2 registered members (VanillaLimeCoke, 1 invisible),
725
guests, and 3
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics42,527
Posts1,062,412
Members10,349
|
Most Online1,100 Jun 10th, 2024
|
|
|
Re: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs the FCC?
#79591
11/16/04 09:16 PM
11/16/04 09:16 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273 Hell
Mike Sullivan
Underboss
|
Underboss![](/ubb/4stars.gif)
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,273
Hell
|
My God... However grusome and graphic some scenes in the film were, this film is required vewing for all. It is the only film on WWII that I feel came even close to displaying the madness and chaos of war and what happenes at war. It foucused on people and what happenes to them in cobat, and how they become brothers and how they DIE for each other... This is one of the few films that honors those boys who went to fight for our freedom so very long ago. I feel that the FCC can streach the limit just a little bit so that we the people can see this piece of art...
Madness! Madness! - Major Clipton The Bridge On The River Kwai
GOLD - GOLD - GOLD - GOLD. Bright and Yellow, Hard and Cold, Molten, Graven, Hammered, Rolled, Hard to Get and Light to Hold; Stolen, Borrowed, Squandered - Doled. - Greed
Nothing Is Written Lawrence Of Arabia
|
|
|
Re: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs the FCC?
#79592
11/17/04 04:25 AM
11/17/04 04:25 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 839 Elmwood Park, Illinois
YoTonyB
Neighborhood Guy
|
Neighborhood Guy
Underboss
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 839
Elmwood Park, Illinois
|
hsig opines: If I had a definition of "X-rated" from the FCC then I would be glad to provide you with one, but that is precisely my point: the FCC does not say exactly what is and what is not OK. The rules and regulations are written in very murky and ambiguous language, which is why it is so hard to know exactly what it is that they forbid Here's the text of the the FCC rules and regulations governing obscenity, indecency and profanity. I included it here becuase I think it would be a good idea to try to understand the legal foundation that lead to this. It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts. The Commission may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning, for the broadcast of obscene or indecent material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:
* An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
* The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
* The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Indecent Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.
It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid broadcast during times of the day when there a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
Consistent with a federal statute and federal court decisions interpreting the indecency statute, the Commission adopted a rule pursuant to which broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are subject to indecency enforcement action.
Profane Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined profanity as including language that “denote[s] certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”
Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. For the record, profane speech specifically includes the "seven words" along with a couple more that were added after the Pacifica court case. The FCC is pretty clear on this...no profanity in prime time. Based on this standard, there's a case to be made regarding Saving Private Ryan. If artistic merit or historical accuracy are acceptable defenses, then there will be the peace. The FCC pushes...but nobody has pushed back. Companies don't fear the monetary fines. It's the risk of losing a license that they fear. And on a greater political scale, the risk is an increase in the level of regulation like lowering the number of stations a company may own -- overall or in a particular market. So monolithic is the business, nobody wants to rock the regulatory boat. So they pay the fine and move on. They have the right of appeal. If you feel you've received an unfavorable decision by the FCC, you may appeal in federal court. Still not happy with the outcome? Next stop, the Supreme Court, provided they're willing to hear your case. Companies don't appeal because they won't win. They can't challenge the constitutionality of the law, and they can't say it wasn't obscene or indecent or profane based on the standards, because it was! They're guilty! That's why they don't appeal! In Stern's case, in Opie and Anthony's case, the broadcasts were indecent based on the standards, and likely obscene. In the past, the FCC has held the licensee solely responsible for programming content, not the air talent. If the licensee refuses to fight back, the FCC will continue to wield its power as it sees fit. Furthermore, if a Howard Stern is held personally responsible, will he personally challenges the FCC? Very few people have the financial resources to mount a court battle against a regulatory agency. He might. But his only defense will be to argue that the broadcast in question was NOT indecent or obscene or profane based on the existing standards. Saving Private Ryan included profanity in prime time. If push comes to shove, will ABC be the one to shove back on behalf of its own stations and its affiliates? tony b.
"Kid, these are my f**kin' work clothes." "You look good in them golf shoes. You should buy 'em"
|
|
|
Re: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs the FCC?
#79594
11/17/04 08:35 AM
11/17/04 08:35 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 15,058 The Slippery Slope
plawrence
RIP StatMan
|
RIP StatMan
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 15,058
The Slippery Slope
|
"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of seech and stifling of free expression and so on but we no what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days, I have here a march for mine.
It's called...
Smut! Give me smut and nothing but! A dirty novel I can't shut, If it's uncut, And unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled If it was ribald, I would devour where others merely nibbled. As the judge remarked the day that he Acquitted my Aunt Hortense, "to be smut It must be ut- Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por- Nographic pictures I adore. Indecent magazines galore, I like them more If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything! More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures Used by debauchers, Lurid, licentious, and vile, Make me smile. Novels that pander To my taste for candor Give me a pleasure sublime. (let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books Though recent books are bolder, For filth (I'm glad to say) is in The mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd. (I could tell you things about peter pan, And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill To any book like Fanny Hill, And I suppose I always will, If it is swill And really fil Thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately? I've got a hobby: re-reading Lady Chatterley. But now they're trying to take it all Away from us unless We take a stand, and hand in hand We fight for freedom of the press. In other words,
Smut! (I love it) Ah, the adventures of a slut. Oh, I'm a market they can't glut, I don't know what Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray! Let's hear it for the Supreme Court! Don't let them take it away!"
-- Tom Lehrer, from the album That Was The Year That Was, circa 1964 or so.
"Difficult....not impossible"
|
|
|
Re: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN vs the FCC?
#79595
11/19/04 09:15 PM
11/19/04 09:15 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 828 California
howardsternisgod
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 828
California
|
Originally posted by plawrence: "I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of seech and stifling of free expression and so on but we no what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days, I have here a march for mine.
It's called...
Smut! Give me smut and nothing but! A dirty novel I can't shut, If it's uncut, And unsubt- le.
I've never quibbled If it was ribald, I would devour where others merely nibbled. As the judge remarked the day that he Acquitted my Aunt Hortense, "to be smut It must be ut- Terly without redeeming social importance."
Por- Nographic pictures I adore. Indecent magazines galore, I like them more If they're hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything! More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures Used by debauchers, Lurid, licentious, and vile, Make me smile. Novels that pander To my taste for candor Give me a pleasure sublime. (let's face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books Though recent books are bolder, For filth (I'm glad to say) is in The mind of the beholder. When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd. (I could tell you things about peter pan, And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)
I thrill To any book like Fanny Hill, And I suppose I always will, If it is swill And really fil Thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately? I've got a hobby: re-reading Lady Chatterley. But now they're trying to take it all Away from us unless We take a stand, and hand in hand We fight for freedom of the press. In other words,
Smut! (I love it) Ah, the adventures of a slut. Oh, I'm a market they can't glut, I don't know what Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray! Let's hear it for the Supreme Court! Don't let them take it away!"
-- Tom Lehrer, from the album That Was The Year That Was, circa 1964 or so. Congratulations on stopping this debate cold. ![](/threads/images/graemlins/classic/lol.gif)
"Opinions are like buttholes...everyone has one and they all stink." Howard Stern, circa 1986
|
|
|
|