Thursday, February 17, 2005
no bouncing boobies here
The House yesterday approved stiffer fines for indecency on tv and radio. Critics fear that this will result in self censorship as the question of what could be fined for indecency is somewhat subjective. (Perhaps cartoon shows promoting tolerance of gay parents could be considered indecent? Or Will and Grace episodes with sexual innuendos? Or maybe that paragon of indecency, Spongebob?)
So my question is, where does parental responsibility come into this? And where is the outrage over the violence that is seen daily on TV (including real violence perpetrated by the US in our war on Iraqis)?
I just cannot understand how seeing Janet Jackson's breast is more damaging to a child than watching the local TV news at night. Or how people can get more upset about the profanity in Saving Private Ryan than about the violence of war. Or how it's somehow sane to ban references to "excretions" from 6am to 10pm, but dead bodies shown on tv are apparently just fine.
What is especially insane to me is that WalMart can get off with a fine of $135,000 for violating child labor laws in 3 states, while CBS-owned stations were slapped with fines totalling $550,000 for the last year's Superbowl. I guess our government believes that it's more hazardous for children to see unexpected chest shots than to use chain saws.
If we want to talk about indecency that should be banned (warning: graphic material), how about perhaps not allowing hookers to attend White House press briefings or to ask our President questions at press conferences?
¶ 10:45 AM
The House yesterday approved stiffer fines for indecency on tv and radio. Critics fear that this will result in self censorship as the question of what could be fined for indecency is somewhat subjective. (Perhaps cartoon shows promoting tolerance of gay parents could be considered indecent? Or Will and Grace episodes with sexual innuendos? Or maybe that paragon of indecency, Spongebob?)
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.
So my question is, where does parental responsibility come into this? And where is the outrage over the violence that is seen daily on TV (including real violence perpetrated by the US in our war on Iraqis)?
I just cannot understand how seeing Janet Jackson's breast is more damaging to a child than watching the local TV news at night. Or how people can get more upset about the profanity in Saving Private Ryan than about the violence of war. Or how it's somehow sane to ban references to "excretions" from 6am to 10pm, but dead bodies shown on tv are apparently just fine.
What is especially insane to me is that WalMart can get off with a fine of $135,000 for violating child labor laws in 3 states, while CBS-owned stations were slapped with fines totalling $550,000 for the last year's Superbowl. I guess our government believes that it's more hazardous for children to see unexpected chest shots than to use chain saws.
If we want to talk about indecency that should be banned (warning: graphic material), how about perhaps not allowing hookers to attend White House press briefings or to ask our President questions at press conferences?
¶ 10:45 AM
