Stop the FCC!!!!!!!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by RoadDawg

It's upsetting due to the fact that people were subjected to it w/o warning. So basically people are offended cause they saw her breast and didn't want to. Now it was only a split second but she had on a pasty so it's not like you don't so a nipple.

Actually she had Nipple jewelry on, not a pasty, so you could see it. Again, I don't care if it is on the airwaves, give me a warning so I can ensure my kids don't see it.

Anyways. Deadeye I see this forcing him out due to the fact that what he says is gonna cost his company a half a million dollars per word and up to 3 million a full day maximum. Now Howard himself has said that he's been fined for discussing bodily functions, such as pooping, farting etc, and that is rediculous. Infinity/Viacom have money but with stupid fines coming from that, he's not gonna be around. I personally think his show is rather tame and people are making it sound horrible. I've seen worse language, behavior on the streets and schools. Howard on friday even said a quote by GWB saying something to the effect of "cleaning up the airwaves to make a perfect society" which to me sounds like Religious haagwash. Anyways. Just my 2 cents on this issue.

I really can't see the FCC makiong Howard a Martyr. Viacom/Infinity/CBS would most likely fight a long time to protect Howard as he is a Cash Cow.

Want to make it better, add a rating system to the Radio like we have for TV and Movies. That way, at every station break, they can announce the show is intended for mature audiences only and be covered. I have no problem with Howard as I know what to expect. I have a problem having it thrust upon me!

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by PyRo
Its a damn breast you spend the first how many months of your lives sucking on one. How many kids havn't seen one? How is anyone corrupted by seeing that?

And you won't have to explain to your kids why he was ripper her shirt off if you don't let your kid watch it. Newer TV's have those things where you can block certain channels, or even certain shows don't they? So limit your kids to nick, and cartoon network, or whatever else you deem suitable.

It was CBS and the Superbowl for christ's sake. Don't you get that. My son and I go to many games together each year. I just bought season tickets to the Eagles just so he can go. I hate the Eagles (Go Skins), but did this for my son since all of his friends are fans.

I don't let my kids watch HBO, F/X, Cinimax because I know what to expect. We did not expect it at the Superbowl!

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by RoadDawg


Want to make it better, add a rating system to the Radio like we have for TV and Movies. That way, at every station break, they can announce the show is intended for mature audiences only and be covered. I have no problem with Howard as I know what to expect. I have a problem having it thrust upon me!

For alot of shows they do that, Loveline does I know, and it is a very good idea.

[Lohman446]

Originally posted by PyRo
Its a damn breast you spend the first how many months of your lives sucking on one. How many kids havn't seen one? How is anyone corrupted by seeing that?

And you won't have to explain to your kids why he was ripper her shirt off if you don't let your kid watch it. Newer TV's have those things where you can block certain channels, or even certain shows don't they? So limit your kids to nick, and cartoon network, or whatever else you deem suitable.

First off I think the decency rules for the FCC are worded as idiotically as the "baggy" clothing rules for paintball. Lets define it, lets live by the rules.

As for what is broadcast on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS and any other BROADCAST medium it is supposed to be decent to society in generals standards. I have no problem with anything - but I would be greatly offended by many things if my kids were watching it. Yes we need to define what is decent, but some of these adds (the word erection in an add better be on the damn playboy channel for instance) are getting out of hand, the superbowl event was ridiculous and orchestrated. What did you expect with MTV producing it? It was frankly, indecent before that ripping of clothing.

[PyRo]

Noone has stated why they found a breast offensive. If you say its because you don't want your kids seeing it, then why don't you want your kids seeing it?

[Lohman446]

I don't feel my four year old should know about sex. I don't want my four year old arrested as a 16 year old for exposing herself in public... Sure, America has always sheltered there children in regards to sexuality, but that is what we (as a whole) beleive to be right.

Frankly, if it was not an accident, whatever city the Superbowl was held in should arrest them both for public indecency.

[Cryer]

Originally posted by PyRo
Noone has stated why they found a breast offensive. If you say its because you don't want your kids seeing it, then why don't you want your kids seeing it?

Its indecent. People wear clothes for a reason... Our society (well, for the most part) has adapted a set of public morals. Per those morals, its offensive.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Lohman446
I don't feel my four year old should know about sex. I don't want my four year old arrested as a 16 year old for exposing herself in public... Sure, America has always sheltered there children in regards to sexuality, but that is what we (as a whole) beleive to be right.

Frankly, if it was not an accident, whatever city the Superbowl was held in should arrest them both for public indecency.

If someone is that easily influenced by TV, it is not society's fault, but the parents fault.

And a boob is not sex, its something that four year old had been using to get nourishment a few years back.

But I agree, it shouldn't have happened, but people are blowing it out of proportion.

[Cryer]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


If someone is that easily influenced by TV, it is not society's fault, but the parents fault.

And a boob is not sex, its something that four year old had been using to get nourishment a few years back...

If someone is easily influenced by TV, then theyre easily influenced by TV. No body is at fault, per se...

Measures have to be taken to remedy that however. Shows that are intended for family viewing should not contain nudity, reguardless of how long ago you weened your child. If you want nudity, subscribe to the playboy channel, dont get your fix on a .5 second flash of gnasty ole Janet's nipple... (edit... Just a note, that comment wasnt directed at you, pinata... Unless you do get your fix on a .5 second flash of gnasty ole Janet's nipple... Sick freak)

[Target Practice]

Let us not forget that this could (and will) affect the internet as well. Humor sites such as SomethingAwful, Damntheworld, and Hamncheez may be targeted. Now, I certainly don't like furries, and I don't condone making fun of retarded people. But I am not about to keep them from speaking their mind.

I am sure that there are people out there that think of AO as a breeding-ground of militant ideas just waiting to corrupt their child's mind. And, I assume, we all will let them have that opinion. But what if (extreme example) the FCC decided to take action against AO? What if it decided that paintball was a...oh, I don't know...sport that promoted teen violence and vandalism? We sure as hell know that that isn't true.

My point is this. The FCC has not yet put forward their proposal of what is "decent". If we had more of a concrete example of what will and will not be tolerated, the bill would probably be less alarming than it appears.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Cryer


If someone is easily influenced by TV, then theyre easily influenced by TV. No body is at fault, per se...

Measures have to be taken to remedy that however. Shows that are intended for family viewing should not contain nudity, reguardless of how long ago you weened your child. If you want nudity, subscribe to the playboy channel, dont get your fix on a .5 second flash of gnasty ole Janet's nipple...

Yup nudity should not be on TV.

But we need to make sure that the measures we are taking to get rid of nudity, and other gross obscenities don't end up infringing on our civil liberties. I'm not saying that this bill is doing such a thing. But the fines that are imposed need to be, based on the time of day, the amount of people viewing, and what is actually done etc. etc. I mean should someone really be fined 500,000 for dropping an F-bomb on the radio at 11 o'clock at night.

[Lohman446]

Fine, let me rephrase this..

If I and a girl were in public and I started ripping off her clothes and a breast was exposed, and there was a police officer present - I would be talking to a judge, it woudl be a criminal act.

Why are these two above the laws of the state and city they were in?

Lets skip the whining about "not a big deal" crap and all th arguments that you can come up with. I have nothing against breasts I am quite fond of them, but they are not meant for public viewing in todays society.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Lohman446
Fine, let me rephrase this..

If I and a girl were in public and I started ripping off her clothes and a breast was exposed, and there was a police officer present - I would be talking to a judge, it woudl be a criminal act.

Why are these two above the laws of the state and city they were in?

Lets skip the whining about "not a big deal" crap and all th arguments that you can come up with. I have nothing against breasts I am quite fond of them, but they are not meant for public viewing in todays society.

Her boob was not completely exposed. And there are probably a bunch more loopholes, that make them exempt, either that or the police weren't doing there job.

Also they stated it was an accident, so that would be like arresting someone because there pants fell down.

Thats my guess as to why they were not arrested

[1stdeadeye]

Accident my butt!

She was wearing nipple jewelry.

We have started down the slippery slope. Look at the new Milk ads:

[Cryer]

I agree with you in this case, pinata. It's just... your user name is really long... it messes up the nice, neat lines around your posts...

Originally posted by Target Practice
Let us not forget that this could (and will) affect the internet as well. Humor sites such as SomethingAwful, Damntheworld, and Hamncheez may be targeted. Now, I certainly don't like furries, and I don't condone making fun of retarded people. But I am not about to keep them from speaking their mind.

I am sure that there are people out there that think of AO as a breeding-ground of militant ideas just waiting to corrupt their child's mind. And, I assume, we all will let them have that opinion. But what if (extreme example) the FCC decided to take action against AO? What if it decided that paintball was a...oh, I don't know...sport that promoted teen violence and vandalism? We sure as hell know that that isn't true.

My point is this. The FCC has not yet put forward their proposal of what is "decent". If we had more of a concrete example of what will and will not be tolerated, the bill would probably be less alarming than it appears.

I think I understand where you're coming from here, but I fear you may be overreacting. I agree- I wouldnt like it if the FCC deemed AO as a hate factory or the like, but for them to do that would require a radically conservative definition of "decent". That's nigh impossible in todays world with society's norms and morals decaying at the alarming rate they are, Nobody would stand for it.

Now, dont get me wrong, here... I'm not for repression of anyones rights. I believe just as strongly as the next person in our freedom of speech. I'm just saying there needs to be a way for those of us who wish to do so, to completely filter out any objectionable subject matter that threatens our children as a result of said freedom.