FCC Report - TV Violence Should be Regulated 346
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?
dumb move (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Limit or Ban? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Iraq? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good lord think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:So watching porn stops rape? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:dumb move (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,97
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 TVs potential negative effects.
"Since the April 2002 crime wave, the national newspaper, Kuensel, has called for the censoring of television (some have even suggested that foreign broadcasters, such as Star TV, be banned altogether). An editorial warns: "We are seeing for the first time broken families, school dropouts and other negative youth crimes. We are beginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world - shoplifting, burglary and violence..."
Re:They want to stop KIDS from seeing it (Score:3, Interesting)
And where are you free speech ideologues now? (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, the sacred right they've had since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the last decade or so?
When you talk about government regulating what they say on TV, some Republicans trot out the constitution like a prayer rug and wave it all around in the air. Their Speech Is Free. How dare the government regulate the media.
(I mean, the government has to decide who can broadcast. And it can only pick a few lucky people, and everyone else can't broadcast on pain of huge penalties.)
(But aside from that, those lucky few should be able to say whatever they want on TV. If you don't like it, print a newspaper.)
The Republicans said, Americans are smart. Americans are free. Americans can handle their own media without getting confused. They don't need anyone to look out for them. They choose what media to watch and what not to watch, and if they happen to see something not so cool when switching channels, oh, they can handle it.
And they are lying through their teeth. They don't really believe a word of that.
Their coming out to censor the media like this is how you can tell.
You're supposed to be able to take care of yourself when consuming the information that powers, oh, this entire democracy. But not be able to handle some violent or sexual imagery.
Megalomaniacal hypocrites.
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:5, Interesting)
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:They did it before (Score:3, Interesting)
This however is an excellent idea [slashdot.org], let the users regulate themselves by adding an age flag in the transmission. Regulation such as that suggested by the report only adds another annoyance factor to a medium which is already plagued by them.
Re:Yes but no but (Score:3, Interesting)
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 when I was last in America how the sound track on films would suddenly cut out for a second when someone swore, but this kind of thing would be possible on the client side with sensible metadata. If you're not watching something live, then it could even cut scenes where the sex or violence flags hit a certain threshold.
Interestingly, the DVD spec actually has a way of doing this already; you can create multiple paths through the same video footage. I believe it was designed for showing films with and without deleted scenes, but it could also be used to show a lower-rated edit of the same footage. To my knowledge, however, no DVDs have been produced that implement this.
Re:Americans and Sex (Score:3, Interesting)
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 and cultures.
Re:dumb move (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They did it before (Score:3, Interesting)
That is exactly correct. All such regulation is illegitimate; the 1st amendment to the constitution says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" It doesn't say "except for violent or sexual expression", nor are there any constitutional amendments that say anything of the kind. The 1st amendment is directed at the federal government (which covers the FCC quite nicely) but also keep in mind that the 14th amendment is directly interpreted by the federal government, via the courts to mean that the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) applies to the states as well.
At the time, speech and print was all they had; generalizing to video is a no-brainer, if they'd thought you could send pictures from here to there without being burned at the stake. The idea translates exactly.
This is just one example of many where the US government has stepped far outside the hard boundaries that its constituting authority (the constitution itself) set. Keep in mind that any censorship law the government makes is completely illegitimate. There is no possible legitimacy for laws that directly violate the constitution's prohibitions without proper revision of the constitution, meaning, a constitutional convention covering the appropriate changes, and ratification of those changes.
Remember that a government that steps outside its constituting authority has only one authority left, that of force and coercion. That's not even similar to the claimed authority of a king; that is what forms the basis for a dictatorship.
Re:They did it before (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is something similar to PICS [w3.org]. There are different categories. For example (from ICRA):
languagesexual, languageprofanity, languagemildexpletives, nuditygraphic, nuditymalegraphic, nudityfemalegraphic, nuditytopless, nuditybottoms, nuditysexualacts, nudityobscuredsexualacts, nuditysexualtouching, nuditykissing, nudityartistic, nudityeducational, nuditymedical, drugstobacco, drugsalcohol, drugsuse, gambling, weaponuse, intolerance, badexample, pgmaterial, violencerape, violencetohumans, violencetoanimals, violencetofantasy, violencekillinghumans, violencekillinganimals, violencekillingfantasy, violenceinjuryhumans, violenceinjuryanimals, violenceinjuryfantasy, violenceartisitic, violenceeducational, violencemedical, violencesports, violenceobjects
What could then be done is have the client (ie, the TV) have preconfigured settings based on the above ratings. Similar to G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17, etc. However, the user would also be able to customize the settings to however they wish. That's the important difference. Ie, if they believe that "nuditysexualacts" and is fine for their 13 year old but not "violencerape", they could configure it that way.
Re:And where are you free speech ideologues now? (Score:3, Interesting)
To all my Puritan-Facist copatriots: please stop legislating morality.
This whole issue of censorship is a simple problem with a simple solution.
Problem: There is certain material that people don't want themselves and/or their children to see.
The solution is as simple as Slashdot's tagging system. Content producers should be required to tag their programs with descriptive verbs like violence, nudity, etc. They already do this to some extent with the TV-Y, TV-MA rating system.
On my end, my cable receiver should be able to filter out programs with tags I don't like (violence, nudity, gospel). Problem solved.
The whole argument is not really about what should be censored, but who's value system is correct. Some people thing violence is worse than nudity/sex, others aren't offended by mating and think gratuitous violence is repulsive. Everyone's values are different, the problem arises when one group (the Puritan-Facists Fuckheads) tries to impose their morals on the whole populace.
The entire TV and movie rating system is based on the prejudices of these fanatics. It's not OK for a 7 year old to hear "goddamn", but its OK for a 13 year so long as there is no sex; sex and cussing OK for a 17 year old unless, of course, there is too much sex, then you have to be 18, or 21. Oh yeah, violence is OK at any age level.
Its time to move away from such a narrow definition of morality and arbitrary age gateways.
Re:They did it before (Score:2, Interesting)
I like that 'badexample' tag, and would use it. I'd like to see it expanded actually, as there are many different types of bad example being presented for consumption. The running insults that are present on SO many of today's kids shows really piss me off. These kids are seeing role-models engage in completely sociopathic behavior and it's presented at the preferred behavior... You know, "cool".
My kids watch exactly NO cartoon network, NO Disney, and not too much of anything besides PBS. Hell, not everything on PBS meets my standard, so it gets no play. I take my job raising my kids seriously, like I said before.
That being said, I've always thought that television censorship on the national level is degrading. I, unlike my children, am a full formed and functional adult, perfectly capable of making my own decisions. If someone else feels the need for censorship, perhaps because they do not feel capable of making their own decisions, well, they should probably just have someone make a program schedule for them and lock out all the other options. And for those who don't feel the need to take enough of an active part in their kid's lives to regulate their television watching habits, tough. You've had the orgasm, now take some responsibility for what you've done.
Sorry "Shawn is an Asshole" for turning my reply to you into a general rant, but hey, it happens.
This post is tagged: languagemildexpletives, pgmaterial
This post's production was tagged: languageprofanity, drugstobacco, intolerance, pgmaterial, nuditybottoms
Re:Is it so different? (Score:4, Interesting)
You would do well to follow your own advice, and to take this additional advice: read up some basic theology. It was not curiosity that was the reason for the Fall. Knowledge of Good and Evil implies the capability to act on either of them. Adam and Eve were expelled from Paradise because they had gained the capability to do Evil, which is something that does not belong in Paradise, which is a realm of absolute Good.
God forbade the fruits of the Tree of Knowledge because it would disturb the balance of Paradise by introducing the knowledge of Evil. The reason for the prohibition was promptly validated by the fact that Adam and Eve started by lying about their act, denying that they had taken from the Tree and trying to place blame on others.
Apart from whether or not you believe this, only a deliberate misreading of the text and the exegesis done on it over the centuries could lead someone to state that mere curiosity led to the Fall. It didn't. Neither did mere disobience.
As for the resolution of this, this is why Christians believe Jesus' death leads to forgiveness for Original Sin: Jesus shows the ultimate Good, sacrificing yourself for others. The core tenet of Christianity is that by following his teachings and if need be his sacrifice, we renounce Evil and commit to Good. I see no refutation of the validity of independent thought in this. In fact, the demand that we consciously choose to do Good over Evil is in fact a validation of the worth of independent thought. One does not get saved by rote regurgitation of dogma; Jesus' attacks on the Farisees and the Judeans make this abundantly clear.
Mart