Yeah, I know. /coat.
The Federal Communications Commission declared last Friday it would fine Disney-owned ABC network $1.43m for broadcasting a revealing episode of cop show NYPD Blue before the watershed in violation of regulations prohibiting the broadcast of obscene material between 6am and 10pm. Specifically, material is deemed indecent if it …
hello visiting Americans, a question, in friendship: do any of your museums or galleries feature sculptures with, say, a bare marble bottom on show? In Europe, where History comes from, we have lots of these, and visiting children seem to leave untroubled.
If you *do* have them - what's the deal with TV bottoms? Why so much more indecent?
Just why are American organisations so uptight about the human body? I mean, you'd think they'd never seen one and didn't have one. If the buttock is a sexual organ then so is every other bit of skin, if you know what you're doing. Oo'er Missus.
And we all know that there is always a small number of people who thrive on being offended by anything and everything, using it as a means to control what everyone else is allowed to do, say and see. Of course in a country in the size of the US you're going to get "numerous complaints", but they're from nutters! Stop encouraging them!
...then we will probably see no more tv debates of presidential candidates?
"..depicts or describes [...] excretory activities [...] in a patently offensive manner..."
Doesn't this directly refer to all of George W's statements about pretty much anything?
Now that i think of it: Doesn't this endanger tv alltogether? Or at least make it ridiculously expensive?
the whole world laughs at America.
Re: Flippant comments about the burkah.
Considering that the skin is part of the excretory system then these comments should be given careful and serious consideration. Whilst lawyers decide whether the skin falls within the definition of an organ everybody on American soil had better cover up just to be sure.
So, if by their logic buttocks are a sexual/excretory organ (laughable in it's own merit), does boobs qualify as a sexual organ as well?
So, next thing you know they will lash on a crusade to lock in for good mothers who are breast feeding their babies for being kiddy fiddlers and having oral sex with an infant, surelly?
The mind boggles.
I wonder what age a US child would be that would still be up after 9pm on a school night? (25th Feb 2003 was a Tuesday - And why did it take 5 years to get to court?)
The Watershed in Britain is 9pm, and we show much more than buttocks after that time, since school age children are assumed to be in bed by that time. (In reality they are probaly watching on the set in their bedrooms.)
The Continent is even more liberal - I have seen bare-breasts on a French circus show on children's television, and a naked opera singer on German TV early in the evening. Their kids seem to grow up as sexually undamaged as any other kids - though less hung up about nudity.
As a matter of interest, are kids allowed to see killings and violence on US TV pre-watershed? Our latest outcry about pre-watershed shows, concerned someone being stabbed in the leg.
The buttocks are indeed a 'sexual organ', in the sense that men find them attractive to look at. It's a hangover from when we as a species, like most animals, tended to have sex from behind. In that sense the FCC is right, though as has been adequately covered, their prudery is still stupid.
Don't you sometimes find America a most amazing country?
They have been world leaders in developing tolerance of gay and alternative lifestyles.
They are probably one of the largest producers of pornography in the world (I'm told ;-), and we're not just talking soft-core, but full-on extreme stuff too.
Their censors go ape-shit over first a few seconds of bare female arse (not the spelling US cousins: an ass is a small donkey). Not being displayed in an erotic context mind, but as what almost sounds as a comedic scene.
They drive us mad sometimes - ok A LOT of the time - but ow wouldn't the world be a duller place without 'em??!
I think they should have fined them more! The TV viewers saw an arse, but God knows what horrors that innocent boy who appeared in the scene had to endure! // I am not serious about this, of course, but I will be in the next paragraph.
So... when we're in the shower bare bottomed, there's something sexual or excretory natured going on? Why is it damaging for a child to see a naked human body? And more to the point in this case, a kid may not understand sex, but we are all naked in the shower and I can't see how confusing and harmful can it be to see a quite natural act a child is already familiar with.
> The buttocks are indeed a 'sexual organ', in the sense that men find them attractive to look at.
If I found spleens attractive to look at, that would make them a 'sexual organ'? More specifically, do you mean "all men", "some men" or "men", or is the quantifier an irrelevant noise word?
> It's a hangover from when we as a species, like most animals, tended to have sex from behind.
This is an objective intellectual prejudice and a subjective titilation. You just like the idea.
> In that sense the FCC is right, though as has been adequately covered, their prudery is still stupid.
To get real these days you first have to get unhyperreal. The FCC is 'right' only in the sense that since the meeja circus around Clinton and Monica has defined their playtime as 'sex' (a hyperreal sex), the FCC is taking a stance consistent with that view, and prudery is irrelevant. Speaking for myself I've never seen a bull and cow get busy with a cigar, tho when I lived in the country I frequently saw them get busy - do you suppose they're missing out? Animals have rights too y'know.
Not really, but there was some biting involved.
Anyway, staying on the topic, lots of ppl pointed out that the mouth may qualify as a sexual organ and the skin is a excretory organ, so what gives? I can't fathom how the puritans come up with this stuff. Didn't they used to air E.R before watershed (never lived there, so I wouldnt know)?
I guess seeing enthrails is less "offending" (whatever that means) than a bit of skin. Same goes for games... I remember God of War being bashed relentlessly in a wide range of forums for a showing some (lovelly) ladies topless, notwhithstanding the fact that 10 secs before that scene the character was (literally) tearing enemies in half.
Again: the mind boggles.
"Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate said of the judgement: "Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly."
Big Brother is watching YOU
I completely agree with the Censor; we should be protected from any view of something as perverted as the human body. That also goes for those three-wall mirrors in fitting rooms where I have been known to catch sight of my own female buttocks (sometimes even before 10pm!!).
Shooting and mutilation is ok, as long as it's not in any erogeneous zones.
Mine's the one with strap-on attached, please.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019