PDA

View Full Version : FCC Rejects PTC Complaints about "Friends", "The Simpsons"


SirFozzie
01-24-2005, 04:15 PM
Good. I think a couple of these shows were singled out not because it was bad, but because it made them look big in trying to stand up against popular TV.

The last bit though, I'm not sure about, but since I didn't see it, I can't judge it. Something the RTC, er PTC (wrestling inside joke) should remember..

FCC rejects indecency complaints over "Friends," "The Simpsons"

By Genaro C. Armas, Associated Press | January 24, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Regulators rejected 36 complaints of indecency Monday against popular TV shows including "Friends" and "The Simpsons."

The objections had been filed with the Federal Communications Commission by the Parents Television Council, a watchdog group that frequently complains about sex and violence on television.

"In context, none of the segments were patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, and thus not indecent," the agency said in a statement. The FCC also ruled "the material was not profane, in context."

Three members of the five-member FCC approved the orders: Chairman Michael Powell and Kathleen Abernathy, both Republicans; and Democrat Jonathan Adelstein. The two other commissioners, Democrat Michael Copps and Republican Kevin Martin, dissented on parts of the rulings.

Copps said in a statement that the agency should have performed a more thorough investigation. "I believe that some of these broadcasts present a much closer call," he said.

Powell last week announced he was leaving the FCC in March. Martin, who has been rumored to be among candidates to replace him as chairman, said nothing about the complaints.

The Parents Television Council alleged that the programs, which aired between Oct. 29, 2001, and Feb. 11, 2004, contained sexually explicit segments or used indecent or profane language that violated indecency standards.

"In what community in America are graphic terms for genitalia decent?" said Lara Mahaney, a spokeswoman for the council. "The commission's ruling added no clarification and added more confusion."

One complaint involved an episode of NBC's "Friends" that aired in May 2003. In it, a female character, her husband and the husband's ex-girlfriend talk about a fertility treatment at a medical office.

A complaint over "The Simpsons," which airs on Fox, included a scene in which students carried picket signs with the phrases "What would Jesus glue?" and "Don't cut off my pianissimo."

Federal law bars nonsatellite radio and noncable television stations from airing references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are more likely to be listening and watching.

The FCC said the segments in question "were not patently offensive" within the context of the shows.

The FCC's responses to indecency complaints have received extra scrutiny since singer Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at last year's Super Bowl halftime show.

The FCC received more than 1 million indecency complaints in 2004, most of them involving the exposure of Jackson's breast during her performance. Fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year, a huge increase from the $48,000 imposed in 2000, the year before Powell became chairman.

Powell has said the crackdown was in response to mounting complaints from consumers and Congress.

Copps criticized Monday's rulings as "rather cursory decisions" that did not address the objections of viewers nor those of skittish broadcasters worried about what may be too racy to air. He singled out concern for a movie that aired on ABC in May 2003, "The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer."

A scene from the movie cited in the complaint included a male character tying up a woman in bed and then applying ice to her abdomen.

Several House and Senate members say they plan to introduce bills in the next few weeks to raise the maximum indecency fine. A similar bill that would increase the top fine from $32,500 to as much as $500,000 per incident stalled in Congress.

Joe
01-24-2005, 04:21 PM
whiners

JeeberD
01-24-2005, 04:28 PM
Some people seriously need to get a life...

SirFozzie
01-24-2005, 04:30 PM
when you consider 99.9% of the complaints the FCC sees are generated by this group and it's campaigns.. I think it IS their life.

heybrad
01-24-2005, 04:31 PM
This seems so childish.

Glengoyne
01-24-2005, 04:46 PM
Hey Brad!

sterlingice
01-24-2005, 06:45 PM
when you consider 99.9% of the complaints the FCC sees are generated by this group and it's campaigns.. I think it IS their life.
Exactly, it's this same group that it came out a few months ago that they're responsible for literally all but a few hundred FCC complaints (while they make something in the tens of thoustands).

SI

kcchief19
01-24-2005, 07:05 PM
I think that until voters begin to demand greater accountability from their elected offiicials, we are going to find that an increasingly smaller number of people will continue to wield great power when it comes to what we can watch, what we can do, what we can watch each other do, etc.

panerd
01-24-2005, 07:07 PM
I think that until voters begin to demand greater accountability from their elected offiicials, we are going to find that an increasingly smaller number of people will continue to wield great power when it comes to what we can watch, what we can do, what we can watch each other do, etc.

Sadly though we all like to bitch and moan about both the Republicans and Democrat "fat cats" who can't ever get anything done and then re-elect these assholes in overwhelming percentages every year. It seems like nowadays you don't have to accomplish anything you just have to sell us on why your opponent is worse than you. Gotta love two-party politics!

SunDancer
01-24-2005, 07:25 PM
This group, and that Christian group complaining about Spongebob. Makes me wonder how much these people watch tv, and not have anything better to do. Why don't they do things with their children, instead of complaining about what is on tv?

cuervo72
01-24-2005, 07:30 PM
Sadly though we all like to bitch and moan about both the Republicans and Democrat "fat cats" who can't ever get anything done and then re-elect these assholes in overwhelming percentages every year. It seems like nowadays you don't have to accomplish anything you just have to sell us on why your opponent is worse than you. Gotta love two-party politics!

Bucc??

vex
01-24-2005, 08:57 PM
There is complaining about something that aired in May of 2003?

Noop
01-24-2005, 09:00 PM
I love how they blame other people because their daugthers suck cock.

miami_fan
01-24-2005, 09:47 PM
I love how they blame other people because their daugthers suck cock.
QOTM! :D

Mr. Sparkle
05-10-2005, 03:31 PM
Rehashing an old topic here, but I recently got into a discussion with a fellow in one of my classes about censorship. He talked about porn being all over TV and the need to get rid of it. He said that "censorship is healthy if it censors the promotion of destructive behavior", citing shows like "Sex and the City" and "Nip/Tuck". He said the fact that these shows didn't bother me showed that i was "desensitized" to it. I brought up how you have to pay for cable and the FCC has no jurisdiction over what is shown on cable. Then he proposed a hypothetical about a show on the home shopping network selling bombs, asking me if that would be okay because it's on a channel that is a part of a paid service. What he kept bringing up is the double standard that liberals will defend these shows, yet cry for the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc. I said that airing Sex and the City can't be constrewed as a violation of the Constitution. Is it really that much of a double standard? My future is in a creative field, and censorship is something I will deeply oppose. I'm just curious if I'm off base here, and if these TV show really do "promote destructive behavior". I can't see how they do, but maybe I'm wrong (its shockingly happened before :)) Thoughts?

sabotai
05-10-2005, 03:42 PM
Then he proposed a hypothetical about a show on the home shopping network selling bombs, asking me if that would be okay because it's on a channel that is a part of a paid service.
If selling bombs was legal, I'd be ok with it. But he's purposely suggesting a cable channel do something that is already illegal in order to get you to answer "No." so that he can go "Ah ha! See." Classic fallacious argument.

What he kept bringing up is the double standard that liberals will defend these shows, yet cry for the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc. I said that airing Sex and the City can't be constrewed as a violation of the Constitution.
And then he moves on to a false analogy (typically refered to on this message board as "apples and oranges").

judicial clerk
05-10-2005, 04:40 PM
Rehashing an old topic here, but I recently got into a discussion with a fellow in one of my classes about censorship. He talked about porn being all over TV and the need to get rid of it. He said that "censorship is healthy if it censors the promotion of destructive behavior", citing shows like "Sex and the City" and "Nip/Tuck". He said the fact that these shows didn't bother me showed that i was "desensitized" to it. I brought up how you have to pay for cable and the FCC has no jurisdiction over what is shown on cable. Then he proposed a hypothetical about a show on the home shopping network selling bombs, asking me if that would be okay because it's on a channel that is a part of a paid service. What he kept bringing up is the double standard that liberals will defend these shows, yet cry for the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc. I said that airing Sex and the City can't be constrewed as a violation of the Constitution. Is it really that much of a double standard? My future is in a creative field, and censorship is something I will deeply oppose. I'm just curious if I'm off base here, and if these TV show really do "promote destructive behavior". I can't see how they do, but maybe I'm wrong (its shockingly happened before ) Thoughts?

I don't know about any of this but Noop's post is awesome.

Surtt
05-10-2005, 05:07 PM
"censorship is healthy if it censors the promotion of destructive behavior"


Such as in Romeo and Juliet, or All Quiet on the Western Front, or Moby Dick?

Has this person ever read a book in his life?

Kodos
05-10-2005, 06:25 PM
Sadly though we all like to bitch and moan about both the Republicans and Democrat "fat cats" who can't ever get anything done and then re-elect these assholes in overwhelming percentages every year. It seems like nowadays you don't have to accomplish anything you just have to sell us on why your opponent is worse than you. Gotta love two-party politics!

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]

st.cronin
05-10-2005, 06:51 PM
Rehashing an old topic here, but I recently got into a discussion with a fellow in one of my classes about censorship. He talked about porn being all over TV and the need to get rid of it. He said that "censorship is healthy if it censors the promotion of destructive behavior", citing shows like "Sex and the City" and "Nip/Tuck". He said the fact that these shows didn't bother me showed that i was "desensitized" to it. I brought up how you have to pay for cable and the FCC has no jurisdiction over what is shown on cable. Then he proposed a hypothetical about a show on the home shopping network selling bombs, asking me if that would be okay because it's on a channel that is a part of a paid service. What he kept bringing up is the double standard that liberals will defend these shows, yet cry for the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc. I said that airing Sex and the City can't be constrewed as a violation of the Constitution. Is it really that much of a double standard? My future is in a creative field, and censorship is something I will deeply oppose. I'm just curious if I'm off base here, and if these TV show really do "promote destructive behavior". I can't see how they do, but maybe I'm wrong (its shockingly happened before :)) Thoughts?

Being in general a massive prude I sympathize with his argument but the only real recourse is to not watch the offending shows. If Socrates couldn't convince me of the need for censorship, I can't imagine anybody alive succeeding.