If we're not going to use the power of the FCC to mandate educational and intelligent television, regardless of nudity and profanity, then why not let it turn into hard core pornography and dumbed down profanity? It's not like it's more harmful that the shiat you can learn on Survivor -- pushing ass is a better and more wholesome skill than Machiavellian backstabbing anyway.

Well played. Well played indeed.

OWNED!

I have NEVER typed "win" before after reading an article. But today...

WIN!!!

I have it on good authority that we do not look like our clothes or our makeup.

gilgigamesh: The Obama Administration has defended the Bush indecency policy with great zeal, and Solicitor General Don Verrilli opens his argument by reminding the court that "when a broadcast licensee takes a license for the free and exclusive use of a valuable part of the public domain, it also accepts enforceable public obligations." Verrilli reminds the court that regulation of indecency "has been a defining feature of the broadcast medium from its inception in the 1920s in the Radio Act and has continued to be a defining feature of this medium throughout its history.

Well that's depressing. And no longer a surprise, which is even more depressing.

A) let me say I think the FCC rules are too harsh
B) You don't think the government should be allowed to regulate the public air (broadcast) licenses that companies use? (which is Obama admins position) That's ridiculous.

You are being against something that makes sense just because you don't like the current outcome of it. That's short sited and being a hypocrite.

Flawless victory.

Time to fine Michelangelo!

Supremes: Can you prove that public nudity isn't always an incident?

cman: The Stealth Hippopotamus: It all depends who is getting nekkid

In all honesty, a funny rebuttal would be if Obama lawyers took them a picture of Kathy Bates from about Schmidt

Then out comes the nude Supreme Court from "America: The Book".

fark the FCC.

Honestly, I wonder why they even bother with "indecency" anymore:

It's ok to say "Having Sex" but it's not ok to say "Furking" or "Having a furk".
It's ok to say "Breasts" or "Mamaries" or "Teats" or even "Milk Jugs" but it's not ok to say "Ti-ts".
It's ok to say "Feces" or "Defacate" but it's not ok to say "Sh-it" or "Sh-iting".
It's ok to say "Penis" but it's not ok to say "Co-ck".
It's ok to say "Ejaculate" or "Climax" but it's not ok to say "Cum".
It's ok to see naked animals but not naked humans.
It's ok to see naked National Geographic featured people but not anyone else.
It's ok to see animals having sex but not humans.


Why? They're practically the same!

Well, I'm kind of happy that my kids are not seeing nudity and hearing vulgar terms on TV.
It's fun to explain cop shows though.
You know, the ones where cops are trying to find a serial rapist/murderer that disembowels his victims, and they hunt for clues by flashing a black light on crime scenes to reveal the semen stains, and then the guy/gal cops crack jokes about it while eating jelly-filled donuts.

...Okay.. time for bed kids... goodnight!

Rule 34?

/no exceptions

So because parents don't want to be parents and take responsibility for what their crotch fruit is doing, we all have to suffer for it. Gratuitous violence = okay. Naughty words or bodies in their natural form = the devil.

Some retarded ass laws we have.

gilgigamesh: The Obama Administration has defended the Bush indecency policy with great zeal, and Solicitor General Don Verrilli opens his argument by reminding the court that "when a broadcast licensee takes a license for the free and exclusive use of a valuable part of the public domain, it also accepts enforceable public obligations." Verrilli reminds the court that regulation of indecency "has been a defining feature of the broadcast medium from its inception in the 1920s in the Radio Act and has continued to be a defining feature of this medium throughout its history.

Well that's depressing. And no longer a surprise, which is even more depressing.

Let me put it this way a little clearer:

Saying you believe the FCC rules are to harsh and should be changed is one thing (which Obama doesn't really have control of) but saying that Obama admin should say that Public Broadcast License can't have any government oversight is just plain stupid and that's what you are saying.

The "air waves" are a limited resource of the people, they shouldn't be complete possessed by corporations. Cable is not a limited resource. They can do whatever there but the "air waves" shouldn't be controlled by corporate interests allowed to do whatever they wish and not provide anything for the people.

Besides I bet you didn't know that most of the censoring of TV stations is because the stations themselves censor more than the FCC does. And after 10pm the is isn't restriction on indecency.

That coward David Lopan: BUTT THREAD!!!!!/big>center>

I would correct it, but it actually explains what I'm after in better detail.

FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It's Alyson Hannigan (new window)

I remember the perverse days of the early 2000's when NYPD Blue was showing bare ass on network tv.

/unforunately half the time it was Sipowicz's ass.
//such progressive times we lived in

Ape Shiat Nuts: FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It's Alyson Hannigan (new window)

That should be like the 1st amendment to the constitution

FTA: All told, the lesson today seems to be that one man's flying buttresses are another man's floating butts.

That sums is up pretty well, I think.

medius: i am either unable or unwilling to masturbate to the linked content

Amateur.

I work of art is indecent, but watching news footage at 6pm of a bomb going off and killing people is fine? I can't see sideboob, if I want to see people get beat/maced/tasered, well...there's a network or 20 dedicated to it 24/7 !!!!

/fark the FCC

DarnoKonrad: If we're not going to use the power of the FCC to mandate educational and intelligent television, regardless of nudity and profanity, then why not let it turn into hard core pornography and dumbed down profanity? It's not like it's more harmful that the shiat you can learn on Survivor -- pushing ass is a better and more wholesome skill than Machiavellian backstabbing anyway.

I consider the virtually uncensored violence and gore far worse than profanity or any potential nudity on television. It is fine for kids to see someone get decapitated, but god forbid they find out other people have nipples too.

GreenSun: Honestly, I wonder why they even bother with "indecency" anymore:

It's ok to say "Having Sex" but it's not ok to say "Furking" or "Having a furk".
It's ok to say "Breasts" or "Mamaries" or "Teats" or even "Milk Jugs" but it's not ok to say "Ti-ts".
It's ok to say "Feces" or "Defacate" but it's not ok to say "Sh-it" or "Sh-iting".
It's ok to say "Penis" but it's not ok to say "Co-ck".
It's ok to say "Ejaculate" or "Climax" but it's not ok to say "Cum".
It's ok to see naked animals but not naked humans.
It's ok to see naked National Geographic featured people but not anyone else.
It's ok to see animals having sex but not humans.


Why? They're practically the same!


It's ok to "this that does not trigger a boner" but it's no ok to "thing that does trigger a boner"

because TV is free, and by God you are gonna have to put some work into getting your boner young man.