The ludicrousness of Puritanism never seems to abate, to which now must be added a dusting of gender-specific anatomical wrongheadedness. Here's the whole story, courtesy of the Associated Press.
----
Nude buttocks may cost ABC $1.4 million
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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."
© 2008 The Associated Press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Good grief...can't they make money any other way? Now that's what you call paying out of your ass!
If the FCC had any inclination to do its job, ABC would be facing the possible revocation of its broadcasting license, as would the other national on-air networks for failing miserably to devote sufficient resources to the public interest.
As long as the FCC functions as an extension of the two political parties and the executive branch in particular, however, we'll continue to read about corporate sponsored butt crackdowns instead of journalistic integrity.
Government regulated art (whether in the "public interest" or not) isn't worth much anyway. If you want good entertainment, you won't find it on the public airwaves -- put another way, you get what you pat for. Stern is better on satellite radio, and TV is better on Showtime and HBO.
That's the point, David. The FCC does regulate entertainment and should not. It doesn't regulate the coverage of public affairs required of networks by federal law in exchange for using publicly owned airwaves to make billions and it should.
How about government funded art - aka National Endowment for the Arts - that uses tax payer money to support "art" that many find pornographic or at the very least offensive? I don't agree with the ruling, however networks will continue to push the envelope getting as close to the edge as possible. Why don't we all turn the tube off and read a good, non-government funded book?
On a somewhat related note, here's another snapshot of hilarity:
Conservative Blogger Claims Mass Effect Offers "Customizable Sodomy"
This is a horribly inaccurate reference to a 30 second love scene (which is tame by prime time television standards) in a 40-60 hour space opera game by the name of Mass Effect for the Xbox 360. Mind you, even though it was nothing that couldn't be shown on television, the game's creators still rated the game M for Mature (stipulating that you must be at least 17 to purchase the game and it's the equivalent of a R rating for a movie) just to be safe and to try and avoid any potentially angry parents.
Take the above "panic attack", and then run that through the Fox News filter, another good time there:
Fox News on Mass Effect Sex Debate
Then as a result of statements of the "expert", her book plunged in the Amazon ratings due to angry fans leaving scathing reviews due to her statements of complete falsehood, after which, shockingly, she actually decided to look at for the first time what she had already made declarative statements against :)
Lawrence Recants Mass Effect Judgement
I was going to say that the FCC needs to keep from butting into things such as this.
I was thinking about saying that they are falling behind in their judgment.
It was, I daresay, a rather cheeky fine to ABC, years after the fact when NYPD Blue was on.
Several years ago a network would not run "Saving Private Ryan" because the FCC would not assure the network that they would not be fined if folks complained about the language, violence, and gore in that movie.
Of late, I've appreciated HBO more and more.
Dare I say, the decision was asinine?
Bluegill, what makes you think the FCC could do a more competent job regulating coverage of public affairs than it does regulating entertainment? I don't necessarily disagree with you that the public airwaves should/is required to be put to higher uses, but it is precisely because the FCC functions as an extension of the two political parties that I am skeptical that the FCC, as it is today, is competent to regulate appropriately.
Shameless plug -- if you are interested in reading more about the indecency issue, there is an illuminating transcript of Commissioner Martin's remarks on the future of indecency regulation available (for free) on the Federal Communications Law Journal, published by the IU School of Law ( I am an associate editor of the journal) http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/
Again, David, we agree. The FCC, as it is today, isn't competent to do the job it's supposed to do.
Unfortunately, they seem to be getting further and further away from that competency, often doing everything in their power to skirt or weaken the very laws they're charged with enforcing.
Their recent advocacy to reduce restrictions on corporate ownership of multiple outlets in the same market proves that, IMO.
The same is true of other communications regulators. Indiana's recent move to change cable network licensing is another good example, taking negotiating power away from local authorities and centralizing it in favor of corporate interests over citizen access and participation.
what hypocrisy. the female butt is considered sexual, but they show men's naked asses on TV all the time even on cartoons and no one seems to bat an eye.
Post a Comment