ChasingBlueSky 0 #1 February 28, 2005 Interesting choice of words: the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined that it was not indecent or profane So it's the context that decides if it's ok or not.....I wonder if that is a refinement to the "current community standards" definition. http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/28/media.privateryan.fcc.reut/index.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. communications regulators Monday rejected complaints that the broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan," a film depicting the U.S. landing in France during World War II, violated indecency limits. The Federal Communications Commission unanimously decided that ABC television affiliates did not violate indecency regulations when they aired the movie on Veteran's Day in November, despite complaints about profanity and violence. Sixty-six ABC stations decided against showing the award-winning film for fear of running afoul with the FCC, which has been cracking down on broadcast and radio stations after several high-profile incidents. "In light of the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined that it was not indecent or profane," the FCC said in a statement. Warnings were aired throughout the broadcast about the movie's content. The ABC network, owned by the Walt Disney Co. , ran the movie twice before and did not attract FCC fines. Some parents groups and lawmakers have been pushing the FCC to take a harder line against broadcasters, like Viacom Inc.'s CBS network which aired the infamous incident in which Janet Jackson's bare breast was shown during the 2004 Super Bowl on national television._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #2 February 28, 2005 I wish they were just make a set of rules about what is and isn't allowable. They complain about seeing janet's breast, but not when some football players wang is shown in slow motion on the 9pm news. Edit: Cause I can't type Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #3 February 28, 2005 I think the following word may be useful in this discussion: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gratuitous AFAIK it's long been understood to have relevance w.r.t. the application of censorship laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 February 28, 2005 QuoteThey complain about seeing janet's breast, but not when some football players wang is shown in slow motion on the 9pm news. What news station have you been watching? FCC also determined that two clothed vampires biting each others and enjoying it wasn't indecent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #5 February 28, 2005 Quote What news station have you been watching? A few months ago on channel 8, the news people showed an interview from the dallas cowboy's locker room, and some dude walked by naked in the background with his wang flopping around. Somehow it made it past all the editing and on the air during the 9pm news. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #6 February 28, 2005 That was/is an excellent picture. Hopefully, it has shown that there is no glory in war. I wouldn't mind seeing some pretty gals running around naked on network TV either As for janet Jacksons tit, ACK! lol! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 March 1, 2005 Quote...despite complaints about profanity and violence. I want to know who the idiots are that are watching a war movie and then complaining about profanity and violence... Doh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #8 March 1, 2005 QuoteI want to know who the idiots are that are watching a war movie and then complaining about profanity and violence... Doh! Probably the same idiots that watched the Super Bowl and then complained about seeing Janet's boobie - Oh wait, that's not quite the same, is it? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #9 March 1, 2005 Quote QuoteI want to know who the idiots are that are watching a war movie and then complaining about profanity and violence... Doh! Probably the same idiots that watched the Super Bowl and then complained about seeing Janet's boobie - Oh wait, that's not quite the same, is it? - Jim A good portion of them are the same special interest groups that contacted the FCC. These are the same people that complain about content on HBO, Showtime, Howard Stern, magazines, etc. I found a site a while back that did a Freedom of Info request for the complaints - a majority of them were copy and pasted letters from a special interest group website._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #10 March 1, 2005 It's all about mind control.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #11 March 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteThey complain about seeing janet's breast, but not when some football players wang is shown in slow motion on the 9pm news. What news station have you been watching? http://www.webwasteland.com/media/cowboys_lockerroom_package.wmv"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #12 March 1, 2005 Quote QuoteI want to know who the idiots are that are watching a war movie and then complaining about profanity and violence... Doh! Probably the same idiots that watched the Super Bowl and then complained about seeing Janet's boobie - Oh wait, that's not quite the same, is it? Nope, not even close. Someone watching a war movie should reasonably expect to see violence, and therefore has no grounds for a complaint. However, someone watching a football game should not reasonably expect to see a naked breast, and therefore does have grounds for a complaint. It's like those jerks who buy a house near an airport, and then bitch about airplane noise and try to shut down the airport... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buried 0 #13 March 1, 2005 the fcc could lick my left testie! hopefully some things will change for the better since Powell stepped down Where is my fizzy-lifting drink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #14 March 1, 2005 QuoteSomeone watching a war movie should reasonably expect to see violence, and therefore has no grounds for a complaint. However, someone watching a football game should not reasonably expect to see a naked breast, and therefore does have grounds for a complaint. Honest question...what exactly is a "naked" breast? In the pictures I saw of Janet, the nipple was covered by something. Any idea what the differentiating factor was between that and something we might see on Baywatch? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #15 March 1, 2005 Of course it's way better to blow up the human form than admire it (or at least not taboo it).Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #16 March 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteSomeone watching a war movie should reasonably expect to see violence, and therefore has no grounds for a complaint. However, someone watching a football game should not reasonably expect to see a naked breast, and therefore does have grounds for a complaint. Honest question...what exactly is a "naked" breast? In the pictures I saw of Janet, the nipple was covered by something. Any idea what the differentiating factor was between that and something we might see on Baywatch? Blues, Dave She had a piece of jewelry AROUND the nipple, but you could see the nipple itself. Regardless, the whole thing was blown out of proportion entirely. As for this thread: THANK GOD the FCC finally made ONE correct move. Saying "Saving Private Ryan", with dpictions of REAL EVENTS, is indecent, is fucking ludicrousWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #17 March 2, 2005 QuoteShe had a piece of jewelry AROUND the nipple, but you could see the nipple itself. Regardless, the whole thing was blown out of proportion entirely. You have great eyes. I watched that game on a 62" HD TV with Tivo and we couldn't see it. It wasn't until the next day when someone emailed me the blown up pic could I tell what was shown._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #18 March 2, 2005 QuoteYou have great eyes. I watched that game on a 62" HD TV with Tivo and we couldn't see it. It wasn't until the next day when someone emailed me the blown up pic could I tell what was shown. Don't lose sight of the idea that maybe mom and dad didn't care for the incidence of public exhibitionism to be thrust upon their 5 and 9 year old. Whether or not we could count the hairs around Jackson's nipple at the moment has nothing to do with the whole thing. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #19 March 2, 2005 QuoteDon't lose sight of the idea that maybe mom and dad didn't care for the incidence of public exhibitionism to be thrust upon their 5 and 9 year old. You have to be joking, I mean you do drive past some of these billboards right(hooters springs to mind)? I sometimes wonder how these people function without going into convulsions of biblical magnitude when they look in the mirror, pick up a magazine, drive down the road, go to the beach, etc, etc, etcPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #20 March 2, 2005 How fucking repressed are these people who throw a shitfit over "Fuck" being transmitted over the airwaves, or a breast flash?? To these fucked up individuals: GET A FUCKING EXISTENCE.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #21 March 2, 2005 QuoteYou have to be joking, I mean you do drive past some of these billboards right(hooters springs to mind)? In case you didn't know, there is a line drawn in the US public arena between scantily clad women, as might be depicted on a Hooters billboard, and nudity, as was depicted by Jackson during the Superbowl. That being the case, I'd like to know how, or even if, you believe that the pervasivenss of sexual imagery in public makes it okay for Janet to have shown her boob during halftime at the Superbowl. I don't see the logic there, but feel free to clear things up. QuoteI sometimes wonder how these people function without going into convulsions of biblical magnitude when they look in the mirror, pick up a magazine, drive down the road, go to the beach, etc, etc, etc It's just a matter of which side of the fence you're sitting on. If you live by a set of traditional moral values, then you believe Janet Jackson was guilty of shoving her values down the throats of your kids. Janet did the very same thing everyone likes to crucify the Christian right over - forcing her values on everyone else. See the similarity? Why is it okay for Janet to do that, but not okay for . . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #22 March 2, 2005 QuoteHow fucking repressed are these people who throw a shitfit over "Fuck" being transmitted over the airwaves, or a breast flash?? To these fucked up individuals: GET A FUCKING EXISTENCE.. Convulsions of biblical magnitude. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #23 March 2, 2005 Quoteincidence of public exhibitionism You don't mention nudity. The "public exhibitionism" statement was what I was referring to. QuoteThat being the case, I'd like to know how, or even if, you believe that the pervasivenss of sexual imagery in public makes it okay for Janet to have shown her boob during halftime at the Superbowl. I don't see the logic there, but feel free to clear things up. Honestly I don't care if she showed everything. Dealing with issues is part of a parents job, if they're unable to deal with the "mental anguish" of seeing a boob or their child is scarred for life then they had bigger issues to begin with. Honestly, I'd be happy if there was some sort of standard (even if I didn't like it) that things were held to. Unfortunately one only needs to watch prime time tv to see that double standards emerge everywhere. It's ok to say crap, but not gun (yes I've actually seen that edited out). It's ok to show dead bodies from war images, but not a boob. See where I'm going and what my issue with the whole debacle is? There are always going to be groups pissing and moaning about PC this, boob that. There are other more important issues to deal with IMO. Of course it's far easier to blame everything else for all a childs problems than actually parenting them. The world isn't a nice place, what allows kids to grow up "normal" or "good" is their ability to filter and process information, weeding out the good from the bad (they're always exposed to both). It's our job to provide the set of guidelines for them to apply to this information in their lifetime, from an early age. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #24 March 2, 2005 QuoteHonestly I don't care if she showed everything. Dealing with issues is part of a parents job, if they're unable to deal with the "mental anguish" of seeing a boob or their child is scarred for life then they had bigger issues to begin with. I don't personally care either, I just find it hypocritical that Janet -- and people in her camp -- don't respect the rights of people who DO care, especially parents. It was a "surprise attack", and it's just annoying. But I doubt very many kids were "scarred for life". QuoteIt's ok to show dead bodies from war images, but not a boob. See where I'm going and what my issue with the whole debacle is? Other than a basic understanding that this bizarre contradiction has religious roots, I don't get it either. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #25 March 2, 2005 QuoteOther than a basic understanding that this bizarre contradiction has religious roots, I don't get it either. I think it stems from the puritanical fear that somewhere, out there in the world, someone might be having a good time that does not involve a bible in their hands.... THE HORROR. THE HORROR...[/Col Kurtz] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
