Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: FCC fines may increase

  1. #1
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Is increasing fines for broadcasting "slips" a good thing? or does it stifle free speech.
    I am with GW Bush when he says that the first line of defense is the parent and the use of the off button or changing the channel

    Broadcasters should act responsibly however instead of just proposing the raising of fines from a max $32,000 to $500,000 without a definative guide as to what is reasonably acceptable is going to make TV duller than it is already.

    TV should not be set to the decency standards of the most anally retentive person in the land or the most open minded person. It should be what a reasonable person can accept.

    The fuse that brought it all to light...janet jackson...to me was an over reaction on behalf of the FCC and to me goes against the spirt of freedom.

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    BigBank_Hank's Avatar Move It On Over
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,626
    This is one of those deals where there is no way to please everyone. I donít think that the fines should be increased I think that the parental supervision should be increased. There are some pretty racy things on MTV and I wouldnít want my kids watching that crap but thatís just me.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Quote Originally Posted by vidcc
    Is increasing fines for broadcasting "slips" a good thing? or does it stifle free speech.
    I am with GW Bush when he says that the first line of defense is the parent and the use of the off button or changing the channel

    Broadcasters should act responsibly however instead of just proposing the raising of fines from a max $32,000 to $500,000 without a definative guide as to what is reasonably acceptable is going to make TV duller than it is already.

    TV should not be set to the decency standards of the most anally retentive person in the land or the most open minded person. It should be what a reasonable person can accept.

    The fuse that brought it all to light...janet jackson...to me was an over reaction on behalf of the FCC and to me goes against the spirt of freedom.
    I think the FCC is quite justified in raising the penalty.

    The problem is that they don't seem to understand what "offensive" really means.

    Breasts are not offensive. They are just perceived as such because our society has decided that we should teach our children that nudity is bad, sex is bad and we attempt to control them with fear and guilt.

    Why a part of my body, something God gave me, is obscene is beyond me.

    If we taught our children about urges and consequences, acts and responsibility, then we wouldn't need the dramatic outburst over the exposing of a breast. That is just childish to me.

    Had Justin stated that he "hated them damn Niggers", well that is truly obscene and I would want his wallet drained.

    But as it is, we live in a Christian land, that seems to control our fundamental desires to procreate with fear and guilt, instead of education (yes we all lust, lust is as unconcious as smelling food and feeling hungry, masterbation relieves urgent desires) and responsibility (which if acted upon can have lifelong consequences.)

    To me, throwing equal fines on the bearing of a breast and someone voicing hatred or encouraging violence toward another, is laughable.

    So Vidcc, I think you only are against increased fine because the FCC is fining people for things that aren't even offensive.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
    Have a watershed.

    Different material allowed before and after it.

    Or do you have that already.
    A watershed for allowing racial intolerance and encouraging violence?

    A watershed is only good for "boobies" and adult material which are hardly offensive, but may require some emotional maturity to be able to handle seeing them.

    Fines should be levied against things which are offensive, not against body parts.

    Any offense at body parts is due to unhealthy societal conditioning, in my opinion.
    Last edited by hobbes; 02-16-2005 at 10:46 PM.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
    A watershed for adult material, of all sorts.

    I have watched many a programme which contained real racial intolerance, violence, sexism or whatever. It was broadcast after our watershed, which is basically a warning to adults that the programming may not be suitable for minors, for a myriad of reasons. Including but not limited to "boobies".

    Your society may see body parts as the only thing which is subject to a watershed. That's a matter for you (plural). Mine does not and is willing to broadcast genuinely adult material, subject to said watershed.

    However I appreciate the condescension in you post.

    Good, because I layed it on thick. Such childishness about body parts is laughable to me. The approach of coersion and guilt to control behavior has never and will never work.

    Teaching resposibility and admitting to our human desires is the only healthy approach.

    You really have shows that promote hating other people and races, and they are allowed because they are "late night"? That is sick. It allows anyone with an agenda of hate to spread the seed and any medium which broadcasts it, to give it a sense of legitimacy.

    Political proganda would fill the airawys, hoping to confuse and motivate the ignorant. Can you think of anyone who might want to broadcast his perspective? Lydon Laruche springs to mind. He may braodcast complete phish, but to the viewer who is not in position to demand accountabilty for his accusations, wouldn't that be infuriating.

    It becomes all about money and brainwashing.


    What healthy role do you see in broadcating hatred?

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    mogadishu's Avatar {}"_++()_><.,{}}[":+
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,759
    even before the janet jackson incident.. ratings etc where still totally screwed up. I went to see billy elliot with a few freinds.. we can't get in because it is R. We dont want to go home so we end up seeing The Ring, which was pg 13. I later saw billy elliot and the fact that it was R was totally screwed up. Fuck is said a few times and I think you see someone's bare bottom for a second but im not sure about the later. In any case, I saw one of the scariest movies ever instead of a film about a british boy who overcomes prejudices and becomes a ballerina.

    While I don't think these new fine amounnts will change anything, the new FCC is still going to Ruin movies and television. There is no way to accurately fine channels when the decision is subjective. But if you were to have strict guidelines, it would create more scenarios like my Billy Elliot experience. I also hear the new FCC chairman is even more hard ass than michael powell. I really am looking forward to watching TV for the next 4 years. Maybe in 5 i will be able to watch saving private ryan on veterans day uncut.
    signature removed, check the boardrules.

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes

    So Vidcc, I think you only are against increased fine because the FCC is fining people for things that aren't even offensive.
    I am not against the fine.... i am against the fine where they are not being fair and setting an appropriate guideline. It seems they are just saying "we will fine you if you get it wrong, but we won't tell you what is wrong until you do something wrong".
    If they set a guideline that a "reasonable person" would find fair and the broadcasters overstep those guides then for all i care they can set the fine at a milliongazillionquaddrillion.
    I only raised the jackson incident because that was the start of the overbearing FCC influence for many raising the fear of broadcasting content that they can't say with any certainty one way or the other that it is acceptable.


    Quote Originally Posted by JP fugley
    Have a watershed.
    That would be difficult with the timezones across America. A show being broadcast at 9 pm. in New York would be 7 pm here in New Mexico and so on

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •