Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Media Television Government United States Politics

FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated 346

Posted by Zonk
from the moving-picture-tubes-made-me-do-it dept.
tanman writes "CNN reports that a draft FCC report circulating on Capitol Hill 'suggests Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity — by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching' The article goes on to quote from studies showing a link between violent imagery and violence in life, and discusses the 'huge grey areas' that could result from ill-defined concepts of excessive violence." Government as Nanny, or cracking down on an excessive entertainment culture? Which side of this do you find yourself on?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:16AM (#18049836)

    Which side of this do you find yourself on?

    I think I'd prefer the gratuitous sexuality. That's way more fun than violence.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I agree with that. I'd rather have some hardcore deep dicking than some pair of conjoined twins joined at the head on TLC. (The learning channel my fucking ass)
    • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:09AM (#18050096) Journal
      seconded
      Also it would be a good idea to correct MPAA's rating which considers that one boob seen shortly makes it "not suitable for children" but where gunslinging is considered okay.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by whereiswaldo (459052)
        I sent a complaint to Discovery Channel because of the advertising. I'm not sure if it's they who determine the advertising - maybe I should have complained to my cable provider?

        Anyway, it's pretty sad that I can't watch a TV show with my kids that has nothing bad in it because the commercials in between are totally unsuitable for kids.

        I know there's a lot of crap on TV shows but I try and avoid those. However, the advertising is another big area that needs more thought put into matching the rating of a s
    • Americans and Sex (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drgonzo59 (747139) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:30AM (#18050508)
      You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?


      Sex is something very common, a part of a _normal_ life. Violence is not! A 12 year old can see someone's head being blown off but 'Oh my god! Shield them from seeing someone's genitalia on TV."


      I don't advocate showing pornography to children, but I think they should be able the see the statue of David. I just don't understand why for so long, violence was accepted, but sex was not.


      If I had to choose one or the other, I would accept the display of sexuality to children than the display of violence.


      I grew up in Eastern Europe, and I have to say that when coming to U.S. I was shocked of how sexually repressed this country it. There was a story in the news how a theatre changed the title of the 'Vagina Monologues' to the 'Hooha Monologues' -- WTF!?


        A vagina is a 'hoohaa' now, because a grandmother didn't want to tell her granddaughter who is old enough to read what a vigina is? Well, what the hell is a hoohaa then?


      There is a reason why there are so many substitute words for female genitalia in English (hoohaa, pussy, box, coochie, hole, snatch, slot, nooch, fanny -- just a couple I could thin of right now.) This is direct result of sexual repression.


      Also, a couple of years ago, when 'March of the Penguins' was in the movie theatres, I was watching it with my wife and there was couple with their young (6-7 year old ) daughter. There is a scene in the movie when the penguins are mating. They were not showing close up of genitals or anything like that. The mother got up, yanked the daughter by her hand and dragged her out. The girl didn't quite understand what to make of her mother's reaction, she got scared and started crying. Then they came back later, just in time to watch the penguin baby chicks die because their parents couldn't take care of them. I thought, 'how sad', that poor girl...


      At the same time. This is one of the most violent countries in the world. It is not because of the guns, it's irrelevant, people own guns in other countries but the don't necessarily shoot each ther with them.


      And then there is the problem with violent video games. Children in Europe play violent video games. I love Doom, Quake and all of the other ones. But those children do not go and shoot each other as much as the American children. It is as if we cannot simply blaim ourselves, and our culture for disasters like Columbine, we have to blaim video games, or some other things that we can all point a finger to.


      Sorry for the rant. Hey if Linus can have a nice 'healhty' rant at the GNOME desktop, so can I at the American society ;)

      • Re:Americans and Sex (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nomadic (141991) * <.nomadicworld. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:46AM (#18050600) Homepage
        You actually make a very good point. I have always wondered how come violence is so accepted in U.S. and sex is not. Is it the puritanical legacy?

        No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.

        What I've found is in most cases where someone categorizes the U.S. as unique, especially in a somewhat negative way, they're ascribing qualities that are actually quite common--just not in Europe.

        There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by drgonzo59 (747139)
          No offense, but I think that betrays a very eurocentric viewpoint.

          None taken

          I only spoke about Europe and U.S. because I live for a long time in both of those parts of the world. I didn't not try to be 'eurocentric', I don't think Europe is 'better' and 'U.S.' is worse. If I did, I would be living where it's 'better', trust me. I was just comparing attitudes and values. That's all. I cannot claim anything about Asia and Middle East, as I have not been there and did not extensively study their societies

        • by tyresyas (826753) <`rtharper' `at' `aftereternity.co.uk'> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:43AM (#18050974)
          There are many, MANY cultures where violent imagery is culturally accepted, but sexual imagery is even more restricted than in the U.S. I'm thinking of the Middle East and Asia especially.

          Oh, yes, eurocentric. He should apologise for comparing us to the more technologically advanced and socially aware civilisations. Clearly, in America, we don't belong with them. I mean, we have the death penalty (unlike every EU member country and then some) like China, et al., we repress certain rights of homosexuals (unlike many European countries) just like the Islamic theocracies, I mean, who would EVER confuse us for trying to be ANYTHING like the Europeans. Clearly we're trying to suppress ideas in disagreement with the government and the Bible...
        • by Shelled (81123) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @01:14PM (#18052262)
          Asia? Many Japanese broadcast programs are full of sex and nudity, and more than a few classic Hong Kong flicks would be considered soft-core in the US. You couldn't have meant Thailand. Perhaps you were thinking Sinapore, where (it's said) even chewing gum is illegal? I do agree your country's mores are beginning to have a lot in common with the religiously fundamentalist sectors of the Middle East. Why you consider having elements in common with dictatorships and theocracies an argument for your point is another question entirely.
      • by skymt (968075) <skymt0@gmail.com> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:16AM (#18050772)
        One good explanation I've found is that sex is considered a private, intimate thing, to be kept in the bedroom; it's not exactly something you see on the street. Violence, on the other hand, belongs in public (so it can be known and stopped). Public sex and private violence are equally disturbing in the American view.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:57AM (#18051080)
          That's not really how it is treated around children, though.

          Sex is taboo. Children should not know about it. Parents are afraid to talk about it with their kids, and they protest loudly when the schools attempt to educate their children about it.

          It goes so far, that I have seen christian churches teach kids in sunday school that original sin was Adam and Eve's nudity, not that they ate the fruit they were forbidden to have.
  • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:19AM (#18049854)
    Gratuitous, horrific violence is OK, just as long as you don't say any naughty words!
  • Limit or Ban? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chill (34294) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:22AM (#18049858) Journal
    I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.

      I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.

      I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.

      For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by JasonStiletto (653819)
      I'd like to see more generosity toward what can be shown now. I hate the idea of living in a culture where things slowly move toward everything being made appropriate for children. It's little wonder when people are given a choice they move away from broadcast TV. All entertainment shouldn't be reduced to the lowest common denominator, but there will always be pressure for it to do so.
  • Yes but no (Score:5, Informative)

    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:24AM (#18049872) Journal
    I'd say that there needs to be some censorship in this area, but it needs to be well defined like it is here in the UK. You can show violence, sex and whatever else you like AFTER 9pm, up until 9pm you have to keep it tame. This means people can still show anything they like but parents have a fairly good idea of what will be involved after the watershed (9pm).
    • Re:Yes but no but (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blackest_k (761565)
      the 9pm watershed is outdated when we have such a wide range of broadcasts. cable satellite. The simplest solution with digital broadcasts woiuld be an age rating flag.

      let the user set the level they want to recieve and blank the channel when it exceeds thier set rating.

      Parents would appreciate the ability to keep thier tv kidsafe when they want and allow the rest of us access to what we want to watch when we want to watch it.

      some of us adults have to be up early in the morning, a 9 oclock watershed means l
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        some of us adults have to be up early in the morning, a 9 oclock watershed means limiting our viewing to family safe content.

        Unless you own a video recorder.

        I do agree, though, that a set of flags in digital broadcast would be good. On the back of DVD and video boxes, you have the amount of violence, sex, and strong language listed. It would be possible to add corresponding flags to the digital TV stream and allow people to install their own filters. If you have it set with a sufficiently fine granularity (maybe put it in the frame header) then something like a TiVo could even re-edit the stream for you. It made me laugh wh

      • V-chip (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tmack (593755)

        The simplest solution with digital broadcasts woiuld be an age rating flag. let the user set the level they want to recieve and blank the channel when it exceeds thier set rating.

        ...

        I do like the idea of perhaps dynamic self censorship.
        pick what offends you and have a database of the schedules flagging what you want or don't want to see.

        Its called a V chip here in the US. It picks up the rating flags the broadcasters send out with shows and can trigger a child-safety lock if it exceeds a level you set in the TVs configuration. To unlock it, you just use a PIN you set there too. Almost all cable boxes around here have the feature as well, and it was required by the FCC for all TVs over 13" made after Jan 1, 2000 to include them.

        Tm

  • Here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:24AM (#18049874) Homepage
    Stop regulating content completely and let parents do the regulating with parental control settings that are on pretty much every digital cable box nowdays.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Not everyone has cable, oh no.

      If it's unregulated there is absolutely no reason why they could not show a snuff film in the middle of the playschool kids TV hour.

      Regulation if done correctly is a good thing, if done badly is it a horrible thing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by chaoticgeek (874438)
        But if a snuff film was to come on then I'm sure parents would not allow that channel to be viewed anymore, thus resulting in the network going "oops" and learning from that mistake. I'm gonna bet that even though the network wants more ratings they are not going to go off the deep end to get it because once they take it too far they will get burned for it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jandrese (485)
        You act as if the TV companies would be completely psychotic, history has shown that they have a large vested self interest in not alienating their viewers. I think a deregulated TV would be a lot like our current TV except with a bit more nudity at night, and even then they would be coy about it. They wouldn't be dropping snuff films in between Captain Kangaroo and the Teletubbies because the advertisers would pull out of both shows instantly and the parents would not let your kids watch your channel any
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Chysn (898420)
      Parents are the most important part of regulating children's viewing. Not just the content, but the amount of TV should be regulated by parents. My young son has a TV in his room, and I have the V-Chip set to block pretty much everything but TV-Y and TV-G programming without violence. But every so often, 24 comes on at 8:00. Now, I love 24. And I, as an adult, choose to watch it. But I don't want my little kids seeing it. And the oldest of them is still awake at 8:00pm. I don't begrudge the violence
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bkr1_2k (237627)
        Maybe it's me, but wouldn't it be easier to not put a tv in his room? Far easier to control content that way than by hoping the v-chip works as it's supposed to.

        This is part of the problem, no offense to you (I've been guilty of it too), but parents using the television as a babysitter instead of doing things with their children. I'm not saying we've lost our way, but children need interaction and conversation. They need touch, and laughter, with their parents (or someone in a similar role), not just in
    • Regulation should only go so far as OTA tv/radio as cable/sat are not using the
      "public" airwaves nor are they free. Totally agree with prior poster that this
      is the PARENTAL UNITS responsibility - not mine. However, content providers - if
      they have a clue at all - will voluntarily brand all their programming with the
      appropriate rating so that V-chip and other technologies can be correctly used by
      said lazy ass parents.

      Yes, even I had a TV in my room - once I was 13 - and it only did OTA (cable
      wasnt
  • dumb move (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sh1fty (1019804)
    that's rubbish. tv violence has nothing to do with real life violence. the source of violence is bad parenting. instead of wasting all this money they should've given it to someone who could use it to really solve this problem, like social service or schools.
    • Welcome to Slashdot, where we claim to be smart but are really dumb.

      THE SOURCE OF VIOLENCE IS NOT BAD PARENTING! Everyone has a natural personality which can be shaped by parenting, but you have to accept some people are just plain bad and some as just plain good. Some people will be violent no matter what their parents do, while other kids will never harm a fly even if their parents try to turn them into a boxer.

      Parents are NOT the answer to every problem, they do NOT cause every problem. They are just peo
      • Your right, It doesn't really matter a toss whose fault badly behaved youngsters are.

        In the next few years we will have enough technology to track people and record what they do 24/7. And we will vote for it because no criminal act can be committed without it being recorded. So who cares whose fault it is? because we can send the scumbags to the electric chair without jury trial with 100% incontrovertible video proof of the crime. Just think - the jails will empty and we can execute more and more categorie
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cliffski (65094)
      you would do well to read about Bhutan:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,975 769,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

      This is the last country on earth to have no TV, until 2002. When foreign TV was introduced, complete with violent porgrams, the crime rate in the country went ballistic. The country now has all kinds of social problems that were previously unheard of.
      People often claim you cant tell the effects TV has because there is no test case. they are wrong Bhutan was a perfect test case, and a damning one for showing
      • Re:dumb move (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Pizaz (594643) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:49AM (#18050998)
        However, causality between the violent content in the programs that were broadcast and real life perpetrated violence is not established. For instance, what if the real destructive factor of TV is a) the social isolation and passive (non interactive) aspects it introduced into their culture that started keeping people at home watching crap instead of going out with their friends and families. b) the blatant materialism worship on tv that makes the viewers feel crappy about being a "have not." c) various other false imagery and notions about what is beautiful, what is desireable, how you should live your life, etc that eroded away in a few short years, hundreds of years of culture. So rather than single out violence in TV, i would simply say TV in general is a source of social and personal rot.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Shelled (81123)
        I lost brain cells reading that article. It was entirely the work of uncredited Guardian staff (sorry, I skimmed quickly to ease the pain) without citations from an academic authority to bolster the wild conjectures. Since we're making shit up out of thin air then, let's try this. Bhutan was a completley isolated and closed dictatorial monoculture for millenia, overnight exposed to the entirety of the Western low-brow culture at a single blow. The flood of new ideas and concepts are the root of disruption.
  • Sex or violence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fantomas (94850) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:29AM (#18049902)
    USians demand right for ultra-violence in media, get upset about female anatomy being shown (e.g. Janet Jackson's boob on tv). Europeans get upset about kids getting exposed to violence (big fuss in the UK at the moment because 5 teenagers got shot dead in the country in the last month, people really worried about level of violence) but happy with nudity... go round France, Italy etc and there will be billboards by the side of the road with topless models advertising perfume etc.

    mmm... your choice :-)
    • Re:Sex or violence? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Zarhan (415465) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:00AM (#18050046)
      USians demand right for ultra-violence in media, get upset about female anatomy being shown (e.g. Janet Jackson's boob on tv). Europeans get upset about kids getting exposed to violence

      Heh. I remember that once they had this commentary on some softporn show (might have been Playboy late night or something) about ads in Europe. The narrator was all fussed up "how can you actually remember the product when watching this commercial"....and it was a Rexona ad, with two women taking a shower after a workout in gym. I had seen that same ad and never thought there was anything sexual in it...but hey, being a Finn and frequently visiting a sauna I have never thought that nudity automatically implies sex.
    • by mshiltonj (220311)
      No brainer. I choose nudity.

  • Alternatively... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by muecksteiner (102093) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:31AM (#18049916)
    they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.

    Not the idiotic "bang, you're dead" type "violence" that you see all day long in gangster films and the like.

    No, they would have to show the real thing - where someone who is shot takes quite a long time to die, and does so under very disconcerting circumstances.

    My guess is that people would turn off their TV sets rather than watch something like that. And they would complain on their own accord - "think of the children!", but this time it would be a grassroots thing, rather than something which is being mandated from the top.

    And to boot, having seen such scenes would probably make children a lot more squeamish about playing with toy guns and "shooting" people as well...

    Or perhaps I'm still too optimistic about people in general - perhaps doing something like that would not achieve anything, except turning the nation's children into hardened psychopaths much faster than they are now... :-)

    A.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by robably (1044462)

      they could rule that any violence shown on TV must be absolutely realistic.
      It's a noble sentiment, but unworkable. The impact on the friends and relatives of people who are killed never ends. To be "absolutely realistic" the TV show would have to go on forever, showing suffering that you can't fast-forward through, you have to live through it hour after hour. How do you show that in a TV show?
    • by aepervius (535155) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:05AM (#18050368)
      Why do I say that ? Well remmember the Roman ? As far as I know death & blood were not faked. And somehow I doubt people were forced to watch, or stopped watching in disgust. Look at when there is an accident the number of passerby which comes and watch. Usually what slow down traffic is less the clown which have a look than the accident itself (especially true on 3 or 4 lanes freeway). The majority, if not all people, have this morbid streak to look at the misery of other and think "well at least that was not me". Make it real and people will not only be even more desenstivized to true violence, but they might even STARTS to enjoy it...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      My personal fantasy is that the interrogations done at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are filmed then shown on US TV. Every frame of the show would have a message at the bottom denoting the percentage of people in these facilities who were released because there was zero evidence linking them to terrorism. People have this fantasy that torture is okay because "we know they're a terrorist, and it'll save lives" but the real world isn't much like an episode of 24. If people had to face the consequences of the poli
  • bogus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gravesb (967413) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:36AM (#18049932) Homepage
    The FCC found one study that gives them evidence to extend their authority, ignore the Constitution, and further entrench the government in our lives. What a surprise. Really, for an organization that was initially designed to de-conflict the radio spectrum, the FCC sure has expanded. Police powers are supposed to be left to the states. The federal government is intruding on their power and citizens' rights. If its so bad, parents should do their job and not let kids watch it. If its so bad, then no one will watch it, and they will put on other programming. The thing is, people are watching it, and its what people want. Let me make my own decisions, and stop trying to be my parent. That's not the purpose of government. Defend me from the big, bad media companies, please, cause I don't have the common sense to turn off the TV and read a book.
    • Being a parent you can't be all encompassing and control every finite moment of your child, that would be a *BAD* parent. You have to learn to trust your kids and learn to set limits which is very very hard if tv is stretching those limits beyond means.

      Its a paradigm of media winning the hearts and minds of family and parents just being those people that pay for it all (in ways children can't conceive).

      I don't think the issue is necessarily control violence but i'd sure as hell hope my kids see boobs and c
      • by gravesb (967413)
        The government already makes many decisions about how to raise our children. They will continue to do so, further intruding into parents' lives. Why should we allow them to do so with TV, when it is so easy for parents to restrict what their children watch. Block content. Use a V-chip. But why should a social good allow for the government to ignore the constitution? Its a social good for them to torture people to get information that prevents terrorits attacks. But I don't support that. Yes, I reali
    • by DCheesi (150068)
      I don't like censorship either. But the problem IMHO is that they already have free-speech exceptions for profanity and "obscenity"(sex), but not for gory violence. IMHO graphic violence should be considered at least as "obscene" as a naked breast or a consensual sex scene. Granted networks have mostly self-regulated to keep the worst torture-porn type stuff off the air, but there's plenty of bloody death still being shown.

      If you're going to "bend" the Constitution for the sake of the children(TM), you migh
      • by gravesb (967413)
        I don't think you should regulate any of it, although I agree with your point that sex is better than violence.
        • I agree with your point that sex is better than violence.
          Fantastic line. I think I'm going to have to get that on a t-shirt.
  • Iraq? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:44AM (#18049974)
    Well that's one way to get the Iraq war out of the media before the next election, ban TV coverage under a "think of the children" violence clause.
  • Horay, in just a few more years TV will have moved online and we'll never have to hear about this issue again!
    • by 1u3hr (530656)
      Horay, in just a few more years TV will have moved online and we'll never have to hear about this issue again!

      Perhaps you missed the periodic attempts to create a .xxx TLD, and force everything that isn't kid safe to move there. And then block it.

  • by MichailS (923773) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:52AM (#18050010)
    not adults. So keep your knee-jerks in check. You will get to see your gore, only late at night.

    I'm a grown-up man who has watched action movies all my life, and I am getting pretty sick of the violence. It sometimes seems like directors try to one-up each other with titillating depictions of evil and suffering.

    I'm pretty sure mankind doesn't have an innate NEED to hurt each other despite what some psychologists hypothesized a hundred years ago - rather that it is a quick problem-"solving" (ego-scratching) solution that many stick to - and I'm pretty sure that if you expose people to violence all their lives they will become violent. Monkey see, monkey do.

    Another interesting thing is that in Sweden we have only a fraction of the level of violent crimes as compared to USA. I don't think we are by nature a more docile people, it's rather probably the result of a lack of handguns and generations of limited media violence. And we haven't had a war in 200 years.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Oligonicella (659917)
      Not true. Sweden had 10K volunteers to Finland when it was invaded. But, even given that, I'm not so sure it's a great selling point to proudly point out that Sweden stood still and allowed the German's roll over the rest of Europe.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172)
      . . .it's rather probably the result of a lack of handguns. . .

      Indeed, it's a well known fact that before the invention of handguns you people were complete fucking wussies.

      Hammers existed before nails; your ancestors used them to hit each other over the head. The tool is not the cause.

      KFG
    • Apply the "utterly without redeeming social importance" standard across the board. We could be rid of half what masquerades as "news," 3/4 of "reality" TV, 8/10 of the current sitcom and drama, 99% of "daytime T.V." and the entirety of the "WWE" all in one fell swoop. By the end of the process there'd be so little left on T.V., people would stop channel surfing and just turned the damned things off.
  • I'm leery of censorship and nanny-state style regulation of media, but the current system doesn't make a lot of sense. Sex and profanity are tightly controlled while violence isn't, yet violence is probably the most potentially damaging to viewers of the three. I think it would make a lot of sense if a single body had the task of rating tv, film, and video games and did so with a consistent set of guidelines as to what is appropriate.
  • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@gm a i l .com> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @07:58AM (#18050038) Homepage
    Fuck the children [not literally], I pay for cable not them. If cable/tv/whatever is bad for them, then make a law banning them from watching TV.

    Why should I be left with shite "family oriented" programming when I'm the one paying the damn bill?

    When 6 yr olds start paying for cable maybe then we should consider what's in their best interests.

    Tom
    • Maybe it the other subscribers who want the violence segregated, moron. And, just maybe, they outnumber the ilk of you. Most people in the world aren't dickweeds who don't give a damn about children.
      • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@gm a i l .com> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:32AM (#18050518) Homepage
        Yes, but the point remains they want to remove adult themed shows in place of the children oriented crap. I may remind you that most "children" programs nowadays that are approved by the likes of the CTS and AFA folk are TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY EDUCATIONAL OR SOCIAL MERITS.

        Long gone are the days of "mathnet", reading rainbow, bill nye the science guy, mr. wizard, and the like. Nowadays kid watch shit like anime, power rangers, teletubbies [wtf?] and the like. They're not "children shows" they're just mindless noise with less violence and more religious [but not moral] parading.

        If you were actually in it "for the children" you'd be for shows that teach kids science, literature, history, etc. Not bombard them with mindless commercialism.

        In short, this has nothing to do with "think of the children" and more about a minority exerting their will on the rest of humanity. It's about power and control (whoa, common theme!).

        Tom
  • Not today (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:04AM (#18050064)
    "by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching'

    Ten, fifteen years ago I might have agreed with this. But we have TV ratings now, and we have V-Chips that can cut off content based on that rating. So long as the ratings accurately describe potentially objectionable content in a program, of what possible use is rescheduling it as well?

    I can also foresee some sort of chilling effect: I seem to be under the impression that, after hours, broadcast television can show practically anything up to hardcore pornography, but even after midnight you'd be hard pressed to find a bare female breast, and then only on basic cable or some European import on PBS. Of course, I can agree that perhaps we do want a chilling effect on violence, but there's still the First Amendment and all.
    • You do realize the First Amendment was meant to cover speech, not yelling fire in a theater, slandering your neighbor, or cramming gratuitous violence down people's throats?
      • by Guppy06 (410832)
        "or cramming gratuitous violence down people's throats?"

        But cramming sex is OK?

        I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in recent decades there has been this new development called "the remote control." If you are displeased with the content you are seeing, it lets you change the channel or even turn off the television without leaving the comfort of your sofa! Brilliant!

        And, again, there is the ratings system and the V-Chip. If you don't like certain kinds of content, you can block those shows from bein
  • Why give a damn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:12AM (#18050106) Journal
    Television exists to stuff the viewer's eyesockets with advertising. The programming content serves to keep your eyes "glued" for the advertising.

    There's little of value on television that one couldn't learn more profoundly by going to the library, reading an encyclopedia article, talking to someone knowledgeable, taking a walk, or just reflecting. And anything that television does teach is likely not as worthwhile as any of these alternatives.

    Television being what it is (consumer hypnosis, not education), it's hard not to conclude that television is really meant to be a significant challenge on the obstacle course preventing serious thinking (and political action) in this brave new world.

    Bad government and multinational corporations thank you for watching.

    • I agree, television dosent do anything for me. I don't own one anymore because it has such a low bandwidth compared to surfing the net or reading. I can still see the odd show on someone else's box if something good comes along but I don't miss it at all.
  • They have a watershed, after which you can show pretty much whatever you want. However, before the watershed, no gratuitous violence, sex or swearing. Watching movies on daytime TV in the US, I was appauled that the FCC seems to judge whether a film is suitable for that audience by how many times someone gets violently killed on screen - every other aspect of the movie is left intact, which seems pretty fucked up, as the actual violent scenes are not as half as violent as some of the (non-swearing) langua
  • Watching American Idol or Fox News makes me a lot more likely to go out and hurt someone than Robot Chicken does.
  • Has no-one in Congress read the Bill of Rights?
  • So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alicat1194 (970019) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:25AM (#18050164)
    No violence, no shooting, no riot scenes? I guess the 6pm news will have to be delayed until 9pm then?

  • Let's face it, serialized broadcasting where you are told when to watch was always an artificial constraint of media. If all media was turn on the tube and ask for what you are looking for at any point in time, "protecting the children" would not be an issue since they wouldn't randomly stumble upon it.

    The real issue is, broadcasters cannot guarantee that a kid isn't around when they schedule a show, but you need to be in order to watch it. Get rid of this and this problem will draw back somewhat. Not entir
  • by oDDmON oUT (231200) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:56AM (#18050314)
    In an age of personal un-responsibility Americans have seemingly abdicated their will to use the most obvious control....the bloody OFF switch on the TV.

    Of course this would mean losing the electronic baby-sitter so many have come to rely on.

    Geez! What's a parent to do?
  • Alright, I haven't read all the comments, so I hope I'm not just repeating what someone else says (I doubt it, the quality of posts around here has been weak for a while) I'm normally all for libertarianism, the government should stay the hell out of how I live my life, until it starts affecting the lives of other. But I think I have to admit that I might side with the "censorship" side of things on this one. Sadly, WAY too many people use TV to babysit, and I really don't see why we need to highlight vio
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:15AM (#18050446) Journal
    Well, the basic fact is this. If there is violent content on TV or a movie, something really gross, parents have no qualms about engaging in a conversation with their kids and telling them the other side of the story and letting the kids know the right from wrong when it comes to violence. But most parents are very uncomfortable talking about sex to their kids and providing them with a balanced picture. In a ad-supported medium like TV they tend to prefer censorship. If they have to pay for content, like they do for print magazines or books, they usually dont bother. So it is easy to snicker at the parents and the American public for tolerating heavy doeses of violence and flipping out at the first wardrobe malfunction. But the fundamental cause is that there is not enough paid, ad free alternatives to TV. If that becomes possible, GoogleTV or AppleTV or Akimbo service or whatever, the demand for censorship will vanish. [Typing without my contacts. Please forgive typos.]
  • This is all because of people whining about how violence isn't treated equally with sex on television.

    Well, it shouldn't be. Seeing violence doesn't have nearly the social effect that seeing sex on TV does. Seeing TV murders doesn't make people want to commit murders. On the other hand the MTV generation is generation of female sluts and irresponsible little boys.
  • It's the 21st century, we're supposed to see more sex, not less! Oh... and in reference to the backwards comment: The penis goes in the vaginal opening. Not cheek to cheek.
  • I read it as, FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regular wich actually makes sense.

    Some theory has it that excessive violence makes people immune to it and more willing to accept it in their lives. FCC training the US to be mindless killers. Oh okay, killers, they already got the mindless part.

    Only kidding, americans. Europeans watch the US, watch you making a complete mess of things, and then, do the exact same thing, because HEY, it must work a second time?

    Anyway, what used to constantly happen on a du

  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:31AM (#18050878)
    Government agency announces it should have exanded role, increased powers. Experts reportly shocked at this development.

    Chris Mattern

  • by kentrel (526003) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @10:58AM (#18051088) Journal
    Good luck!
  • by Zaphod2016 (971897) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:03PM (#18052738) Homepage
    I've been watching "The Simpsons" on DVD this chilly Saturday morning, and I think Bart Simpson said it best:

    "Lisa, if you don't watch the violence, you'll never get desensitized to it."

    As an American, my biggest beef with the way sex is handled on TV is the BLATANT hypocricy. A legal-aged (and IMO beautiful) woman like Janet Jackson has a nipple slip out, and we scream bloody murder. Then, we dress our best-looking 15 year olds like whores, and parade them around endlessly during prime time. Finally, we arrest and scorne any of those among us who dare to reach for the forbidden fruit.

    Don't get me wrong- sex with kids is bad. But sex isn't. In fact, sex is how we got all these 15 year old in the first place. I'm not about to suggest that TV or video game violence is "rsponsible" for anything- unlike you, and your kids, it lacks free will. However, simply looking at the variety of violent acts among children, it is clear that something very bad is going on here.

    If I had a daughter, I would prefer she stay at home, dressed in sweat pants and 40 pounds overweight. However, given the choice between buying her a box of condoms, and driving her to the emergency room, I'd rather bite the bullet and suffer a few minutes of embarrasment explaining how a "winky" works.
  • by viewtouch (1479) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:05PM (#18052754) Homepage Journal
    How about regulating the violence perpetrated by the US government, by secret organizations funded by the US government and by the companies that build bombs, weapons and ammunition, then sell these things to governments and organizations all across the world. How about regulating that? How about putting an END to that?

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...