Date: 3/21/2004 7:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 57079
Well I think if they're gunna fine them for it they should at least give them guidelines to follow so they know what they can and can't say on the radio so they can prevent getting fined although I don't know what the bill said (sorry don't have time to read it) but if they're not giving specific guidelines then it might just be a way for the greedy people to make money but thats just what it seems like to me  |
Date: 3/21/2004 8:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 29387
I think it's funny that such an act as Janet Jackson's breast all of sudden throws this country into turmoil. Then again, it already was in turmoil, with an unnecessary war and all. Censorship comes down to individualistic standards and not Congressional. Parents shouldn't have to adhere to an invisible bill if they don't want too, simple as that. The FCC is, and has always been ambiguous with their decisions and revisions, and I think they take delight in fining and designating repercussions for people when they don't even know what they did. Give me a break.  |
Date: 3/21/2004 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 24732
I think any censorship should be left up to the owners of the individual stations and Congress should focus on more important issues. Though it doesn't particularly bother me that someone is making an attempt at cleaning up the airwaves. Maybe television and radio would have to appeal to the public through quality shows instead of shock appeal.  |
Date: 3/21/2004 8:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 9130
Alien-- why is shock appeal such a bad thing?  |
Date: 3/21/2004 8:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
A crucial consideration in this discussion is the idea that the FCC grants licenses for broadcasters, who have agreed to abide by decency standards. Therefore, those licenses can be revoked. For those that are concerned about what they should and should not broadcast, I suggest they ask the FCC before the material is aired. For many that are "pushing the envelope," I suggest that they are doing so, not because they wish to exercise their First Amendment right, but because they want ratings, which translates into money. In the same way, drivers must follow rules of the road to retain their state-issued licenses, broadcasters must maintain decency standards to retain their federally issued licenses.  |
|
Date: 3/21/2004 8:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 24732
It seems when shows can't draw enough attention on talent, they resort to shocking publicity stunts. Sort of like that band Hell on Earth, that wanted to have a suicide at one of their concerts for shock appeal. Obviously everyone started paying attention to them and I'm sure a lot of people listened to their music to see what it was about. But apparently they were not that good of band and now no one cares about them. When you have actual talent you don't need to shock people for attention, there are probably a few exceptions though. |
Date: 3/21/2004 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 20956
i think the whole janet thing seriously got out of control. i can understand that some parents may not have been happy if they had young kids watching the superbowl entertainment at the time, but seriously its not like she stripped of to a g-string and did a pole dance! besides, with the film clips that are out these days, that was almost nun-like! and how can they exempt the other raunchy dancers on stage at other times?? hmmm, i think it got totally blown out of control, especially with people suing and stuff, seriously get a life  |
Date: 3/21/2004 10:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
the airwaves belong to us, the public. If we do not like certain words, or certain behavior, WE can turn it off, or write to the advertisers, and tell them we will no longer buy their products if they have ads on the ___________radio/T.V show. I am tired of the government dictating morality/deciency. I think our money, and lost revenue would speak volumes.  |
|
Date: 3/21/2004 11:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
You have raised an interesting point, Spirit Child. The problem I see is that, as a country, we like "controversial" material, whether in a film, a book, an art museum or, on the airwaves. That Janet Jackson spent any time planning to do what she did--does anyone seriously believe it was an accident?--indicates she thought the public was "ready" for it. When a significant number of society's members believe they should be allowed to do or say anything in the interest of self-expression, government intervention is sometimes necessary. |
Date: 3/22/2004 3:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 62249
I signed it :) - MC Bacon  |
Date: 3/22/2004 4:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 60052
Ok, this is MY personal opinion, but I think they should be able to broadcast whatever they want and it should be up to the individual if they want to watch or listen to it or not. Parents need to step up and take responsibility for what their children watch and stop relying on others to police their children's viewing habits. I think what they are currently censoring is more than enough. I know I'm going to get a bunch of people mad at me, but I miss the cable we used to have with no censorship. I pay for it, and have to live with bleeps, cut scenes and such... grrrrrr!  |
Date: 3/22/2004 6:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 19220
My boyfriend is a DJ. He produces the Bob and Tom show *it's sat. fed* and does nights. He says it's very hard to know what you can and can not say. You could do something today and in 3 weeks the FCC could deem it wrong and you get fined. Also, Howard Stern got fined for something that happened a while ago while interviewing a guest. The same thing was said on TV *same person said it and the content was completely the same* yet the TV station and the person who conducted the interview did not get fined. I will find the addy for you. So another problem is it seems that the FCC is targeting radio and not TV *as much*. IMO if you don't like whats airing, then turn the channel. I don't like Howard Stern so I don't watch or listen to him.  |
|
Date: 3/22/2004 6:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 19220
Just to clarify...my b/f works for a local station that recieves satellite*sp* feed for the Bob and Tom show and thats who he produces it for, not the station in which Bob and Tom work for. |
|
Date: 3/22/2004 6:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 19220
Well I found the addy for what Stern was fined for 3 years after it aired but it's not the one that mentions the TV thing. Arg...I'll have to look a bit later. Here's the addy for the Stern thing http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=21312 |
Date: 3/22/2004 7:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 19869
i ******* dont like ******* censorship!!! its **** rubbish **** :p
i disagree with the fines, seems quite plain that something needs to be done. although there must be some grounds for the fines. in any case the tv and radio broadcasters should only show what they are clearly aloud to show without trying to bend vague rules!  |
Date: 3/22/2004 5:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
In general terms, I don't think that we need censorship, but I do think that more adult themes should occure late at night. Parents have the duty to make sure that what kids are viewing on TV or the internet is appropitate for their age level. However, I think that the half time show for the superbowl was far to racy for a family event. There have to be some standards and also punishments when people violate those standards.  |
Date: 3/22/2004 7:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
i have a feeling its gonna get so bad that tv will just be a blank screen with theatrical music  |
Date: 3/23/2004 11:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
America - a country which has created Playboy - up in arms because of the 'Janet Jackson Incident'? Sorry, but lmao. I get that she shouldnt have done it, but there have got to be worse things on TV than that...  |
Date: 3/23/2004 5:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19875
XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXX X XXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX X XXXXXXXX (this reply has been censored)  |
Date: 3/23/2004 10:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
I have a hard time with this issue being a parent, trying to censor what my kids watch as it is. I can't say that I am for censorship and I can't say that I am not. What I can say is I have enough trouble with keeping what other parents don't pay attention to under control that teach it to my children. I was completely amazed when my daughter who was just 6 and in first grade, brought home the gossip that Britney Spears kissed Madonna. Now I certaintly wouldn't have sat my 4 and 6 year old's in front of that awards show to begin with. Apparently somebody felt that it was appropriate, not understanding that not everybody gets to watch that stuff, this child had no problem relaying what they saw on that show to the other kids at school. No big deal right? So let's take away the FCC censorship and go no holds bar and what does my kid come home with next? I'm not saying that they shouldn't allow more racy stuff, but I definately think that it needs to be in proper times slots.  |
|
Date: 3/23/2004 11:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
To Die For, seeing that I am 3 years older, I was wondering at what point in time this cable "without" censoring was available? From what I recall of my childhood, HBO didn't even air anything that was above PG-13 until like 9pm at night. Now you can turn on any one of them along with Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, Encore Etc and watch something like Hannibal at 1pm in the afternoon. There was only ever the rare bleep when I was growing up because they didn't dare utter the swear words in the first place. Now maybe things are little different over there in your neck of the woods in WI, but I am in NY and you would "think" if they weren't censoring there, they certaintly wouldn't have here. |
Date: 4/2/2004 6:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
I agree with the fines but feel they're long over due and that they're a mere slap on the wrist for most of these broadcasters. As much as one can ask the question of how far should censorship go...I feel we should be focusing on how far we're going to let vulgarities of all kinds go. It's VERY sad when you can't even trust prime time television to be decent. I do agree that the definition of what's considered "vulgar or indecent" is vague and that's another element of this issue that has been neglected for way too long.  |
Date: 4/3/2004 12:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 61353
I think there's more important issue's in the world going on.  |
Date: 4/4/2004 2:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
i don't really care what they say on tv. i have the power to change the channel. that's just one of the wonderful things about a remote control. i watch things that i wouldn't let my kid watch, depending on her age at the time and i turned out ok. seriously though, i think it's up to the parents to control the remote but it seems like these days the kids have all the control. these days?!?!?!? man, i sound old! i know people can't watch the kiddies 24/7 but most tv's have parental controls on them. all of mine do. i've seen them. i never learned how to work them but i know they are there if i need em. i did hear recently that they are going to censor soaps. what, no more bed hopping? guess they can't call them soaps anymore. and while we are on the subject..............my most favorite tv show of all time has gotten a lot of flack about language and naked butts. you guessed it.....N.Y.P.D.BLUE. that show comes on at ten p.m. aren't kids supposed to be in bed at that time?  |
