Censorship at the Oscars

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 1, 2005, 2:50 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

So wtf? The US invades and deposes foreign governments to "bring freedom" to the people, yet your own performers can't express views mocking laughable issues brought to light be some political hacks on the extreme end of the spectrum? And I do have a hard time with the continual droning of "the sponsours don't like it" argument. Do TV advertisers not reflect the values of their society (ie trying to kiss up to their customer base)? Do the majority of Americans support this censorship and/or the views the extremists who wanted to brand Spongebob Squarepants as "pro-homosexual"?

And the whole nudity thing (a la the "Public Indecency" crap or the Janet Jackson laws): you guys seriously need to get over it. Sexuality is a natural part of human (and animal) life cycles. Yes, you need to apply some restraint and discretion to it, but bared breasts aren't as dangerous as fucking hand guns all over the place, which a great number of TV shows seem to promote.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 1, 2005, 3:16 pm

Dont worry, its a part of the new plan to make the world a safer place.
At the Oscars next year they will only let in women if they remember to wear burkas

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 1, 2005, 4:18 pm

Personally I'm so sick of American policy and the ultra conservatives it almost makes me want to move away. We here in America have to legislate morality time and time again to "protect" our citizens for things that are considered "bad" by one small group. Yet we have more freaks, serial killers and down right evil bastards than Europe by a large margin? Why is that? I'll tell you why, because the more you try to shove stuff down peoples throat the more you try to make someone do something the more they will rebel or snap. Yes any society MUST have rules in order to survive but we continually take it too far... add the continual unjustified deaths of our sons and daughters and it's amost too much. Our overriding rule SHOULD be to take care of one another, yet in "One Nation under God" it's GREED that rules all, frankly it's disgusting.

I LOVE my Country... but sometimes I'm really getting sick of our culture...

Marb

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 1, 2005, 6:17 pm

I don't have any grand conspiratorial claims to make, but I don't agree with this individual instance.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 1, 2005, 6:27 pm

its basically about the way the FCC is run right now.

in my opinion the FCC gives way too much leverage to various activist groups (who tend to be conservative Christian in mission statement) who are using their influence to harrass broadcasters.

we see one tit...one tit...for a fucking microsecond with the lights going out, and all holy hell breaks loose and every fucking broadcaster is running scared.

what is the hottest show on TV right now?

Desperate Housewives. A drama about adultery, murder, etc - like the majority of fucking drama in history i might add - and people love it.

Does that mean it increases adultery?

i got news for you, if a television show "moves" you to infidelity, you were probably going to do it anyway. Just a hunch.

so Desperate Housewives represents what is popular (and my religious brother in law loves it by the way) and largely what the marketplace will accept.

oh yeah, the marketplace, and free trade and all that. i think Republicans are for that.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 1, 2005, 6:28 pm

Censoring the song was idiotic.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » March 1, 2005, 6:49 pm

It's a load of crap to censor free speech. Having said that, when was the last time one of the "censored" performers had anything relevant to say?

Seriously, the FCC is obsolete and needs to be rethought, or perhaps simply disbanded.

And in an attempt to hijack the thread entirely... Am I the only one who was fucking shocked that there was absolutely NO reaction whatsoever from the left regarding the backlash from the Janet Jackson thing?

Seriously. I didn't see ONE feminist activist so much as flinch when they were told night after night that their bodies were evil, and would spawn corruption in america's youth. Now, I'm kinda glad that I didn't have to sit through days and days of feminazi marches and protests, and shit. But the deafening silence from them was just... frightening.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 1, 2005, 6:59 pm

There was backlash, the "liberal" media just didn't cover it because the Conservative groups were selling more TV commercials

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 1, 2005, 7:01 pm

with the technology in almost every TV set (V chip) and almost every cable box to lock programming from minors, there is no reason for a lot of the complaints to even be made.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 1, 2005, 7:11 pm

IMHO the FCC no longer functions and should be disbanded, it's not needed and is only there to server niche groups and cost us taxpayers money.

Marb

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 1, 2005, 8:14 pm

Marbus wrote:IMHO the FCC no longer functions and should be disbanded, it's not needed and is only there to server niche groups and cost us taxpayers money.

Marb

That's the kind of over=reactionary thinking that gets me worked up. The FCC is not being run correctly. It needs to be fixed. Their protocols need to be redirected and the overall charter needs to be refocused. The solution of just getting rid of it, is no solution at all. It is as stupid and a hasty thing to say as 'fuck muslims".

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 1, 2005, 8:55 pm

That is not an knee jerk reaction, it's actually been considered...

The FCC dose not monitor anything, they investigate after a complaint.

They levy fines against radio primarily but are often not paid.

They have a 280 million dollar budget... that you and I pay for...

You big Republican guys should be the first ones asking for this. Don't the Republicans believe that left alone the market will drive a solution? The FCC was created in the 30s to regulate a new exploding market, now they do little more than impeed progress and as I said, answer complaints from niche groups.

Perhaps I should clarify my statement... I said the FCC should go away and that is exactly what I meant. However I do think we need standards and should have groups looking into what is best for the Nation in regards to the airwaves. What we do not need is someone telling people what is decent or indecent... A group just looking into what frequencies to give out could have say a 40 million dollar budget?

Every Radio and TV that I know of has at least 2 knobs... one turns it on and off and the other... CHANGES the Channel. That's my point, the Gov. doesn't need to regulate what people can or can not choose to watch.

We can then take that other 240 million dollars and subsidize SS, or the Sr. Drug program or maybe even low income housing! Problem is there isn't any $$$ or power in that...

Marb

nobody · Post by **nobody** » March 1, 2005, 9:10 pm

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=7777079

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two top U.S. Republican lawmakers on Tuesday said they want to apply broadcast decency standards to cable television and satellite television and radio to protect children from explicit content.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," Stevens, from Alaska, told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents hundreds of local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » March 1, 2005, 9:16 pm

So the PR department at abc decides not to air some admittedly controversial content and now OMG SCREW ALL CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE WITH YOUR VALUES AND SHIT YOU SUCK!!

Voro if everyone had a new tv I'd agree with you. Even mine is 10 years old and I'm not exactly destitute.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 1, 2005, 9:20 pm

Solution #1: Don't watch network TV.

Solution #2: Don't watch cable TV either.

Works wonders for me. Don't have to worry about watching someone censor something. And if enough people stop watching, perhaps they'll get the point.

Then again, that'll never happen. The lemmings across the country are too addicted to their reality shows. Most likely I'd guess because they have no valuable reality of their own.

--
Happiness is..

Midnyte_Ragebringer
You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 1, 2005, 9:20 pm

It isn't the government's job to censor what your children can see. It is your job. Be a fucking parent for a change.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 1, 2005, 9:30 pm

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

First you should know the important things the FCC is intended to do. Not just be pissed by the bullshit they get publicity for doing. Yes, censorship is wrong. We should fight it. The answer isn't assuming this is all they do and must be eliminated.

Sure it's always easy to eliminate. It's much harder to fix the problem. If you really care, you'd support the more difficult, yet right solution of fixing what's wrong and keeping or improving what is right.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » March 1, 2005, 9:55 pm

Kelshara wrote:It isn't the government's job to censor what your children can see. It is your job. Be a fucking parent for a change.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 1, 2005, 11:34 pm

Kelshara wrote:It isn't the government's job to censor what your children can see. It is your job. Be a fucking parent for a change.

Yes, I agree, but you need to have the ability to control what is shown on television for that to be possible, which is why the V chip should have been pursued to a greater extent.

It wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been a better alternative than nothing..

Require the technology to be implemented in television shows and allow the parents to control what the television will show.

Parents cannot be everywhere at once, so give them more control over their own in home avenues for nudity/violence etc.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 1, 2005, 11:58 pm

My comment honestly was more in general.. I am tired of parents trying to push all responsibility over on anybody else they can possibly think of. It pisses me off. I KNOW I would not be able to give a kid all the attention it needs, hence why I don't have one yet. But if I did I would make it MY responsibility to take care of the kids, not push it over on everybody else.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

I will also never understand why so many people get all whiny if they see any partial nudity but at the same time don't give a shit about violence.. but that is a whole other story.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » March 2, 2005, 12:24 am

People will continually push for more and more uncensored tv. A station is not going to worry about FCC fines if their edgy shows rake in advertiser money. What will the fcc do? Raise fines? With all that money going on, im suprised there hasnt been much talks about corruption in the fcc.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » March 2, 2005, 6:08 am

Arrrgh, i cant find the picture i was looking to post here.

50 VVs to the person than can find the picture i wanted:
A picture i think by Frank Miller, for the comic foundation agains censorship, showing a woman bound, with tape over her eyes, ears and mouth, and a unknown man standing with a piece of tape for the mouth, and saying "just one more, then you will be perfectly safe".
Been looking for that picture for a few other treads too, but cant find it

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 2, 2005, 8:39 am

fucking disgusting,these ultra conservatives are directly violating our 1st amendment rights, and in a broader sense our freedom,
its a sad, sad time we live in when in the past 4 years instead of social progression we have actually MOVED BACKWARDS, hell even just 4 years ago i can remember society being more open and "liberal"

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » March 2, 2005, 8:42 am

Aruman wrote:
Kelshara wrote:It isn't the government's job to censor what your children can see. It is your job. Be a fucking parent for a change.
Yes, I agree, but you need to have the ability to control what is shown on television for that to be possible, which is why the V chip should have been pursued to a greater extent.

It wouldn't have been perfect, but it would have been a better alternative than nothing..

Require the technology to be implemented in television shows and allow the parents to control what the television will show.

Parents cannot be everywhere at once, so give them more control over their own in home avenues for nudity/violence etc.

why the hell should the government require anything? if you feel you are a lousy enough parent to not be able to advise your child on what or what not to watch on TV then dont buy a godamn TV

government needs to have NO REGULATIONS over any media, cable, network, radio or otherwise

...I predict before the end of the Bush admin, the government will move to promote censorship on the internet and on cable, satillite networks

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 2, 2005, 9:24 am

I thought it was nice to watch the oscars and not have to listen to any political drivil.

Remember the Oscars is a awards show to honor the achievments of actors and directors not political figures.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 2, 2005, 9:57 am

I see a couple different issues here. First, if whoever is putting on the oscars wants to limit what goes on at the oscars I don't have a problem with that. I may agree or disagree with their choices and that may effect if I choose to watch it, but they are the one putting it on so that is their affair (at least regarding what they are choosing to restrict on their own).

The second component, government restrictions on speech in broadcast media I agree is bullshit. I find the entire "pervasiveness" argument that was orginally made to allow regulation of broadcast media to be very dubious (http://reason.com/9810/fe.wallace.shtml). I think the FCC's oversight of content for broadcast media should end.

Lastly, although the religious right are one of the stronger proponents of such restrictions, they are sadly far from the only ones. Look at the Broadcast Decency Enforcement act that is currently making the rounds of Washington. It passed the house 389 to 38 (36 democrats, one independent, and one republican Ron Paul

being the dissenting votes). Unfortunately, regulation of speech has pretty strong bi-partisan support in Washington.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-310
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index. ... 1&pid=2223

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 10:46 am

Rek, you dont even need a V-chip to regulate what kids watch. Most cable/sat boxes have parental controls.

And if regulating what your child watches is such a priority, buy a new TV at walmart for $200. small price to pay if you cannot yourself control what they watch without the chip.

chmee, I agree with you that ABC has the right to dictate what they show.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 2, 2005, 11:07 am

Xzion wrote: why the hell should the government require anything? if you feel you are a lousy enough parent to not be able to advise your child on what or what not to watch on TV then dont buy a godamn TV

government needs to have NO REGULATIONS over any media, cable, network, radio or otherwise

...I predict before the end of the Bush admin, the government will move to promote censorship on the internet and on cable, satillite networks

Parents can advise their kids until they are blue in the face, but that is no guarantee the kids will take the advice or obey their parents wishes. Then you are assuming that the kids are at the age where they can understand you to begin with.

I think you missed the part where I said the PARENT decides what is shown on their television via the use of the vchip type of technology regardless of whether the parents are at home or not. This gives parents real control over what can appear in their homes. It has nothing to do with the government other than requiring a rating system be applied to television programming, similar to the rating system applied to films in the theatre.

There are other situations that parents can't control anyway, even with the vchip. What do you do when your kid goes to someone elses home? Does that family have the same standards?

Essentially there is no guaranteed way to control everything your kid sees.

I supposed if everyone in the United States threw their television away, that would solve the problems, but how likely is that?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » March 2, 2005, 11:12 am

Voronwë wrote:Rek, you dont even need a V-chip to regulate what kids watch. Most cable/sat boxes have parental controls.

Yes, but that just blocks entire channels, not the content on channels, if I am not mistaken.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 12:38 pm

well, i've got an even lower tech solution.

take the remote from your kid. I refuse to let my daughter watch "The Wiggles". not because i think 4 gay foreigners will corrupt her mind, but because their songs will corrupt my mind.

Fruit Salad....yummy yummy

see?

anyway, its real easy, i take the remote and change it to "Clifford" and say, "you can watch Clifford, you love dogs".

i imagine this paradigm will work until she has her own TV which won't be anytime soon

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 2, 2005, 3:06 pm

We'ere gonna make a fruit salad today... uh uh uh, it's fun to do in a natural way... uh uh uh

The Wiggles rock man! I love their songs, sing them all the time

Kelshara, as a parent of 2 young boys I agree with you 150%!

My 2 yr old has a TV/DVD player in his room. That room is right outside my office so I can see what is going on at all times. Usually I'm in there with him but even if I have to work at night or get to play WoW, I can supervise. We also only allow him to watch about an hour a night and while he is getting dressed in the mornings. The other times I read him books or we play cars, color etc... (He is 26 months and already knows his ABCs) Given that I work an average of 60 hours a week yet still find the time to be with my children (I usually get up and work after they go to sleep) I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who "don't have time." It's my pet peeve as well, you signed up to be a parent, now be one. Do I fail at times, you betcha, we all will, but you get back up and do the best you can.

Marb[/i]

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » March 2, 2005, 3:17 pm

Cartalas wrote:I thought it was nice to watch the oscars and not have to listen to any political drivil.

Remember the Oscars is a awards show to honor the achievments of actors and directors not political figures.

You must have missed Chris Rock's Bush bashing in his monologue.

Personally I think this all is going a little too far, and this idea of regulating satellite TV has no chance of passing. Televisions have parental controls, parents should use them. If something lewd happens at a time/during a show when it's not supposed to however (i.e. Janet Jackson's boob during Superbowl halftime), basically circumventing the parental controls, THEN you have a legitimate gripe.

Anyone else think some of these viagra-type commercials are going a little too far? Especially the one that ends with "erections lasting more than four hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention." My mom and stepdad laughed, it was one of the most awkward moments I've had lately. My dad is VERY conservative...I can't even imagine hearing that with him, or my grandparents for that matter. I've seen that commercial a million times, it comes on like every 10 minutes no matter what time of day it is (and I don't even watch much TV).

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 2, 2005, 3:37 pm

well as for the Cialis commercial (4 hr boners), drugs advertisements that mention any benefits are legally obligated to mention all substantial side effects.

as long as old farts are willing to pay big bucks for a hard on (read: forever), we are going to see these commercials. get used to it