The chilling effect has begun...
 

More fun from the conservatives. Of course, no one's freedom will be abriged in the next four years...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...N&SECTION=HOME

An excerpt:

Even though the government has made no direct statement about this, people are already scared and cutting back their own freedom of speech out of fear.

Bingle

really...that Network executives don't have spines is not news. Sinclair backed down like a beaten puppy after the heat it got for trying to show the attack of Kerry.... Is that because of right wing pressure too?

I think the current FCC chairs are dicks, but i honestly don't think you can blame the government on this one. Free speech has a hell of a lot more with private citizens, and less with corporations.

This is what you get when the FCC puts out fines like they can. I hope any station that plays it gets the $1M fine. Maybe then we can re-evaluate these new "decency" standards. If they don't get fined it's completely hypocritical.

Excessive violence and foul language is fine but don't show any boobies.

I don't know why they don't just show it anyway.

The money they'll pay in fines is nothing compared to what sponsors will pay to advertise during that time.

Good point, but Saving Private Ryan is all gore, not a single shred of nipple! It's odd how they're going against showing violence...

My guess? They're not so much worried about sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission...as much as this is a stunt. It got your attention, didn't it.

My thoughts exactly.

I had a cop tell me that I couldn't let my dog run loose in the park...Damn that George Bush!!

Go ahead and make fun. The truth is that Bush had plenty to do with the decency standards evoked by out FCC Overlords. Conservitives made this mess now they can deal with it.

At least the FCC is being consistant. I hate these standards but I'd rather have consistant standards that are enforced than double standards. Now if the FCC could only get off their asses and fine Oprah for what she was saying on her teenage oral sex party shows.

When were the standards "revised"? There was a radio program out of Seattle that was a lot of fun to listen to (If you were a guy). Only a few years ago, they would have women come in to the studios and do all sorts of fun things. Now, it's more like the Oprah show. What happened?

I believe that the standards were already in place. The FCC just got lax and was overlooking a lot of "violations". The only thing the Bush administration did, was to give the FCC some teeth to their bite so that Howard Stern, et al, would feel it biting their asses. The "conservatives" have made a lot of messes...I just don't think this is one of 'em.
Having said that...I'm not particularly fond of the standards that are in place. I believe that the likes of Howard Stern have every right to spew their crap. Doesn't mean I have to listen to it. I didn't.

publicity stunt.

this movie must have been scheduled to air a looooooooooooong time ago and they pull it just before it's supposed to show? i'm sure a couple phone calls from network types to the FCC would have cleared this up immediately... but that's not what they were going for.

Absolutley a stunt, obscenity/indecency law deals strictly with sexual and excetory matters. For the longest time it has been a gripe of those against the FCC that wanton violence is ok but hints of sex will get you in trouble.

-fibber


Obscene Broadcasts Prohibited at All Times

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Indecent Broadcasts Restricted to 10 P.M. - 6 A.M.

The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. For a complete summary of the Commission's case law regarding the indecency standard, see Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).

This is not the government's fault. The people making these decisions are gutless wimps. If they air it and get fined, they should fight it.

There is nothing wrong with the government doing something about someone flashing during a superbowl halftime show.

That is correct.

The standards have always been there.

Can you imagine Laura Petre saying "Fuck you, Rob!"?

As much as I detest defending Bush, it's true the standards were in place before he was.

Most of you youngsters aren't old enough to remember the Parents Music Resource Center. It pressured Congress to pressure the recording industry to lable offensive CD's and records. Some stores quit selling anything with a warning lable on it (including my former favorite music store).

And who were the prime movers behind the PMRC? Tipper Gore and her husband. Ya, THAT Gore.

That wasn't that long ago! Besides, youngster's who listen to Eminem probably know that as he raps about it on his previous album. Correction - they've probably heard it but might not have known what it was about and/or researched it. Damn these whippersnappers today! :p

agreed with clavus.

the pmrc was among the reasons i did not really support gore.
on the other hand the pmrc did have the wisdom to subpoena frank zappa. his testimony is among the funniest things i have ever heard. it is a wonderful thing to hear frank dismantle the panel.

But if this a new stuntm then those stations won't be receiving any of the benefits of the publicity, unless they suddenly "change their minds."

I remember when Schindlers List was on tv. It had nudity and violence. The FCC are just like the women who went around during the time of prohibition and broke bear bottles people were drinking.

No the truth is both parties wanted to do decency standards. Blame it all on Bush but i believe the Democratic vice presidential candidate Jos. Liberman was more outspoken than anyone.

Kutulu
 

k

I did my research. Where is yours? You probably won't even read it.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...40/ai_64160617

While broadcasters will face "new challenges" whichever party wins White House in Nov. as NAB TV Chmn. Ben Tucker of Fisher Bcstg. put it they are likely to be much more "challenging" if Gore-Lieberman ticket is successful, according to just about all TV executives who would speak. To buttress their position, they cited new Democratic platform planks that would restore fairness doctrine, mandate free time for political candidates and insist on more self-restraint by industry on violent and sexually explicit programming. They also pointed to well-documented views of Vice President Gore and his running mate, Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.). "Lieberman has been on these issues for a long time and I don't see him changing," said veteran Washington lobbyist.

Lieberman is perhaps best known in communications circles for his attacks on what he has regarded as indecent content, especially on TV. "He's not what I would call a raving civil libertarian," said Progress & Freedom Foundation Pres. Jeffrey Eisenach. Notably, Lieberman has long fought for V-chip and other content controls, and more recently urged FCC to consider "resurrecting" old broadcast industry code of conduct. He complained about "gross inflation of sex and vulgarity on free, over-the-air television."

One lobbyist predicted Lieberman's constant criticisms of offensive TV programming could become issue in Presidential campaign. Indeed, Lieberman appears to be intensifying his crusade against "glut of sex and violence on prime-time TV" since his selection as Gore's running mate early last week. In article headlined "Crude, Rude and Lewd" scheduled to run in upcoming issue of Blueprint, Lieberman urges parents to call FCC and complain about offensive programming. At same time, Parents TV Council, which has Lieberman on board, applauded his selection as Vice Presidential candidate. Chmn. Brent Bozell said choice showed Gore "has joined the fight to clean up television."

Under Gore Administration, lobbyists predicted FCC would be much more regulatory minded. Gore himself repeatedly has called for free broadcast time for candidates as part of licensee's public interest obligation. Gore also lent his name to Gore Commission on DTV, which concluded that broadcasters should meet public interest obligations in return for receiving free digital spectrum from govt.

Then there's Democratic FCC Comr. Tristani, who reportedly decided not to return to her native N.M. to run for Congress at urging of Clinton Administration. Many in Washington expect her to be named FCC chmn. if Gore is elected, although lobbyist told us "that's not a done deal."

Last month Tristani spoke out against violent TV programming, warning that it "has a harmful and noxious impact on our children. Entertainment violence is polluting the minds of our children. We don't need 50 years of studies like we had on smoking to know that entertainment violence has a toxic effect." She called on "entertainment industry, and particularly the broadcasting industry, to stop violating the minds of our children."

In her statement, responding to study by several health groups, Tristani said she would ask FCC Chmn. Kennard to schedule hearing on televised "violence and the public interest obligations of broadcasters." Turning to radio, Tristani repeatedly has urged stricter radio ownership rules.

Proposed Democratic platform states that "the very first piece of legislation that a President Al Gore" will send to Congress is political campaign reform as proposed in McCain-Feingold bill "and he will fight for it until it becomes the law of the land. Then he will go even further much further. He will insist on tough new lobbying reform, publicly guaranteed TV time for debates... and a crackdown on special issue ads." On issue of TV content, proposed platform states: "The entertainment industry must accept more responsibility and exercise more self restraint" by strictly enforcing movie ratings and "by determining whether the ratings systems are allowing too many children to be exposed to too much violence and cruelty."

NAB's biggest concern if Bush-Cheney GOP ticket won would be effort to relax 35% TV ownership cap, we're told move that, on other hand, would make Big 4 TV networks very happy. Assn.'s opposition to raising cap has been cited by NBC and Fox as major reason for their withdrawal from NAB. However, broadcasters tell us they expect FCC under Bush Administration would be much more friendly than if Democrats were to retain control of White House

citing Lieberman's views on programming as one reason. But, in either scenario, "our issues just aren't of major importance to either candidate," broadcast lobbyist told us.

On plus side for TV industry, said Disney-ABC chief lobbyist Preston Padden, is that "assuring protection for intellectual property on cyberspace appears to be on the radar screens of both candidates." Proposed Democratic platform has full paragraph on copyright protection on Internet, suggesting that last-min. lobbying by Hollywood studios and other copyright holders paid off. "We must ensure that sound patent and copyright laws motivate our inventors and creators," it said, and "we must work to build support for strong intellectual property laws among the community of nations, including in trade agreements." Prospective platform promises to "take all steps necessary to ensure effective enforcement of those laws at home and abroad to ensure that others do not steal intellectual property through piracy and other forms of theft."

Similarly, recently adopted Republican platform promised to "protect the technology industry from modern-day pirates at home and abroad: both those who violate copyright and those who loot by litigation."

Both parties included extensive Internet focus in their platforms, with Democrats pledging to "launch a new crusade... to move toward full Internet access in every home, for every family, all across the United States," while Republicans backed Internet filtering bills. Both parties supported privacy protections without backing specific measures, and weighed in on other Internet issues such as security.

Tritto. They are just making a statement and trying to create a story.