• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

SUPREME COURT: LIGHTEN UP FCC, NUDITY AND UGLY LANGUAGE NOT ALL THAT BAD

gregg75

gregg75

I really don't think broadcasters are going to see this as a green light to move forward with more indecent language and nudity in primetime. They'd do best to police themselves and let cable slowly loosen the reins, where there are fewer adverse consequences, save for potentially offended subscribers.

At the heart of this was the FCC's inability to alert Fox that there be penalties or fines for "fleeting" expletives, which was somewhat out of its control. I fully expect the FCC to re-write their guidelines and hold them steady, except in "live programming where fleeting profanity and/or nudity occurs without prior knowledge of the broadcaster".
 
recto101 said:
CBS Evening News has reported that Fox and ABC had been fined for Nudity and ugly language.
Click to expand...
Fox and ABC were fined. They both sued the FCC, and those lawsuits are what eventually turned into this decision.
 
Face it, nudity and four-letter words are a fact of life thanks
to cable and pay channels. Time will tell if ABC, CBS, NBC, and
Fox have more of it, but I'm grateful for one thing: I don't have
to monitor any kids' viewing (although they might find some of this
stuff with or without me around).
 
The decision, as I understood it, was largely about clarity and whether the FCC even knew what they were talking about when they made up this stuff.
 
Silkie said:
The decision, as I understood it, was largely about clarity and whether the FCC even knew what they were talking about when they made up this stuff.
Click to expand...

Does the FCC ever know what its talking about? No matter what your stance on government and bureaucracy is, right or left, the FCC is almost always packed with cronies of whoever is in charge, in a way that makes all the other government agencies look efficient and transparent.

As the Supreme Court has demonstrated in the past, though, they know an equal amount, or as was once stated by Justice Potter, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I can't define obscenity but I'll know it when I see it".
 
Hate, War and destruction are obscene and our media are awash in them.

Why pick on nudity?
 
As I put it in another forum, IMHO this decision is not about "the FCC can't fine you for fleeting indecency". It's about "the FCC can't fine you for fleeting indecency unless their rules say they can't fine you for fleeting indecency".

I think we're going to see a rulemaking procedure and a clarification of what you can & can't do -- and the resulting rules will be enforced.

At least as well as the rest of the rules. Like Class D AMs reducing power at sunset, and the legal ID being as close to the hour as feasible, and.........
 
Best way to enforce the "rules" is to change the channel or tune it out if you don't like what you are hearing.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom