Bare ass stupidity
 

Looks like the FCC is going to fine ABC and the stations that aired an NYPD Blue episode back in 2003 that (gasp!) showed a woman's bare derrière. Am I to assume they've been working on this investigation for the past five years?

Glad to see my tax dollars going to such an important cause. Health care? Screw that! Budget deficits? So what? Dependence on foreign energy? We can't deal with any of that... we've got a TV network that aired a woman's ass!... for nearly 4 1/2 seconds!... five years ago. Book'em Danno!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/...qnq0xwAi4E1vAI

WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.

The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted "multiple, close-up views" of the woman's "nude buttocks" according to an agency order issued late Friday.

ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Co. The fines were issued against 52 stations either owned by or affiliated with the network.

FCC's definition of indecent content requires that the broadcast "depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities" in a "patently offensive way" and is aired between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs — specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."

"Fox turned into a hard-core porn network so gradually, I didn't even notice!" - Marge Simpson

They pushed the envelope for ratings and this is a token fine, I'm sure it made them a lot more money than that. 1.4 million.

Kinda a silly thing to rant about in my opinion as from a network perspective this is a slap on the wrist. No idea why it took so long of course but I don't know the workings of the FCC and what sort of appeals etc take place or the time frame.

If you want to call into question about societies stance on nudity or whatever , thats fine, but I wouldn't treat this like a huge government waste.

You know being across the pond I've forgotten what censorship was...

I saw an episode of my favorite show translated in another language and they said, "I will slit your fucking throat and shit down it!" I've seen the original English episode... and that wasn't to be found. Made the scene much funnier though.


Agreed. Ustwo, you have to admit it is silly.

They're not being fined for showing Dennis Franz's ass? Was it not titillating enough?

Also, the censors view the buttocks as sexual and excretory? Does this mean that they can't show Paris Hilton's mouth anymore?

Also, why are they going back so far? Don't they know there's free porn on the internet for them to watch instead?

"The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ.""


the FCC is into anal sex, apparently.

I thought about the Franz's ass side of this too.

In all honesty if they're going to focus on censorship I'd rather they look harder at violent acts. People are naked and people have sex. To me that's a natural part of being human. It's not, or shouldn't be, natural for people to shoot each other. Wonder how many times Jack Bauer shoots someone per season? For that matter- per episode. I watched a little of the new Terminator series. The violence seemed to boarder on pornography in my mind.

But personally I'd much rather they take a free market approach and let people decide what they want to watch. Don't like what your kid's watching? Be a parent and intervene.

That is bizarre ...

(JJ beat me to it...) Next they'll announce a fine for the episode that showed Dennis Franz' ass. Must not be a stutute of limitations... or some blue-nose saw it in syndication.

And... just because it's "business as usual" for a government agency, doesn't mean it's not a waste of time and money.

That's exactly what I thought. They've shown bare asses on NYPD Blue before, what makes this one different?

<embed src="http://www.seeqpod.com/cache/seeqpodSlimlineEmbed.swf" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="80" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="playlistXMLPath=http://www.seeqpod.com/api/music/getPlaylist?playlist_id=29308d26ee"></embed>

:lol:

FCC Song - :lol:

That can't be it! :oogle:

Why is it that a woman's ass is offensive, saying fuck is offensive, but a man's head being blown off isn't?

Please, BBC, come buy our news outlets. Come challenge our corrupt and inept FCC.

I'm more amused by the network here. Perhaps 'sexual organ' is the wrong term, but they're really missing the point - probably intentionally.

Obscenity censorship just doesn't bother me much at all. Including gratuitous violence as censorable wouldn't bother me either. Just stay the fuck away from cable, FCC, that ain't your domain.

It is always important to go to the source to be able to draw your own conclusions. ;)

The episode was titled Nude Awakening. Stills of the scene in question are available here, and that page also contains a link to an AVI through RapidShare. I couldn't find a streaming version, sorry.

Having carefully inspected the screenshots and the video clip, I think I can see how this is a little different from Dennis Franz's ass, though I personally don't think it's worth fining ABC for. Then again, if networks want to show bare breasts in an adult TV show, I don't have a problem with that either, especially when they have the little warning in advance like NYPD Blue often does. I think this calls for some more research...

I also had to laugh at how slow she was to cover herself up...as if anyone would take that long when a kid walks in on them and just stare at the kid for a few seconds. :lol:

Our American views of sex are so warped.

Only here can a film be rated R, which means that male appendages are not allowed but you can see a woman totally naked. Gotta wonder.

ZING! :lol:

I agree though; this is ridiculous.

I just watched the clip (merci redlemon) and I find this entire issue to be ridiculous. Who cares? God, I hate our decency and and prudishness.

Best $1.4m they could have spent on publicising NYPD Blue. Now people all over the world are clamouring to watch that episode.

Regarding the fine, isn't it actually $72.8 million? ($1.4 million x 52 stations)

Won't someone think of the children?

Yeah, seriously. How lucky is that child actor? I would've loved to be him at that age! ;)

damn... i had supressed the whole notion and image of dennis franz's ass. thanks for reminding me that i witnessed it.

that's just not cool at all... her ass is, but his? :eek:

I never understand the uneven application of FCC violations.

That's a fine all right... a fine ass. I'd hit it with $1.4 million too.

PS It's not 52 times that it's 52x$27500 = $1.43 million. (Max fine per station at air time was $32500, now it's $325000)

Guess who runs the FCC.
"Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly." -FCC commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
"We are thankful that the FCC has finally taken a stand for children and families with this unanimous order." -Parents Television Council president Tim Winter

Gotcha. The quoted article didn't mention the lower figure, and spoke of fines, so I assumed $1.4 million was the per station fine. Thanks for clarifying :)

Just think of it. Here we are, walking around with our asses all day, everyday. Never cognizant of just how obscene and dangerous they are to children.

I agree with Tully, what's obscene is how the FCC chases around after supposed 'sexual content' and allows a ridiculously broad array of violent material to be paraded around unquestioned. We are all fucked-up.

I don't think my 6 yr old daughter would be traumatized by a bare ass as much as I was traumatized trying to explain erectile dysfunction and why people are holding hands in bathtubs out in the middle of nowhere. Where is the outrage over Cialis commercials played before 9PM?

btw - keep an eye out for subliminal phallic symbols like lighthouses and giant tree trunks in these commercials. :)

Wow. America finally has solved *all* of the important issues and can now concentrate on the trivial...

Well we could just have a censor control board like in Singapore, it is so much more efficient... I recall watching Robocop and wondering why it was so short and disjointed, or The Accused and not getting why Singaporeans suggested "she deserved it" since the whole end scene was cut out. :orly:

expatsingapore.com

Yeah, really! :orly:

As if they don't understand what it's about. Those concern me for the young boys growing up now. Don't you think they'll grow up feeling inferior because they can't last for "up to 4 to 6 hours" after their first sexual experience?

Now that I've also carefully watched the video clip, I'd agree that I'd be quite surprised if I saw it on broadcast television. The camera was certainly lingering on her. And it's not just ass: there's a generous portion of side-boob, and at 0:19 we can see enough mound to know that she keeps herself well-shaved! Of course, I've never watched NYPD Blue, so that could be part of it.

And remember the rule: naked women are sexy, naked men are funny. That's why there were no fined for Franz's ass.

And that kid's ears are way too big! :D

EDIT: For clarification, I don't have a problem with nudity. However, based on the currently written regulations, I believe that this is a violation.

dead vid...

ustwo apologizes to everyone for a deceased link...

I like when the dip the camera down to show her ass a bit more.

I love the angsty outrage though :thumbsup:

Maybe we can change this into a Fark headline....

FCC spanks ABC's bare ass 1.4 million times, still no cure for cancer.

For research purposes, of course. :thumbsup:

They banned Cosmo?!

hehehe

I like how it's a completely unnecessary shot, too. They could have sold that moment without showing nips, ass or bush very easily.

If I were going to do an ass shot, I'd choose someone thinner, too. Maybe Kelly Rowan, Tamzin Outhwaite, or Kelly Carlson would have been better.

WTF? :shakehead:

There's nothing at all wrong with Charlotte Ross.

I'll go watch again...just to verify...

I like her ass, nice curves to it without being overly full of "junk." But then I liked Charlotte Ross prior to the addition of silicon to her chest.

I've seen better, but its still good.

You're doing it wrong! (or right, depending on if it's Tuesday or not...)

I suppose you could... I have noticed that it is getting better here, though. they are even talking about lessening censorship as it is sort of pointless in the age of the Internet.

That said, in Canada we show the Sopranos, uncensored in prime time on our largest national network. A bare bottom is hardly a problem.

That's a nice ass by the way....

Nina Hartley (that big-assed porn star) once said, "In America you can make a movie where you shoot a woman in the breast and it's rated G, but if you kiss it, it's rated X)