" (for example, "an orgy of destruction"), or group sexual activity."

Re:3.6 million?

[Qzukk]

Because there was no nudity in the show, no sex in the show, no foul language in the show, and nothing that anyone could have pointed to in advance and said "this is obscene content".

We're sitting in a country where people try laws like this over and over, against the internet, against computer games, against music, against movies... so this is a taste of what our future rights online hold for us should the government succeed in having a post-facto Miller Test type law regarding content on the internet.

Re:3.6 million?

[thatoneguy_jm]

I'm not sure if I'd go this far - have you seen this episode of "Without a Trace"? I don't neccessarily agree with the ruling, but to say that "...there was no nudity in the show, no sex in the show, no foul language in the show, and nothing that anyone could have pointed to in advance and said "this is obscene content"" is stretching it a little bit. The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well... Color me not surprised. I don't *agree* with the ruling, but I'm not surprised, either.

Re:3.6 million?

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well...

So basically they showed the inside of a club?

Re:3.6 million?

[Austerity Empowers]

So it had no nudity and no foul language (or none that bothered me). It did show sex, I believe one girl and two guys, several times. I'm not really sure anyone could make an argument that it was appropriate for prime time. It wasn't the healthy, happy kind of sex everyone needs twice daily, either.

I guess I don't see any reason this belonged on prime time TV. It really had no value and nothing redeeming. It seemed like a desperate plea for ratings and backfired. Put the show on 2 hours later, and I'd agree

$1 would be too much.

[babbling]

It's not the amount they are fined that matters, it is the fact that they are being fined. They "suggested" an orgy. It's not even as if one occurred where no nudity was shown, it was merely "suggested".

This is ridiculous.

Re:3.6 million?

[mikerozh]

Personally, if something like this appens, 3.6 million is like a slap on the wrist. Seriously, that is nothing for the big networks.

You missed the point. The point was that there should be no fine at all.

Re: Hypocrisy

[Black Parrot]

> I'm sure all the complaints said essentially the same thing: "It was so horrifying and shocking that I just couldn't turn it off!"

Most of these complaints come from groups who literally sit around watching television all day with pen in hand to keep score of the scenes that offend them. IIRC, 95% of the FCC's complaints come from one small organization.

I suppose if those people want to waste their lives that way it's their business, but what's sad is that the FCC feels beholden to them.

They shouldn't pay it.

[sgant]

If they had any balls, they wouldn't pay it. They should make a statement saying the no longer recognize the authority of the FCC to be passing judgement on decency and they only recognize that the FCC is there to pass out bandwidth registrations.

Tell them they're not paying the fine. Also tell them they're not giving up their licence and they're going to keep broadcasting also...what are they going to do about it? Send in the FCC cops to arrest thousands of people and affiliates across the country? If ALL