Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows 531

Posted by simoniker from the he-said-what? dept.
The Importance of writes "Under current FCC rules, in order to make an indecency complaint about a broadcast you have to provide "a significant excerpt from the program or a full or partial tape or transcript of the program." However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence. But that is going to change. The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] [TXT] that will require broadcasters to maintain recordings of their broadcasts for 60-90 days. The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows More

FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows

Comments Filter:

  • I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Burb ( 620144 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:37AM (#9640364)
    Why is it censorship if you require the broadcaster to keep a record of what was transmitted?
    And if a broadcaster has something to say, whether contentious or not, why would you not want to keep a record of it?

    • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ann Coulter ( 614889 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:52AM (#9640425)
      If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?

      I think that this line of argument for forced recording of material is just like the old argument about hiding stuff: it is an attempt to impose more restrictions on innocent people.

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:08AM (#9640482)
        I think the point is that of course all broadcasters already keep recordings of all their output, so this is a no-op for them.

        It also does not seem that unreasonable to me that, in return for being granted use of the airwaves, you need to have an audit trail of what you have transmitted to 200 million people.

        Too much knee-jerking going on here. The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be.

        • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:17AM (#9640746)
          The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be.

          It may have escaped your notice, but the one thing that America has always claimed that set it apart from other countries is that it is founded on principle.

          KFG
        • "The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be."

          Oh, that's a nice line.

          I'll remember that the next time I decide to rob a bank.

          Moron.

          • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Funny)

            by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @12:00PM (#9643234) Homepage
            "The country is not run on principle it is run on pragmatism, and that is the way it should be."

            Oh, that's a nice line.

            I'll remember that the next time I decide to rob a bank.

            "It's just not efficient for all that money to be sitting around in a drawer all day when it could be out in the economy circulating around. Now fill this bag or I'll kill every damn one of you!"

      • Not really. If it's broadcast it's already in the public domain, and someone else could quite legitimately have recorded it.

        I can understand an arguement based on cost or red tape, but not on privacy.

        • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Informative)

          by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:16AM (#9640506)
          Not really. If it's broadcast it's already in the public domain, and someone else could quite legitimately have recorded it.

          No, broadcasting something doesn't put it in the public domain. That's actually one reason cited for requiring the broadcasters to keep copies, becasue it's technically illegal for viewer/listeners to do so (aside from time-shifting).

      • corporate corpus (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        "People" don't have FCC broadcast licenses - corporations do. Corporations, since they can't be arrested, incarcerated, or killed, among many other unavailable enforcement options, must be required to document their actions, to provide comparable evidence, of guilt or innocence, to that naturally created by living humans.
        • Corporations can't be arrested or incarcerated, but they can be killed.

          Where'd Ma Bell go? Oh wait. How about Enron?

          They can also be fined, and plus their Controlling Minds can be prosecuted for their actions (what's up with Ken Lay these days?)

          • Re:corporate corpus (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @01:43PM (#9644498) Homepage Journal
            Ma Bell is now several corporations, which, if combined, would be much larger than their predecessor. What do you call that, parthenogenesis? No, corporations are virtual, totally unlike the very real human.

            Enron is in the midst of restructuring various businesses for distribution as ongoing companies to its creditors and liquidating its remaining operations. [enron.com] Ken Lay, after years BBQ'ing and praying in Texas, was just indicted, so he's going to have to work again for awhile. Probably to avoid jail in exchange for not talking too much about that Afghan gas pipeline his buddy Dubya tried, too late, to get from the Taliban. Meanwhile, they continue to operate, though without the market confidence required to make new contracts. But their existing contracts continue to squeeze California, Oregon and Washington dry. That's not much like a person, either. By now, a consumer from the Pacific coast, a pensioner from the Gulf coast, or an investor from the Atlantic coast would have strung up Mr. Enron, or splattered his brains across a boardroom table. Mr. "Brains" Lay will instead be treated with much more luxurious respect and autonomy than would any disembodied organ.

            Corporate fines are financed by credit and revenue. Limited liability and "restructuring" are synthetic corporate operations impossible for humans. Corporations can be "put on hold", be in many places (or nowhere) at once, deliberate without cross-examination - all impossible for humans. Otherwise, we never would have invented these monsters to do our bidding - we'd just stick to real people, who don't cost an extra thousand bucks to incorporate.

      • Cost. That's why not. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Libertarian_Geek ( 691416 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:45AM (#9640976)
        If a broadcaster doesn't record everything now. And the government decides that they have to record everything and keep it on record, they now have the added cost of maintaining the new manditory data. There are costs for people, equipment etc. Even if it only added $1 of cost per month, they shouldn't be forced to do this. How does this relate to the 5th amendment? If you ask me, the groups who offer the complaints should be providing the proof, not the broadcasters. That's like forcing me to install equipment in my fridge that detects when I'm drinking on Sunday! (Illegal in some areas).

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Almost-Retired ( 637760 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:00AM (#9641698) Homepage
        If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?

        I think that this line of argument for forced recording of material is just like the old argument about hiding stuff: it is an attempt to impose more restrictions on innocent people.

        I violently agree. I am a bc engineer, mostly retired.

        Makeing us, the small market window on your home town here in the markets rated as 100+, responsible for what the networks feed us in the form of making us keep an aircheck tape of a 24/7/365 operation, at $20 an hour for the tape and another $10/hour or more for machine maintainance, will gain no real benefits to society at large, and will reduce our already too narrow operating margin by a considerable percentage. Its an expense smaller market stations cannot afford as it doesn't scale to the market size, but rather is a fixed expense regardless of the market ranking of the station.

        For locally produced stuff, like our 5 times daily newscasts & morning cut-ins, yes, we do tape those, but asking us to save every tape for 60-90 days will multiply our tape costs by however many weeks that would be since like most, that tape has served its "review our own perfomance" duty at the end of the week, so tuesdays tape for the 12:00 noon cast is then re-written the next tuesday at 12.

        These aren't $2.00 walmart vhs tapes folks.

        From another viewpoint, we are simply incapable of responding in real time to bleep out a embargoed word when carrying what the networks feed us, or of recognizing and setting up an overlay fuzzball in real time of such goings on as the "wardrobe malfunction" during the superbowl. Our operators were as wide-eyed as the rest of the world at that instance.

        Such regulatory actions rightfully should be directed to the source of the program, and not the 1700 something broadcast tv stations under the commissions purview.

        As it is, we spend around 60 man hours a week scanning the syndicated and one time stuff that comes in on tape before we air it, and often wind up editing out a word or 3, but since we cannot do that to the syndi's tape, its their copyrighted property, that means we have to make yet another dub on our own tape.

        This is an ill-conceived idea, really.

        Cheers, Gene

        • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @10:58AM (#9642428)
          Hmm... We've done this in Canada for years. The CRTC regs required us to have logger machines recording everything the station outputs (both TV and Radio stations). We used to keep 30 days of log-tapes, but they may have increased the minimum requirement since I was last working in a station.

          We always just used cheap VHS tapes on EP mode on disposable-grade VCRs - the tapes don't have to be anywhere near broadcast quality, they're just a record incase there are issues with the broadcast and a viewer complained (to my knowledge, it never happened at the station I was at). We'd just run two machines to make sure there was an overlap, then change tapes every 6 hours.

          Radio stations typically just use a big reel-to-reel tape on extreme-slow speed. I think they could get an entire day on one tape.

          They may accept digital recordings now (low labour and probably better quality), but the machines would have to be very reliable (probably a 2nd live redundant system as a backup).

          N.

          • Radio stations typically just use a big reel-to-reel tape on extreme-slow speed. I think they could get an entire day on one tape.

            ... they're just a record incase there are issues with the broadcast and a viewer complained

            This is certainly the case. I was involved some time ago with a radio station that had a dispute with the student union they leased their premises from. The student union president put in a spurious complaint to the police about the radio station advertising where to buy illegal drugs,

        • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:46AM (#9643035) Homepage Journal
          These aren't $2.00 walmart vhs tapes folks.

          Maybe they could be.... :-) I don't think their proposed requirement says what medium the archive has to be on. VHS on the really really really long run cycle would still be an archive. You could pick a more obscure medium like betamax too if you want in my opinion. I'm still against the ruling but it might be possible to stick it to the FCC with the medium you choose.

          • Thats an enticing thought. But with utility vcr's still available (BTW, this past years production of vhs machines was announced over a year ago as being the last run ever) I'm afraid price would win out over a potentially incompatible meduim. We should maybe buy a 12 pack of them so that we still have spares when the rest of the world has used theirs up :)

            Re: your sig. I don't have a lot of faith in the ACLU generally speaking, but you are definitely "preaching to the choir" about the rest of it.

            Cheer

      • If you have done nothing wrong, why not keep a record of what you have done? You only destroy evidence when you are guilty, right?

        It costs money to make and keep recordings of broadcasts. In practice, a lot of stations do make and keep recordings to protect themselves, but I think it's pretty unusual for smaller (i.e. low-budget) broadcasters to do that. (I worked for a while for a family-owned commercial broadcaster that did keep tapes -- two-weeks worth of 8-hour VHS taps of audio; and I currently do a

    • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:03AM (#9640466)
      When someone accuses you, he's the one who has to bring the evidence. You don't have to incriminate yourself. The new requirement is not censorship per se, but it helps those who want to control what other people can see, simply by shifting some of the costs to the broadcasters.

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by beuges ( 613130 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:51AM (#9640640)
        That was my immediate reaction as well, until I realised that if you're watching a show on tv, or listening to something on the radio, which ends up having 'questionable' material, you wouldn't have had the foresight to record it on the off-chance that the show you are watching/listening to would be 'questionable'. How often have radio DJ's been given formal warnings for inadvertedly swearing on air - it happens, and people phone in and complain, but it's very unlikely that someone is sitting and recording the show just in case the dj says something colourful.

        Having said that, I personally am against the rush to censor everything that we see and hear :)

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Refrag ( 145266 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:10AM (#9640721) Homepage
        With the Broadcast Flag, the only person that can supply evidence is the broadcaster. This is a good law. If we can ever get rid of the Broadcast Flag, this'll be a bad law.
    • Why is it censorship if you require the broadcaster to keep a record of what was transmitted?
      And if a broadcaster has something to say, whether contentious or not, why would you not want to keep a record of it?

      Why would you impose the burden of indecency enforcement on the overwhelming majority of decent broadcasters? Shouldn't the guilty bear the burden of their misdeeds?

      Besides, if the broadcast was so offensive, and had such a nefarious impact on society, shouldn't you be able to find witnesses who s

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) <mikemol@gmail.com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:43AM (#9640601) Homepage Journal
        and when you're (retroactively!) guilty?

        I'd be very surprised if the FCC had the power to implement retroactive law. Under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, no ex post facto law may be passed.

      • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Burb ( 620144 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:50AM (#9640636)
        By European standards, US broadcast TV is extraordinarily prudish when it comes to matters of anatomy. Evidence: the Jackson nipple. I have it on good authority that when it comes to violent acts, there's more on US TV. But this isn't of itself an issue about where the standards are, but a question about broadcasters accepting responsibilty for what they disseminate.

        Say you broadcast a live interview criticising the president. And someone comes up to you the next day and says you accused the president of imbezzlement. And you say "no, I said he was an imbecile, not am imbezzler, but unfortunately I can't prove it because I don't have the tapes..." then what?

        • Had Justin Timberlake pulled out a big, pus-covered rusty knife and CUT HER NIPPLE OFF, it would have been OK by American standards. On the other hand, had he bent over and caressed it with his tongue, he would have been performing for his new neighbors at Guantanamo Bay ;-)
      • I think it is a good idea for broadcasters to tape all broadcasts; not because I think they should be scanned for 'indecencies', but because it may have historical value. Even a load of crap like Big Brother might one day be of some interest to some researcher, you never know.

        As for indecencies - with more channels than tv sets in the US, I should think it would be possible to find another channel, if you don't like the language, subject or whatever. And the real indecencies - the blatant lies from politic

    • Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarkSarin ( 651985 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:55AM (#9640662) Homepage Journal
      I am seeing a lot of complaints about this being censorship, and in some ways I agree--the gov't should stay out of these matters, and parents should step in and take responsibility.

      In order for parents to do this, however, broadcasters must be honest about the shows content before broadcasting. Personally I deplore a lot of the material on TV/Radio these days, but I respect that they have the right to broadcast it, just as anyone who wants to has the right to listen/watch.

      Someone mentioned that media companies are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with the broadcast flag. Personally, I think that if they are going to make it illegal/impossible to record broadcast shows, they should require companies to record the broadcast in order to provide evidence of truth in advertising (hey, this show is rated TV-Y, but they are talking about sex, that's not right!).

      That said, I am comfortable with either situation--either make it easy to obtain the broadcast later, or make it legal/easy to tape it yourself.

      As someone who feels that personal liberty is of supreme importance, I think that it should be perfectly legal to record a broadcast. As far as decency is concerned, I'm not that concerned--censorship should be practiced at the level of the family. If you don't want your kids watching a certain show, then don't let them. Complaining to the gov't is not the way to go.

  • Government issue TiVo clusters!
    • I know that's meant to be funny, but seriously- Why burden the broadcaster with taping and archiving all this junk? Instead, have a large distributed system record it all for you. Yes thats right, the viewers. I'm sure that with all the TV addicts out there nearly everything gets recorded by somebody. It's just spread out in small blocks throughout the country.

      In the rare chance you need something as evidence you can offer a small "bounty" for a copy of it. Hell that would make even more people record TV

  • Don't watch TV (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 )
    I just tend not to watch TV.
    The most offensive thing is that the shows suck. It's pretty bad that with all the 'first rate channels' my cable company gives me, I end up watching Pauly Shore movies.

    • Re:Don't watch TV (Score:3, Insightful)

      by torpor ( 458 )
      Television is the enemy of creativity. There are thousands and thousands of things you can do which are more entertaining, more compelling, and generally more lively than watching Television.

      Personally, I find it indicative of the height of decadence in society today that we've got massive government agencies whose sole purpose is to keep content designed for wasting time within certain 'limits' of 'social acceptance'.

      I'll tell you whats offensive: the fact that 400,000 people a day are sitting in front
      • I'll tell you whats offensive: the fact that 400,000 people a day are sitting in front of televisions, doing nothing with their lives, and society thinks this is 'normal'.

        I think it's perfectly normal. People are lazy by nature.

        Besides, who are you to say what people should be doing with their lives?

      • Lets be a little US centric, 400k is only about 1.5% of the popluation, I'm sure it is way higher. Just think of all the guys watching sports, or Dr Phil.

        I'm glad I've got slashdot to keep me away from TV.

  • Why don't they call it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:42AM (#9640378)

    The 'Janet Jackson Nipple Law'...

    ..it has a nice ring to it :-)

  • Quite usefull (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zappa ( 26961 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:43AM (#9640379)
    Working for a radio station in Austria, we have about the same rules here (90 days, real airplay), and we saw it as quite a pain originally. We kept the records on mp3s wich got deleted after the "holdtime".
    One day we got sued from a company that a moderator had said "offensive things" about them and at court the mp3s were the key to show that this wasnt true. Since then we see this also as a mechanism to be able to show what really got broadcast in situations like this.

    • Which is a very good reason (and reasonably cheap) for a media company to record. It is not a good reason for the feds to mandate it.

    • Re:Quite usefull (Score:4, Insightful)

      by torpor ( 458 ) <ibisum AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:53AM (#9640428) Homepage Journal
      Thing is, why should the onus -only- be on the broadcaster in these cases?

      If you've got an indecency complaint to make, you should be able to make your -own- copy of the event.

      Copyright laws seem more designed to prevent open criticism of the quality of media, than the actual control of copy of that media. Frankly I think far too many TV and "Mass Media" broadcasters are getting away with nefarious info-war rubbish, and it has gone on too long... the public need education on propaganda, and they -need- the right to record all media they perceive, on persistent and undeniable basis.

  • Radio stations already do this. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:43AM (#9640380) Homepage
    At least in the UK, you are required to keep tapes recorded at the broadcast feed - ie. right where it hits your link - for three months or so.

  • I'm shocked by your attitude (Score:5, Funny)

    by not_a_product_id ( 604278 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:43AM (#9640381) Journal

    "Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

    Are you suggesting that education, health, freedom and peace are more important than keeping Janet Jackson's breast out of sight? You damn liberal!
    • "Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

      What will the government actually be doing? They hand down the law. It's up to the broadcasters to implement it. What, from teh lawsuits the courts will be busy. Maybe by a part of a fraction more than they already are.
  • No trying to troll, but It seems that corante.com is not a very good source for matter-of-fact reportage. (RTFA if you want to know what I'm talking about).

    It says "Filtered Daily.", but I think it's going a bit too far.

    Isn't there a better source availabe?
  • I find it difficult to believ that broadcasters aren't already required to keep records permenently for historical purposes.

    Just think of the millions of hours of TV that no one will be able to research. Admittedly most of it isn't of the highest quality, but still, some historian might well be interested in the future.
    The cost is nowadays minimal anyway. DivX, 400GB HDDs and backup tapes have made it simple to record everything that gets broadcast. Perhaps an archive of broadcasts should be recorded from all stations. I hardly think this affects anyones rights as we could all view it anyway.

    As an aside it's also very sad when brief exposures of a naked human breast are considered indecent [telegraph.co.uk].
    • That's just what I was thinking! Considering the spirit of copyright law, you would think that the FCC's primary responsibility would be to ensure that broadcast material survives to make it into the public domain.
  • Surely tapes can be used in defence against complaints too. e.g. "You said such a liebelous thing, and all my friends heard it", says the person making the complaint. "No I didn't, that could clearly have been anyone I was talking about, here's the tape to prove it".

  • unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 )
    Seriously, even though this isn't a criminal case, surely the principle should still apply that it's the complainant's (=prosecution's) duty to provide evidence to back up their case not the other way round? Not only does this violate the presumption of innocence but it's tantamount to requiring someone to testify against himself.

    P.S. frouth psot.

    • then isn't having to provide financial information assuption of guilt and testifying against yourself for tax evasion?

      and isn't license and registration testiying against yourself for driving whilst disqualified and car theft?

      and isn't a passport testifying against yourself for illegal immigration?

      what about politicians having to declare funding? isn't that assuming they've done something wrong and unconstitutional?

      no.

  • Who does it help? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:48AM (#9640403)
    From what I can tell, only a minority of the population would actually care enough about TV to actually complain. Most people just turn off the tv or watch something else when something's on that they don't like.

    Back, a long time ago, (I think), there were many, many complaints about a lingerie poster with Kylie Minogue in it. A couple of hundred got through, out of about 20000, IIRC. Even if that seems significant, more people entered a competition to win the poster than the number of people who complained.

    Why make laws to fix a problem when it can be fixed with an ON/OFF switch? I for one am sick of these 'think of the children!!!' laws, which don't help the children at all. Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things. My parents have tried to give me certain opinions my whole life. Trying to censor information isn't the way to make things good. Especially when you can't stop it after it has been done.
    • True. I could probably write into half the TV channels I have access to about content I don't like, but I don't because I have enough sense to know that many more people actually want to see it, and that I don't have to watch it. I have the common sense to avoid the programmes I know I'll find offensive and I'm quite happy doing so. Do I have the right to dictate to the country what they should be able to see based on my own opinions? No.

      I think "protecting the children" is a load of rubbish. Sure, I would

  • It's always "Won't Someone think of the Children?" (Score:4, Informative)

    by bheer ( 633842 ) <rbheer AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:49AM (#9640412)
    Doesn't the government have better things to do?

    Uh, no.

    Actually, between large numbers parents who vote (and organize themselves into pressure groups), and the large numbers of twentysomethings who don't vote, and teenagers who *can't* vote, who do you think makes a more effective pressure group? Who do you think the guv'mint will try to pander to?

    Off topic: I've been reading this [foxnews.com] and been wondering about how much of this "won't someone think of the children" crap would still exist if legal age for voting was 14 or 15.

  • Censorship by the back door? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mant ( 578427 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:50AM (#9640414) Homepage

    While keeping the tapes seems reasonable, making complaints easier looks rather like censorship through the backdoor.

    Rather than a govenrment body directly cracking down, they can say they are responding to complaints, and fear of complaints may force some broadcasters to change things.

    That is a bit tinfoil hat thinking, but some people in the current US admistration do seem very keen on "cleaning things up" (Ashcroft anyone?).

  • Why government listens to these people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:51AM (#9640420) Homepage Journal
    Doesn't the government have better things to do?

    Yes. However, since the prudes (religiously motivated prudes in particular) make a very loud crowd that also tends to vote, the government listen to them.

    I for one am worried about the recent re-emergence of social conservatism both in Europe and abroad. One good thing about conservatism is that it encourages people to vote. Voting just doesn't seem to be "cool" amongst the young social liberals and now we're seeing the results.

  • Parents responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JRSiebz ( 691639 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @06:53AM (#9640426)
    Shouldn't this parent's tv society or whatever be reponsible for what tv shows they let their children watch, instead of attempting to censor tv for all of us. Their site didn't even rate south park, I really wanted to see how they reviewed it, haha.
  • Doesn't the government have better things to do?

    Certainly it does, but as so many people here remind us that the airwaves are a public trust and the govt should guarantee access, stop Clear Channel, etc etc etc, this kind of intrusiveness is the cost.

    Personally, I am all for complete privatisation of frequencies that can be bought and sold.

  • copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by capoccia ( 312092 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:00AM (#9640449) Journal
    how is an individual supposed to make said tape in light of current copyright laws?
  • "Doesn't the government have better things to do?"

    Not since FDR it doesn't. Now the government can do EVERYTHING that the people want right now at the moment. The thinking since him is summed up nicely by what our "conservative" president said: "When somebody hurts, government has a responsibility to move."

  • I don't see the problem: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Artega VH ( 739847 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:01AM (#9640456) Journal
    "However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence."

    I rarely get constipated so perhaps I should take laxitive all the time

  • So let me get something straight... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:04AM (#9640469) Homepage Journal
    I have read many complaints here. And I want to get somethign straight. There is complaining because a bunch of tv stations with a lot of money have to record and keep on file what their overpaid broadcasters say/do on air. This is in case they do something they are not allowed to do so they can be held laible for their actions.

    I'm sorry. If someone does something they know is wrong and do it on the air... then they should just own up. There are consequences to your actions. If they screw up they can own up.

  • Er? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HAL9OOO ( 682857 )
    But it's an offence to copy onto a video tape! So how do I legally present present this "evidence" in court. Even if I win the indecency case I'll probably get sued for breach of copyright or circumventing the DMCA or whatever else trumped up charge the corporate pond life can get away with.

  • Corps don't have rights but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omega1045 ( 584264 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:24AM (#9640534)
    I know corporations are not really given any rights under the constitution. However, the 5th Amendment specifically says, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Could being forced by the government to keep tapes for the specific purpose that said tapes might be used against you in the future during a criminal proceeding go against this concept?
  • I'm quite amazed that this isn't already demanded for broadcasters. I would think they should be required to provide full recordings of every program they make (but drop the advertisement), and submit to the national library.

    I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, that this is already done in Norway - and everything is archived in the national library. I'll have to say I would be terribly disappointed if this isn't done.

    Remember that great scifi-series has been lost for all time, due to not beeing
  • Don't people understand that the VCHIP can block out based on Sex, dialog, violence, or age?

    Geez!

  • Don't like it? Do something about it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dave-tx ( 684169 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {todhsals+80891fd}> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:35AM (#9640564)
    There's one way to enact change on this front - register to vote, then in November vote Bush out of office. This has got to reach a point when even registered Republicans have had enough.

    I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.

  • A Question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by segfault7375 ( 135849 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:37AM (#9640577)
    The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy.

    But doesn't the FCC only have power over the broadcast networks? Cable and satellite are pay services unlike the over the air networks. I know the FCC has a lot of power, but can't the cable networks tell the FCC to suck it? Channels like HBO & Showtime can show whatever they want, does this not also apply to places like Comedy Central? I have seen the South Park movie shown uncut on Comedy Central (albeit at 1am). It seems to me that the censorship on cable networks has far more to do with them not offending thier advertisers than the FCC.

    Segfault

  • Corporations can't "self" incriminate (Score:3, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:45AM (#9640616) Homepage Journal
    A corporation doesn't have a "self" - it's not a person, so it has only a few attributes created by people. So it has no "right" to freedom from self incrimination, guaranteed to people in the Constitution's 5th Amendment. These records will be useful in documenting a media corporation's actions, so real people can have a chance getting remedies to damaging actions.

  • Fox and P0rn (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fubar411 ( 562908 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:49AM (#9640634)
    Some of you may habe seen this, but this guy is calling on the FCC to do something about how Fox news showed actual penetration during a promo ad. Sure, they blurred out the boob, but they didn't do anything about that large penis downstairs... (not safe for work, but these are downloadable clips) http://homepage.mac.com/mjsmitho/FoxNewsPornSlip/F oxOpps.html

  • What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fataugie ( 89032 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:52AM (#9640645) Homepage
    Why something said on the Howard Stern show back 2 1/2 years ago is all of a sudden something that needs to be investigated. 2 years ago, no one had a problem with it. Why now?

    I'll tell you why

    Because whoever is behind this shit sees the blood in the water and is now looking at past tapes to see if they can apply Today's standards to yesterday's broadcasts.

    I think it stinks and is completely unfair.

  • Parents should be parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @07:58AM (#9640674)
    Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.

    The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.

    The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.

    What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.

  • lets bring up the tolerance level (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:21AM (#9640766)
    the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do

    In other words, does the government have anything better to do than listen to a group of people that I don't agree with. That seems to be what the story submitter is implying. Fortuneately the government does listen to various groups of people with differing opinions on matters. That's why you have your free voice too -- because you belong in a group of people who (I imply) may speak out for less censorship. By indicating the goverment should ignore the opinion of a group of people under the guise of "government [has] better things to do", you would be diminishing the voice of a group of people, and that seems to be a dictatorship rather than a democracy. Now cue the arguments about what is democracy :)

  • Howard Stern... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LazyBoy ( 128384 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:43AM (#9640959)
    ...has been throwing a lot of light on the tactics of the FCC lately. (Like fines for things that happened years earlier, withholding license renewals for companies that want to take the issue to court, etc.) This is probably a response.

    As someone else already pointed out, they're putting the burden of proof on the accused not the accuser.

  • Waste of my taxes. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThatDamnMurphyGuy ( 109869 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @08:49AM (#9641016) Homepage
    This is what I really hate about the FCC and groups like the PTC. They should have no say is what I can or can't watch or listen to and what can or can't be shown/said on TV and radio.

    The only duty they should have is to enforce the accurate and complete labeling of what a show contains (Adult Language, Nudity, Violence, R X, PG etc) and keep those ratings honest.

    Let me decide what I want to see and hear, not some coucil with a stick up their ass who freaks everytime they hear the work ass or bitch on TV.

    Parent your children. There are two knobs: volume and power. Use them. Don't force my favorite shows to a G level because you can't parent your children or use a remote control.

    A prime example. After the Janet Jackson thing, the Bob and Tom radio show simply sucks. They can't play or say nearly any of the things they used to, so now I don't listen to them any more.

    All because someone couldn't handle the site of a nipple on TV.

  • Woah - what about the broadcast flag? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sbaker ( 47485 ) * on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:12AM (#9641220) Homepage
    Did I read that right? In order to for me to bring a complaint against the broadcaster, *I* have to provide a tape of the show? Doesn't that conflict rather seriously with the broadcast flag that will in future prevent me from making that recording?

  • Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Thursday July 08, 2004 @09:46AM (#9641511)
    In the UK, television stations can show whatever they like after 21.00; I don't know when in the morning they are obliged to start being "family-friendly". In Mainland Europe, I believe the system is even simpler: everyone understands that television broadcasts are {primarily} for adults, and parents are entirely responsible for deciding what their kids should or should not watch.

    If you don't like what you see, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it. And if you can't stop your kids watching TV when they shouldn't be, then you are an unfit parent.

  • The lastest PTC "Action Alert" (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dead_Smiley ( 49033 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @11:28AM (#9642829) Journal
    ==== BEGIN PASTE ==== I am outraged at the unbelievably gory violence, gratuitous explicit sex, perversion and filthy language on the FX Network series "Nip/Tuck" -- a program your company is bankrolling by agreeing to be sole sponsor of its season premiere episode.

    American families are being poisoned by the extremely offensive content in this show. Such TV programming is seriously harming America's children and grandchildren, and SPONSORS LIKE YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT WITH YOUR ADVERTISING BUDGET!

    I applaud Carfax, Orbitz, Castrol, Progressive Insurance, Capital One, Cingular Wireless, Gateway Computers, Schering-Plough, Chattem, Orange Glo and Alcon Laboratories -- early sponsors during "Nip/Tuck's" first season -- for their decisions to stop paying for commercials on the show. By showing true corporate responsibility, these sponsors have earned the thanks of every parent and grandparent in America.

    But by making the opposite decision and striking a deal with "Nip/Tuck" to bankroll its season premiere, XM SATELLITE RADIO HAS DISPLAYED CORPORATE IRRESPONSIBILITY.

    The creator of "Nip/Tuck" has declared that it is his aim to remove every barrier to depiciton of explicit sex on TV. By paying for "Nip/Tuck," you are supporting him in this aim.

    Therefore, I am hereby joining with the Parents Television Council in calling upon you to stop paying for the shameful gross-out content of "Nip/Tuck."

    I suggest that you read the summary of "Nip/Tuck's" content which the Parents Television Council has compiled (see below), and then decide whether this is the image you want American consumers -- your potential customers -- to have of your company.

    With my support, if XM SATELLITE RADIO persists in its financial backing of "Nip/Tuck," the Parents Television Council will do everything possible to ensure that your potential customers become aware of the "Nip/Tuck" content that your company's commericals are paying for.

    Here is a summary of the first-season content on "Nip/Tuck."

    [WARNING: The following content summary during "Nip/Tuck's" first season is explicit and will be EXTREMELY offensive to many. Bear in mind that it appeared on basic-cable television where it was available to millions of children.]

    GRAPHIC SELF-CIRCUMCISION SCENE: Dr. McNamara's son, Matt, performs a circumcision on himself at home. Since his girlfriend is turned off by his extra foreskin, Matt decides to go to a website and learn how to perform the operation on himself. Matt removes his pants. We see Matt's upper body. We hear the instructions going on in his head: "For the first cut, grip the foreskin and pull it out. Cut in circular motion in a thin quarter inch strip." We see him looking down as he cuts at the foreskin of his penis. We see him shudder, then he looks at his hand, which is covered in blood. He faints.
    FOUL LANGUAGE: In describing a liposuction he did on a patient's chin, Dr. Troy says: "I sliced that bitch's waddle off 15 months ago." ... Drs. McNamara and Troy talk about a patient who wants to have sex with the latter in return for not reporting a surgical error; Troy says, "Are you actually telling me to stick my dick in the Crypt Keeper to make your mistake go away?" ...Words like asshole, shit, tit, and dick are commonplace...

    In a recent episode, Kimber says: "I'm the one with candle wax burns on her ass. I'm the one standing out on the street corner with her tits hanging out. I bust my butt to fulfill every sexual desire you have. I want a little goddamn appreciation."
    Other examples of foul language:
    Troy: "20 milligrams of Vicodin and a blowjob will clear that right up."
    Troy: "You know what they say, for every beautiful woman there is a guy who is tired of screwing her."
    Troy: "You are the hottest piece of ass in this place. And you're mine. But if I am going to do this one woman thing, I can't be with just one woman."
    Lexy: "I read this thing in People about 12 year-olds giving blow jobs to

  • agian, this would be easy for CC, but not edu (Score:3, Insightful)

    by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @01:45PM (#9644516) Homepage
    clear channel or huge commercial stations can swing this easily.... but again this is another thing that would be a nightmare for shoestring budgetted non-commercial / community / educational radio stations.

    i realize it's easier to archive 90 days than it was 20 years ago, but 90 days of audio 24/7 recorded and archived is a lot of mess for smaller stations.

    there are still plenty of little stations that have the DJ record their show on cassettes. if i remember right the current rule only requires the archive to be kept for 2 weeks. obviously some people (Howard Stern, Rush etc) archive everything they do.

  • God Bless Canada (Score:3)

    by Deltan ( 217782 ) on Thursday July 08, 2004 @02:13PM (#9644856)
    While you silly Americans are arguing over Janet's boob, Canadians enjoy uncensored television. The only programs that are censored are the ones on US Stations or "pre-bleeped" from the US.

    Canada enjoys such wonderful shows as, Trailer Park Boys [showcase.ca], KinK [lifenetwork.ca], and uncensored Sopranos and Osbournes on broadcast TV.

    Silly Americans, when will people stop believing the government is their mom? Put the power in the hands of parents to keep an eye on what their kids are watching. These are the same nutjobs that will ruin the internet for the rest of us. :/

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close