FCC Fights To Maintain Indecency Policy 602
GovTechGuy writes "The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for profanity or nudity shown on live television. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that show nudity or profanity during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)
So you like the TV and computer to babysit your children. Instead of letting technology or the government raise and watch over your kids why don't you try it for a change?
Re:Le sigh (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Le sigh (Score:0, Interesting)
Two issues:
1. Women should show modesty with their bodies. The simple truth and fact is that most men are visually driven sexually, while most women are not. By a woman remaining modest, she reduces the sexual tensions that should otherwise not exist in a public setting.
2. Eventually, everyone gets indoctrinated with "adult" themes, but why force the issue with children? Children should be left to "be children" and not forced into being adults until they're ready.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at the hospital ER a while back and it was the middle of the night. The waiting room had a mother with her two kids (one a baby, the other ~ 2) and me with my daughter. Our SOs were the ones there for treatment.
Her baby was hungry and she asked me if it was OK if she fed her child.
I told her I didn't see how it was my choice, but since she asked I was fine with it.
One of the nurses (WTF? shouldn't they be the most understanding?) came out from behind their counter and told her not to feed her child there and suggested the rest room. I kindly replied to the nurse that this woman and I were the only two in the waiting room, that I didn't mind at all, and how would she like her next meal to be served while she was on the can? I think she considered kicking me out then thought better of it and let the poor embarrassed woman be.
I mean, had they offered an exam room that might have been fine, I'd see it as the nurse offering up some privacy, rather than shunning this person. Later the mom thanked me, and I told her about all the fun my wife and I had along those same lines. It really bugs me. Thing is, this woman even had some nifty shawl thing that covers everything up (wish we had that when my kids were that young).
-nB
Re:Le sigh (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong. being upset by programming happens a lot. This isn't always a bad thing. Art should be provacative. News editorials should be provacative. Expose articles should be provacative. Coverage of things you disagree with should be upsetting. Coverage of natrural disasters should be upsetting. Coverage of war, particularly of war, should be upsetting. All of these things should be on the televsion.
But the US Super Bowl is billed as a family friendly (for the most common meaning of that term in the US) event. That meaning means that it's OK to show one grown man knock into another with sufficient force to give him a concussion. That's family friendly. Showing nipples is much, much worse. I know that's fucked up. It is. But today, in America, that's the way it is. But if those of us who want to have the freedom to consume and produce things that some people find offensive, then we need to have a way for those people to avoid such things. And not showing nipples during the super-bowl is part of that.
Otherwise, we will always be at war with one another, always be trying to settle things by trying to legislate or litigate the point of view of the other party out of existance. The Airwaves are a public resource. Their use needs to be done in a way to, as best possible, fulfill the needs and desires of everyone.
Re:Fucking backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah - I actually find America is backwater in some ways. Nobody gives a rats ass about nudity in Europe, and while people do binge drink, it is nowhere near the problem it is in America (or Russia, but Russia has cultural issues as well - it is considered rude to leave before the vodka bottle is finished, for instance).
Re:Le sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with most of the thing you said, but some are weird:
>Flip a coin to make a decision as to who will do or get something and you're a gambler.
So? Being a gambler is not *in itself* bad, only being addicted to gambling is an issue..
>Sugar is a drug by every definition of the word.
No! When you don't eat sugar you don't suffer from withdrawal syndroms (or very mild one), same for caffeine, but you can't say this for cigarettes.
This is a very important difference..
>Governments run lotteries.
So? This doesn't make lotteries good!
Goverments do many immoral things: lying to go to war, etc.
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither of which killed people in the name of atheism.
It's a false comparison.
People murder in the name of their god, still do. Billy Graham sponsered and creted 10,000 church along the 10th parallel.
Church where the parishioners will circle Muslim towns and kill every man, woman and child in the town.
Muslims are doing the same thing to Christian towns. This is happening right the fuck now.
In BOTH CASES it's because of their belief in God. The do it in the name of their God.
The belief in a power that takes them above the law of man. by it's very nature, means people will feel anything they do in their gods name is good and morally correct thing to do.
Belief in a higher power is bad, horrible and destructive. Whether the higher power is a God, or an unquestioning faith in the government.
Re:Le sigh (Score:2, Interesting)
This overestimation of agency is what led to the belief in higher powers; the wind *is* an agent because it is safer to believe that it is than not, the sun *is* an agent because it is safer to believe that it is than not, etc. That is why we seem to be hardcoded to believe in a higher power; really we are just hardcoded to believe that everything around us is a dangerous entity or caused by a dangerous entity with its own motivations.
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right, it doesn't make much sense. Here is a part that does...
Imagine you are a major chemical company owned by an old money family with payed political lackeys at every level of government. Lets make up a name for them and call them Dupont.
Now imagine that you invent an amazing new product with tough weather resistant fibers that are suitable for use in any kind of rope. This is patented and you have the exclusive right to create this material. Lets make up a name for this and call it nylon.
There is a problem though, there is a cheap widespread naturally occurring fiber that is just as good as your artificial fiber. This means that breaking into the market will be virtually impossible. lets make up a name for this and call it hemp.
Fortunately there is already racially motivated and puritan dislike of the natural materials source. All you have to do is produce some propaganda to sway the opinions of moderates and maybe buy a few more votes and you can remove the competition completely.
This not only lets you move into the market, but to completely replace the market for durable weather resistant rope (because hemp was the only affordable alternative with those qualities).
Dupont is not solely responsible, but they sure as hell were instrumental in the final push that got it banned.
Re:Fucking backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
It might be explained quite simply as our culture is just too young with regard to some moral aspects of society. We're talking about a culture that is really around 400 years old at best and very much more mature 2000+ year old culture in Europe. Certainly some things are going to be better developed over there, such a more adult attitude to nudity. A lot of people here though do believe that the only reason its a big deal here is because prudish people make it a big deal.
Re:Le sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone is forgetting the oil industry backing as well. You see people always think of oil in cars. What they forget is all the oil that goes into the production of plastics.
Plastics can be made from plant oils, unfortunately they aren't very strong. Ford demonstrated the solution in the body of an old automobile prototype. If you reinforce the plant plastics with the strong fibers from the hemp plant you have a dirt cheap and very strong versatile plastic... patent free.
That's the problem with the hemp plant it is extremely versatile and yes there is money to be made with it, but there are no patents. Why make lots of money on a product when any farmer can compete with a patch of dirt when you can outlaw the cheap and freely available competition and flood the market with patented solutions? Its the same reason the drug industry hates marijuana and continues to release minor modifications of their drugs with new names and fresh new patents.
Re:Le sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't, but only because religion is so often used as an excuse for doing things that we wanna do anyway. I'm no kind of seriously religious, so I'm not offended by the idea that religion is the cause of terrorism, but no more do I believe it. I spent a year in Iraq. One of the things that the Army learned early is that a happy young man with a food on his table, a safe place to send his kids or younger siblings, and prospects for the future is almost never a terrorist. (Note the "almost". It does happen, but very, very rarely) Terrorist organizations recruit from the poorest of the poor, and they make concrete promises that a young man can understand and appreciate:
DRAMATIZATION:
"Go kill yourself blowing up the Americans. We will take care of your family, give them money, food, and protection. Also blah blah blah blah Allah, blah blah."
"Oh, yes? Blah, blah Allah? Yes! So um, you'll take care of may family? They'll be safe and have food?"
"Of course, we honor the families of Martyrs! Blah Allah!"
"Well as long as my sacrifice will make them happy... Oh, yeah, blah Allah, blah blah."
Look at any conflict which appears to have religion at its root, and mostly likely you will find that there are economic, political, racial, and/or cultural roots so deeply intertwined with the religion that you can't really separate them. A lot of the reason religion appears to be the source of so much tension is the natural tendency of religious people to assume that their God must support what they are doing. Look at Northern Ireland. Catholics vs Protestants, yes? When do the think the last time most IRA bombers were in a Church? Catholic vs Protestant is just easier to demark than "Native Gaelic Residents Who have a Bit of Norse and Some Germanic in Them" vs "Recently (in the last 400 or years) Immigrated Gaelic (With a Good Bit More Germanic and a Very Germanic Culture) Residents Who Also Have a Bit of Norse in Them" which is really what the fighting is about.
Re:Le sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
I might not have been so understanding, I'm generally not so ok with the public breastfeeding, but I too get pissed off when breastfeeding mothers are shooed into the bathroom. Bathrooms are dirty, and are no place to be feeding a child. My response in your place would have been to excuse myself to offer her some privacy.
An offer of a private place would have been the right course there, especially from a nurse. Obviously that woman did not bring her two small children to the ER just to find something to do for the night, she was probably stressed out enough as it was without having to worry about feeding her child. I fail to understand how so many places are not family friendly.
I'm not religious, but as a kid my mom took me to church. I remember the church had a separated sound-insulated private area for parents to bring small children. The kids would scream, breastfeed, and get their diapers changed in privacy while the sermon was piped in through speakers. Why don't places like hospitals have spaces like these?