Christ, amen to that! Hell, I got rid of my cable box 2 years ago for the simple reason that there was *nothing* worth watching that I couldn't get on DVD. Can't say I've really missed it since.

And I have to fucking wonder; why did all these lackluster parents push for V-chips back in the '90s if they're not even gonna fucking use them now that they won that battle? You have your TV nanny already; is it *that* hard to actually use it?

Amy:

It is worth noting that the FCC decency restrictions apply only to broadcast channels; i.e., those that use the airwaves.

Had ESPN been carrying that Superbowl instead of CBS, the FCC would not have been able to say boo.

The rationale behind this is that the airwaves are publicly owned, therefore subject to regulation, just like highways.

So, of your 300 channels, roughly 287 or so aren't subject to FCC content regulations.

That's why Howard Stern is on Sirius now.

Although when Howard moved, all the senators that have a hard-on for him started talking about making the FCC regulate satellite and cable too so they could get rid of him.

I have a better idea - how about we censor the Senate. They can't say anything. Period.

You'd think the nitwits at the big three, which are fast losing their market share, would argue discrimination. The world has changed considerably and the FCC is acting like it's still 1952. And isn't Fox and whatever channels 11 and 13 are here in Los Angeles under the FCC thing, too?

The whole thing will change the day the big companies will start broadcasting on the net.

In the world of freedom of expression, no government means good government.

I once suggested to a friend of mine that the FCC had no business regulating content. He asked "so you'd have no problem with them airing hardcore porn in the afternoon".

You should have seen the look on his face when I said "no." I say this because first, I believe that as long as there are advertisers, and those advertisers have influence over where their ads play, then some content will simply not be on the open airwaves.

And second, because any law that's "for the children" is inherently about limiting my freedoms as an adult.

I do not wish to live in a world that has been made perfectly safe for a 5 year old.

Amy:

Whatever content goes out over the airwaves is subject to FCC regulation; all the other stuff is, SFAIK, essentially completely free of government interference.

That the Big 3 are losing market share is in part inevitable -- that is bound to happen when the pipeline expands from essentially 13 channels to 300.

They are also free at any time to sell their broadcast licenses and go exclusively cable.

I suspect there are two reasons they don't. First, their market is bigger than cable only would be. Second, the "comunity" actually does have a broadly shared sense of what constitutes decency. After all, most cable-only outlets don't broadcast anything that would offend the FCC's sensibilities.

From looking at your picture, I can see you are way too young to remember the days of equal time and community service requirements. On Sundays before noon, it was all church, all the time.

Anyway, I don't think it unreasonable that the FCC exert some regulation over a publicly owned resource.

The existence of cable ensures means the government really doesn't get hardly any chance to determine what you watch.

The Government? It's you. And Me and Aunt Ethel. {Don't Look, Ethel!}Is it OK to hot rod your Insight and drive 100 mph in a neighborhood? Somewhere along the line a community comes together and decides what works and what doesn't. As the size of the community grows, so does the difference between what one person wants versus what the community does. You get around that by voting for representatives who might change laws. Isn't it that way in a representative democracy?

But what will you do if the community at large still thinks you shouldn't drive your insight 100mph through a neighborhood?

Find a different place that you can. Like a dragstrip. If not...In essence, you have become the special interest group, and you are stepping on other people's rights now.

If you think all of your neighbors are old prudes, you can in fact move away from them, you can move to a place where your ideas are aligned with the ideas of the community, or move to an island all alone.

Seems like this is just the tug between personal good and communal good.

So why is it such-a-pain-in-the-tush? I would say due to the size and complexity of our government... In our case here, the FCC has become unresponsive to anyone who isn't willing to scream and yell and jump up and down. It's worth noting that many of our laws are made by people with restrictive agendas because they are the only ones who care that much...

I can tell you that conservatives are no more restrictive on watching hardcore in the afternoon than feminists in general... both consider it immoral for different reasons, and together they are quite a voting block. Children? Perhaps that the guise they use sometimes, but all in all there is always a group that wants to control everyone else. Remember the Woman's Temperance Union? There were a lot of people who felt that drink was a great evil, and should be taken away. The law of unintended consequence bit them, and it was voted to end it eventually...

You want to end the tyranny of decency restriction? Make it fit as first ammendment, and you can make it work, or get the voting block you need to get the FCC to prosecute laws made by legislature, rather than technocrat fiat.

But it isn't that this stuff is stupid or dosn't have a place. It's stupid to you [and me] but obviously it isn't to a great deal of people. It is them that we need to convince it's harmless to show Jackson's interesting piercings, even if that becomes a slippery slope of pushing the envelope. Or make times where it's OK to do such things and others when not, and keep to them... so that people aren't surprised by what they see. That can be sliced and diced as needed... Once everything has gone digital, it will probably be easier to set the v-chips as well for parents, and other people of delicate constitution...

And then through the magic of technology, people can SELF regulate, and maybe we can pull back some of the more restrictive and stupid rules...

That's all necesarilly my opinion, natch. Seriously though, when you don't look at yourself as being part of the govenrment, then you aren't. Er, man that sounds too much like sermonizing, so I'll get off the soapbox.

Are you seriously comparing a car driving 100mph thru a sall neiborhood with a televison that any parent can program not to show certain things or just simply turn off?

Next I suppose you'll compare an AK 47 with a PC

Is it OK to hot rod your Insight and drive 100 mph in a neighborhood?

This is just silly. I could physically harm somebody if I drive my Insight through your neighborhood at 100mph. Hell, I could probably physically harm my Insight. If the speedometer even goes up to that point, it's a waste of numbering.

Anyway, how does my watching a show in which somebody says "fuck" physically harm you?

You need to put more logic into your arguments. That one's easier to pop than a kid's balloon in a hatpin factory.

I can tell you that conservatives are no more restrictive on watching hardcore in the afternoon than feminists in general... both consider it immoral for different reasons, and together they are quite a voting block.

It's real simple. Vote with your dollars. Doesn't agree with you? Novel concept: Don't watch.

P.S. Nobody's stopping anybody from starting Christian Broadcasting stations (they're sucking dollars out of the gullible at this very moment) or even feminist broadcasting stations. Have at it. Meanwhile, I prefer to watch television in which the characters can say "fuck" and "dick" instead of "oh, poop!" and "weenie."

What I think Americans should be most concerned about is the possible reintroduction of the "Fairness Doctrine". That's bureaucratic double-speak for censoring political opinion.

Here in Canada we're going through a huge wake-up call realization that Free Speech doesn't really exist. I'm not talking about hate speech or libel. What has become clear is that certain political opinions (ie. not ultra-left politically correct ones) are at risk of being censored by unelected bureaucrats.

In the U.S., if Obama and a Democrat majority gets in, watch for precisely the same thing to occur.

We have a huge amount of media now, and not just three TV stations. When we did have three TV stations, perhaps it made more sense to say if you gave one candidate time, the other had to be given time, too. Not that I agree with that enforcement, just that I can understand it better under those circumstances.

Today, any one of us can start a free blog on the Internet. We have personal media up the wazoo. If you want to be heard, as I pointed out in the posting just below this one about the whiney female bloggers, it's pretty simple: Just say something interesting.>/i>

I'll be ok with seeing naked breasts in advertising as soon as they start shoing penis's. Fair is fair!

I don't know about nudity in general, but there is something called "porn creep" where exposure to porn desensitizes you, and it takes more and more and more extreme porn to get you the same level of stimulus. PLus, it does give you less realistic expectations of what people "should" look like, even subconciously. So I would worry about that same effect if nudity were to become really commonplace on tv and in ads. But yeah, it's not the government's job to parent my kids. I decide what they watch. Because I am actually HERE, unlike lots of parents.

People used to go around naked or largely naked. The French haven't lost their sex drive due to the breasts in the subway. In fact, I haven't studied this formally, but there's a lot less of a porn boom there than here, I believe.

Also, breasts are not genitals. Vaginas and penises are.

I know of no actual scientific studies that show that "the chill-drunn" are harmed by seeing naked people, or even out-and-out sex. In Ancient Rome, you saw "herms" (statues of a man with an absolutely HUMUNGOUS erection---this woud make John C. Holmes look like an eunuch!) everywhere, and nobody thought anything of it until Christianity came along.

Like many -- though I was ostensibly watching the game -- I missed the wardrobe malfunction entirely.

However, it was shown several times, including slow-motion, on the local KNXT newscast following the show.

Somebody's being a bit disingenuous abou this whole thing.

That said, I'm reminded of a female gym teacher in my high school -- and this is back in the '60s. Some girls (purportedly) complained to her than guys were sneaking peeks into the shower. To which information, her reply was something like, "If they haven't seen it by now, it's about time they did."

She subsequently took steps to correct the problem, but she did have a point.

I don't know about nudity in general, but there is something called "porn creep" where exposure to porn desensitizes you, and it takes more and more and more extreme porn to get you the same level of stimulus.

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. Don't ask me how I know.

Ever consider porn creep is nothing more than people who discovered the kink that really turned them one refusing to go back to the realitivly boring stuff?

Amy:

I think you have lost the bubble.

The problem you are worried about does not exist.

I forgot to mention ...

Robert W. is right on the money for what you should really be worried about.

"You need to put more logic into your arguments. That one's easier to pop than a kid's balloon in a hatpin factory." AA...

heh, perhaps I was too outrageous for it's own sake... how about if you go 40 in a 25mph zone?

The point I was making was more in the primordial soup of society: We come together to make rules in a society and they work because we agree to abide by them. Nothing more or less. This applies to speed limits, indecent exposure, or money laundering. Lotsa people [myself included] think the indecency laws are pretty stupid, and that the parent should be the ultimate arbiter of what the kid can see. We are not the only people in the society though. There ARE lots of people in this society that think we don't need to see 2" nipples on the subway wall. Regardless of you, me or anyone else telling them there is no harm in that, they still get to have an opinion... and in making a law about it, if there are 3 of them and 2 of us, they win...
To lujlp's point about AK-47's and PC's, if I drop a PC off an overpass onto a speeding car, I may well do as much damage as the AK. Importantly the law isn't about me using the AK or the PC, it's about the result and my intent. Amy's insight is just as deadly if driven recklessly as the AK would be, and if she were to strike somebody crossing the street at 40mph, it wouldn't be harmless.

We know Amy would never do such things, but we still regulate her and her car. She has to have a license, and so does the vehicle, and both have to have insurance, and there are laws about how she must operate that vehicle. The potential danger of the vehicle would seem to invite the laws in a way that indecency laws obviously don't need.

But the mechanism for making the law and the underlying agreement about why it should be made are the same. A group of people in society feels that there are things that should be regulated by laws, and we agree to do that. Regardless if the law is about having your stero turned up so loud the people 2 blocks away can hear it, or if depriving a person of their life is wrong. Those are polar opposites from each other in importance but they are both law, rule or ordnance. To change them requires that a group of the society WANT to change them, and make it happen. It doesn't require that there is a ton of logic, though it helps. I didn't care much about noise laws until the band moved in to the house next door and started practicing a lot in the middle of the night during the week. They told me where I could stuff it when I asked them to at least not do it at 2am. They weren't happy when I told them that their other neighbor was a cop, and he wouldn't ask politely...

Yeah the rules that the FCC sets are a pain in the butt, but if something needs to be attacked for stupid laws, the IRS would be a choice much higher on my list, or the fact that congress is completely idiotic about pretty much everything. The FCC itself is fading into irrelevance on this matter simply because technology is changing quickly and is much easier for individual control.

This reminds me of a story my fiance told me about when he was working as a customer service rep for Direct TV.

He got a call transfer from an irate woman, who objected to LOGO (a lifestyle channel that caters mostly to gays/lesbians) being added to the channel lineup. She said something to the effect of: "There are CHILDREN in this house! You get this gay crap off my television or I'm going to cancel my service!!" to which my fiance calmly replied, "Allow me to transfer you to our cancellation department." She (predictably) hung up.

I wholeheartedly agree with Amy. I have had cable television my entire life, and have never ONCE been forcibly subjected to something I did not want to see (unless you count my father commandeering the big-screen to watch Star Trek: the Next Generation once a week.) Government regulating television is asinine. This is America. We register our displeasure with the almighty dollar. Don't like something? Don't support its advertising.

I have to say that I agree with Amy. If you don't like what's on TV either change the channel or turn it off altogether. Cable hasn't been in my budget for years (and my bunny ears don't get many channels) so my kids think TV is watching DVDs. They watch movies with me, and they're smart enough not to stay in the room if they don't want to see what I'm watching. They've heard all the bad language there is, but they don't use it, mainly because I don't use it in my everyday speech.
At some point people need to realize that you can't protect your kids from the world. It's better to guide them and trust that you've taught them well enough to know what's right.

I don't know. The real debate is just where to draw the line and I think control is a good answer.

Yes, we can change the channel, etc., but while the Janet Jackson thing was overblown, I thought it was crass of her at best and it was live TV on a program where the uptight about such thing had no reason to suspect they'd be seeing naked boobie. So they had a right to complain. How can you keep your children (or yourself) from tuning into something when you think you're tuning into a football game, for Pete's sake, and have no reason to think you'd see some pop star living on Planet Look At Me, Won't You For The Love Of God Look At Me, flashing your kiddies. It was overblown but it was the media more than the complainers that blew it out of all proportion. Frankly, it's Jackson who should have been fined.

I like Howard Stern. I miss listening to him. Even though, sometimes he did get too gross for my taste. When he did -- you got it -- I'd change the channel. Give him a half hour and tune back in. There were just a couple of stunts I found too gross. But if you tune in to Howard Stern, you can expect such. No cause to complain and I didn't. I found him and his crew funny 95% of the time and would tune back in fully prepared to tune out for a bit if he went to one of them. I grant you there are people who would find his whole show gross. They were welcome to not tune him in (as I never tuned in Rush Limbaugh) and go elsewhere. I'm pissed they drove him off the free airways. Damn it.

But, I've got to say, there are times I am glad for American prudishness. I don't care to have two inch nipples in my face on the bus. I'm glad they are forced to at least scantily cover them. I used to watch Seinfeld regularly and the episode with the naked guy on the subway was hilarious but I am damned glad they had to cover his private bits with a newspaper. Nor do I really care to watch other people having intercourse. So I don't buy porn. But I don't really give a damn that others do. To each their own.

Yes, I'm somewhat a prude (though not by the Religious Right's standards, see Howard Stern reference above) and I admit it. Where I can tune out, I don't care but certainly let it be obvious that I would desire to tune out. If I'm tuning into something innocent (the boob flash doesn't upset me like it does some but I'd be bothered if she walked out entirely naked for instance), I should be tuning into what I expect to see.

I do think the overreaction to cuss words way overblown. We actually live in a day and age where they just about cream you for saying fuck in front of a child and act like it's child abuse. That's absurd.

And it's annoying as hell to have words bleeped out even when it's obvious what they are and everyone knows what they are. Anyone who thinks their little darlings don't hear these words is an idiot. And anyone who gets in a tizzy because a five year old repeats them is just plain silly and only encouraging them to do so.

I don't know. Maybe just rate the programs. I love Chef Gordon Ramsey's two shows and so does my daughter and grandson. But there's a warning before hand that there will be strong language so you know it's not just cooking. Don't tune it if you can't stand hearing him yell fuck me at his contestants or at the idiot restrauteurs he's trying to help.

Then those who can stand only the Brady Bunch and Praise the Lord can tune in to just those. Those who are amused by a top-rated chef tearing a new asshole for the idiots who won't listen to him while claiming to want to learn from him can tune in to that. And those who want to watch porn can tune into that.

One thing that really bugs me, though, is the lack of censorship on commercials. For Pete's sake if you're going to rate the shows, make sure the commercials match. It pisses me off to no end to be watching something freaking G as hell with my grandson and the next thing I know they're running a trailer for some prime time show and showing somebody shooting someone when I purposely tuned into something tame because there was a freaking four year old watching.

Now that they should pass a Goddamn law about. I am so sick of calling up (and I only have over the air channels, no cable) stations and screaming at them for it. And, while you are at it, also censor the gross graphic PSA's. If I am watching the GD Brady Bunch with my grandson (yes, this actually happened) he shouldn't suddenly be hit in the face with a graphic re-enactment of a teen dying in a drunk driving car wreck!