First Amendment Rights and TV

[Tress]

Long story short, the Supreme Court is currently examining the fairness of FCC policies regarding the restriction of profanity and nudity. The broadcast networks, especially Fox, feel that the restrictions and subsequent fines are arbitrary. The main example used was the fines for when celebrities used profanities at live awards shows, while Saving Private Ryan was aired uncut on ABC.

The more liberal side of the argument seems to be leaning towards loosening language and nudity restrictions, whereas the more conservative argument is for keeping the restrictions in place (and possibly increasing punishments for violations).

Where do you stand? Please note this argument is the for the broadcast networks, including FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS. Cable networks are still free to do whatever they please.

 

[Ravenpoe]

If they relax the restrictions, maybe that playboy series wouldn't have failed.

 

[Dei]

Personally, I'm fine with the rating system that tells you what is contained in a show, and then not cutting/editing things. Censoring broadcast media is basically Nanny state to me. Then again, even though we have a big screen TV and digital cable, we watch a combined total of like 5 hours of broadcast TV a week.... Netflix and DVDs on the other hand...

 

[Dave]

The current restrictions on broadcast television is what is killing them rating-wise compared to channels like HBO and Showtime. Image how well received A Game of Thrones would be on NBC. NOT! It would be too watered down to be watchable.

 

[blotsfan]

I think that while restrictions are too tight, there should be designated times for clean programming if restrictions were to be removed. Since the airwaves are a public resource, it wouldn't be right to completely block it off to people who don't want to see dirty shows (or their kids for that matter).

 

[sixpackshaker]

The current ratings is a decent compromise. There is no need for TV to have more foul language. That does not make the show better.

Just view the good shows from the BBC. They are pretty tame even to American standards and are fabulous shows.

American TV should just let our writers loose to make good shows. Don't play it safe with formula TV: CSI, Law and Order, and NCIS I am looking at you... Let there be more anthology shows. i.e. hire many writers to do their best work 3-10 times a year, not just cranking out 22-26 episodes of regurgitated crap.

 

[AshburnerX]

Aren't they allowed to show whatever they want after 9pm ANYWAY?

 

[strawman]

Broadcast television is public. It would be similar to allowing billboard advertisers to put up offensive text or imagery.

There are private networks (cable, satellite) that are allowed all the freedom they want.

But the radio airwaves are public goods that are given to broadcasters through the FCC with permission by the people. There is some good in having one place with a hard limit that says "If you watch this or if your children watch this you know it won't go further than X, Y, and Z."

The FIRST users of any change in this plan (be it swearing, nudity, or hate speech) are going to be advertisements. I don't want to have to figure out how to skip them just so I can watch Castle - a reasonably family friendly show.

With the TV ratings that have been in place for years, that could be automated, and if properly implemented I wouldn't mind allowing them to go further - but I'd still think a limit would be good in general. Just because they can't do some things private means of communication can doesn't mean they are hogtied - we've given them that spectrum, and they can follow the rules or they can find another audience.

 

[makare]

I chose grue but I am mostly on the violence vs sex/swearing thing. That is ridiculous in my mind. You can show someone get curb stomped but they can't call him an asshole while they do it.

 

[Tress]

I chose grue but I am mostly on the violence vs sex/swearing thing. That is ridiculous in my mind. You can show someone get curb stomped but they can't call him an asshole while they do it.

That was a major thought I had when going through this. The example they used, where Saving Private Ryan is unedited, was focused on the language. They didn't complain about the graphic nature of the violence, especially the opening scene, because that wasn't an issue for them. Plenty of shows have people shooting each other and no one seems to care. Many shows are even based around the idea of protagonists using violence as a primary means of conflict resolution rather than a last resort.

I'm as red-blooded as any American male and I loves me some action movies, but I still recognize that it may not be the best thing for children to see. Yet that's not the concern. The concern is whether or not you can see someone's ass for a few seconds. I won't be naive and pretend I don't know why people are bothered by that, but I will say it should be a lower priority than frivolous* violence.




*It's really the frivolous part that's the problem. Violence in certain contexts is acceptable for entertainment value the same way that it can be acceptable in real life... but when it's gratuitous it becomes a big issue in my mind.

 

[Eriol]

Channel-based ratings perhaps, but generally, let it all go. If a network wants to market itself as "family-friendly" (whatever that term actually means), then they can do so. And NBC (I picked one at random) can say "we're HBO, but everybody can see us!" and everything that goes along with it. It's up to the consumer to police themselves, not the government policing things. Just allow clear ratings to be had, and the rest is up to adults to consider.

As for the "think of the children" argument, I have this to say: Police your own damned children. Know which channels are marketed as "OK" and maybe even be there with them watching things. And if you hate that programming, maybe that's a good reason to DO something with them rather than sit them down in front of the stupid box. And God forbid they hear any of the 7 deadly words while they're there, or maybe even *gasp* a boobie (and not the bird either).

Basically, let the market sort it out. If somebody can make money with a "clean" network, then let them prove that. And the same with something like Spike (or worse) on the other end. It's not the government's job to be worried about a race to the bottom in terms of content. That's the culture as a whole's problem, and what you want to watch yourself.

 

[ScytheRexx]

No Restrictions at the GOVERNMENT level. I understand the reasons for it in the past, as otherwise a child can turn on the television and watch some actor swear up a storm on NBC. However, there are a few reasons this no longer feels so applicable.

1) In this age, with the rise of the DVR and future televisions with built-in services like GoogleTV, we can have better restrictive services and parental controls. Maybe down the line TV shows can carry with them a tag saying the rating, and you can program the box to simply block that show, rather then the whole channel. Solutions like that give control back to the parents while giving freedom to the networks to try out new things.

2) Kids these days are so savy with computers, tablets, smart phones, etc... that most of the time they figure out ways to log onto websites with videos or shows, even just Youtube, where you can find countless videos with people often swearing or playing out sexually suggestive skits. One trip to google and one wrong keyword will take them places even the most raunchy skinemax wouldn't touch at 3AM.

My point in the end, is parents need to be the ones watching what the kids are doing. Parents should have tools to help with this, like even better parental controls, but it should be up to the network what they produce without fear by the FCC. If the networks themselves feel like they want to keep the network "family friendly" then they have that right, but if say ABC decided to have a more adult oriented block at 10:00PM on a Thursday, let them.

 

[sixpackshaker]

But what kid is going to teach their parent how to block a show?

 

[Eriol]

But what kid is going to teach their parent how to block a show?

That's really my point though. This isn't about parents figuring out how to use parental controls (or the like), but rather about parents being involved with their children, and knowing (somewhat) what they're doing. You know, a relationship with your kid? Spending time with them? Novel concepts.

 

[Dei]

No Restrictions at the GOVERNMENT level. I understand the reasons for it in the past, as otherwise a child can turn on the television and watch some actor swear up a storm on NBC. However, there are a few reasons this no longer feels so applicable.

1) In this age, with the rise of the DVR and future televisions with built-in services like GoogleTV, we can have better restrictive services and parental controls. Maybe down the line TV shows can carry with them a tag saying the rating, and you can program the box to simply block that show, rather then the whole channel. Solutions like that give control back to the parents while giving freedom to the networks to try out new things.

2) Kids these days are so savy with computers, tablets, smart phones, etc... that most of the time they figure out ways to log onto websites with videos or shows, even just Youtube, where you can find countless videos with people often swearing or playing out sexually suggestive skits. One trip to google and one wrong keyword will take them places even the most raunchy skinemax wouldn't touch at 3AM.

My point in the end, is parents need to be the ones watching what the kids are doing. Parents should have tools to help with this, like even better parental controls, but it should be up to the network what they produce without fear by the FCC. If the networks themselves feel like they want to keep the network "family friendly" then they have that right, but if say ABC decided to have a more adult oriented block at 10:00PM on a Thursday, let them.

#1 is already possible. I can do it on my cable box now.

 

[Shakey]

All new tv's since 2000 come with a v-chip which allows you to block shows with a certain rating. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/v-chip

 

[GasBandit]

All new tv's since 2000 come with a v-chip which allows you to block shows with a certain rating. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/v-chip

BARBARA STREISAND!

 

[ScytheRexx]

Then that is good. As a childless heathen I never really cared to look into parental controls, so while I had heard of the v-chip, I assumed it was used to block channels, not specific shows. Will be good to know.

 

[PatrThom]

Censorship/screening should happen at the viewer level, not the broadcaster level. The Market should be what decides what is/is not successful. Broadcast media lost my viewership in Feb'09 when they decided I couldn't have any more free broadcast content unless I went out and bought a house full of new, expensive televisions.

Screw that.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Or get one or two of the free converter boxes the gov't was funding at the time. Or spend $35 per TV now... Amazon product

 

[Ravenpoe]

Or get one or two of the free converter boxes the gov't was funding at the time. Or spend $35 per TV now... Amazon product

Yeah, I remember those free vouchers. I filled some out for my parents, and it was a pretty easy process. The converter units themselves were pretty cheap, too.

I mean... yeah, fuck them and their changing stuff! I'm still mad that they moved everything to color broadcasts. Fuck that!

 

[PatrThom]

Price to watch 'free' entertainment on TV in living room ... as low as $25.
Price to watch 'free' entertainment on my computer ... $0.
Just don't see the need. Almost all my entertainment has moved into the home office anyway.

--Patrick

 

[Bowielee]

Price to watch 'free' entertainment on TV in living room ... as low as $25.
Price to watch 'free' entertainment on my computer ... $0.
Just don't see the need. Almost all my entertainment has moved into the home office anyway.

--Patrick

That is completely incorrect.

To view free content on your TV, all you need is a TV antenna, which is what these provisions are for. They are in regard to public airwaves.

To view free content on your computer, you need a TV and at least a dialup connection, which is not free.

 

[PatrThom]

The government program for free boxes has long expired (people no longer take the coupons, even if you have one). I already have a broadband Internet connection to allow all the other Internet things I already do (updates, Skype, email, MMORPG, Minecraft, etc), so adding program viewing to that list adds $0 to my monthly cost. The computer already has a monitor and speakers, so I don't even need to leave the office to view a program.

It's a bit like saying the reason I am not getting my SUV converted from gasoline to run on CNG is because I already own a pickup truck that runs on CNG, so when I want to drive I'll just use that, instead.

--Patrick

 

[Mathias]

Welcome to America where it's ok to show a dude getting a bullet torn through his eye and exploding the back of his cranium on prime time TV, but heaven help you if you show a nipple.

 

[GasBandit]

Welcome to America where it's ok to show a dude getting a bullet torn through his eye and exploding the back of his cranium on prime time TV, but heaven help you if you show a nipple.

I don't know why we persist in this foolishness. Why nobody has stood up in public and shouted, "Why is acceptable to graphically depict murder, a practice society and civilization abhors and which less than 1% of us will ever experience in our life... whereas the depiction of sex, which is wonderful and essential to the continuation of life and nearly every single human being will experience in their life at one time or another, is not?"

It reminds me of an article I read that basically turned the tables on the whole "your tiny child asks about sex" thing... when your 6 year old daughter asks why people have sex... tell the truth. Because it feels good. Don't romanticize it with "because they're in love" or tell them outright fabrications... tell them the truth about why people do it and also tell them the truth about why they're not ready. If you feed them the schtick about "because they're in love" some boy 10 years later will ask "come on, don't you love me?" and she'll feel obligated no matter how it feels to her. Whereas if whatever is going on doesn't feel right, why continue?

I probably made a hash of that paraphrase, but it was an interesting read anyway.

 

[@Li3n]

Welcome to America where it's ok to show a dude getting a bullet torn through his eye and exploding the back of his cranium on prime time TV, but heaven help you if you show a nipple.

Because killing people is good, clean american fun, while getting pregnant isn't?

 

[GasBandit]

Because killing people is good, clean american fun, while getting pregnant isn't?

The first Americans were religious zealots who believed all pleasure was sinful and anything they didn't understand was a witch to be burned. They were so insufferable nobody else in europe would put up with them. Their influence here has dominated ever since, unfortunately.

 

[@Li3n]

The first Americans were religious zealots who believed all pleasure was sinful and anything they didn't understand was a witch to be burned. They were so insufferable nobody else in europe would put up with them. Their influence here has dominated ever since, unfortunately.

And yet 1 out of 3 marriages where shotgun weddings...

Actually that explains it better then just being puritans...

 

[GasBandit]

And yet 1 out of 3 marriages where shotgun weddings...

Actually that explains it better then just being puritans...

Oh, the puritans were a repressed lot, but that doesn't mean they didn't have their scandals too. Perhaps some cause and effect action goin' on there, hrm?

 

[Eriol]

And yet 1 out of 3 marriages where shotgun weddings...

Actually that explains it better then just being puritans...

That list is +win.

 

[@Li3n]

Oh, the puritans were a repressed lot, but that doesn't mean they didn't have their scandals too. Perhaps some cause and effect action goin' on there, hrm?

As the article points out, 1 out of 3 is higher odds then the ones for pregnancy from one sexual encounter... that's a lot of scandals.

 

[GasBandit]

As the article points out, 1 out of 3 is higher odds then the ones for pregnancy from one sexual encounter... that's a lot of scandals.

What I was trying to imply was another trait we inherited was behaving differently in public than in private - IE, yes, they were constantly gettin' it on behind closed doors and then straightening their tunics and going outside where they loudly condemned the devil's indecency. IE, hypocrites... just like today.

 

[PatrThom]

Except back then, their hypocrisy was locally confined rather than in the checkout lane at every grocery store.

--Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

What I was trying to imply was another trait we inherited was behaving differently in public than in private - IE, yes, they were constantly gettin' it on behind closed doors and then straightening their tunics and going outside where they loudly condemned the devil's indecency. IE, hypocrites... just like today.

Except that that's kinda hard to do when you can't throw a stick witohut hitting someone that had a kid 6 months after getting married...

They'd have to be like hypocrites from Krypton... every 3rd person would have to be Newt Gingritch...

Also, you didn't read that cracked link, did you... apparently they encouraged sex just fine, as long as you where married...

Considering the secular nature of your constitution i'd actually say you got more crazy with religion sometimes between then and now...