FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows 531
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?"
I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3)
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)
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!"
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:2)
I can understand an arguement based on cost or red tape, but not on privacy.
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:corporate corpus (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
It was hypothetical (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Informative)
That might be do-able if it weren't for the fact that most of the operators have other duties in between station breaks that can take them more than 10 seconds away from the button, possibly even in the back production bay looking up a commercial that the playback soft says is on the missing list in the hard drive queue. Some stations are so automated that a board op isn't required, the local break is actually triggered by signals from the network.
There are also legal enjoinders against this sort of thing in our network contracts, such conditions brought on by the popularity of the infamous 'time machine'. Which was in fact a heck of a good idea, but the networks got all bent when they found we were making room for another 30 to 60 seconds of commercial time in a 1 hour program by removing no motion frames and pregnant pauses from the program stream. We are monitored by external entities, and the networks get a summary the next day of delayed or missed commercials. So now they must be carried in real time per contract else we wouldn't be that nets affiliate for very long.
Cheers, Gene
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having said that, I personally am against the rush to censor everything that we see and hear
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Interesting)
printed text not regulated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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?
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, burden of proof should be on the accuser, but you have actual evidence in your defence you can get rid of the court case so much more quickly.
I think the point still stands that keeping records of what you do is responsible broadcasting.
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Criminal court = beyond reasonable doubt. Civil = balance of evidence.
But it's EXPENSIVE to defend a case. In either case, just keeping a simple record (even crappy VHS) of the broadcast allows you to easily defend matters of fact.
Re:I don't understand ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:I can't understand. (Score:3, Interesting)
I do agree that there's way too much violence on american television, but for some reason that seems more acceptable that simply showing a breast. What is indecent is not the showing of the breast, it's what is being done with the breast. Britney Spears' video clips *technically* don't show
Re:I can't understand. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about time for... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's about time for... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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 watch TV if I want to (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Don't watch TV (Score:2)
I'm glad I've got slashdot to keep me away from TV.
Why don't they call it (Score:5, Funny)
The 'Janet Jackson Nipple Law'...
..it has a nice ring to it :-)
Re:Why don't they call it (Score:2)
Ok, you need to be severely beaten for that awful pun.
Yes. Yes, It Did (N/T) (Score:2)
Quite usefull (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Quite usefull (Score:2)
Re:Quite usefull (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Quite usefull (Score:5, Insightful)
"hey that was disgusting, put a tape in quick and record 5 minutes ago"
Re:Quite usefull (Score:2)
Re:Quite usefull (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the broadcasters can't have it both ways - if they want to prevent everyone else copying then seems reasonable they are going to be required to keep definitive copies for evidence...
Re:Quite usefull (sic) (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Do you really think that sex on TV, or women wearing tighter or more revealing clothing, causes more illegitimate children and more sex crimes? Where are the data to support this? I recall reading that illegitimacy is actually on the decline at the moment.
2) Why don't you also complain about violence on TV? People have been dying like flies on TV shows and movies since the 50's. Are we more violent because TV shows and movies are making us violent? People have tried to make thi
Radio stations already do this. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm shocked by your attitude (Score:5, Funny)
"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!What will the government be doing???? (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm shocked by your attitude (Score:3, Funny)
Amen, brother! FUCK indecent speech!
corante.com (Score:2)
It says "Filtered Daily.", but I think it's going a bit too far.
Isn't there a better source availabe?
Amazing they're not kept already (Score:5, Interesting)
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].
Public Domain (Score:2)
is this not a good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
unconstitutional? (Score:2, Interesting)
P.S. frouth psot.
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Who does it help? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:It's always "Won't Someone think of the Childre (Score:3, Informative)
Censorship by the back door? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
having your cake and eating it too (Score:2)
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)
Big Government (Score:2)
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."
Re:Big Government (Score:2)
I don't see the problem: (Score:4, Funny)
I rarely get constipated so perhaps I should take laxitive all the time
So let me get something straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Corps don't have rights but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good. I cannot fathom why this isn't done already (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Wasn't the VCHIP supposed to fix this? (Score:2)
Geez!
Don't like it? Do something about it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.
A Question (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Fox and P0rn (Score:3, Funny)
What I don't understand is... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Simple solution (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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. ... 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...
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."
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)
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)
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.
Re:Who gave the FCC the right.. (Score:4, Interesting)
So what your saying is... (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you paid for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are you paid for? (Score:2)
What your saying is where we draw the line of what can be said. Some people want it at one place, others at another and still more at another. Where do we draw the line then? At the most conservative point. I prolly wouldn't listen to that. At the most liberal point. Well then anything could be said (and many things that are way beyond what you would consider listening to or seeing on tv). Somewhere in the middle. Then it becomes a judgement call. That's what y
Re:So what your saying is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can switch him off if you find him offensive? Same as your boss tells you to shut your mouth, only you don't even have to tell him to his face, just hit that dial! The feeling of POWER must be overwhelming!
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. That's what the First Amendment is all about. Protecting speech that others don't like.
You ARE allowed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Current Administration (Score:2)
Re:Does it need to be read-write? (Score:3, Funny)