Indecency
ABC Faces Indecency Fine For 2003 ‘NYPD Blue’ Episode – washingtonpost.com
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday proposed a $1.43 million indecency fine against ABC television stations for a 2003 episode of “NYPD Blue,” the second-largest proposed indecency fine against a television broadcaster ever. (…) The episode in question, aired Feb. 25, 2003, contained a scene featuring a woman and a young boy. In the scene, the woman disrobes in a bathroom. She is shown in full dorsal nudity, and the side of one breast is shown.
It’s so reassuring to know that our federal government is watching out for us, isn’t it? I mean… a BREAST!! My god! For all we know, ABC may even have shown what is unquestionably the most obscene part of the human body: the female nipple.
One of the most memorable images I’ve ever seen on television came from an episode of CSI. In the show, some guy had been crushed by a big packing crate. The CSI investigators arrange to have the crate lifted off him and we were treated to a close up of what was supposedly left of the guy: a mash of skin, bone, and blood. With a few recognizable bits thrown in for effect.
I don’t recall hearing that the FCC imposed any fines for that episode.
Or, here was another good one. Remember when Sadam Hussein’s sons were killed? They were burned up in some bombing, as I recall. Several of the television news shows featured full-color pictures of their bodies.
Now, that was indecent.
Posted by RebeccaHartong on January 26, 2008 under Life
Hmm
Strange how it took so long for them to decide to do something. Now their decision is not necessarily what I would have done so don’t take my statement that way. 5 years? Isn’t there an applicable statute of limitations? Is this a felony?
There is a bit more to the story than you put here, as usual. This rule, good or bad, only applies from 6AM to 10PM, you don’t mention this.
Should we have no FCC control over our programming? I think there should be some. If my kids were to turn on the TV and see extremely inappropriate content I would, of course, be upset.
Now, I do agree with you on some level that the rules seem unclearly defined. Maybe, probably they are not ideal. They could be refined further certainly. Then having clear rules, they could be debated.
You may wish to live in Europe where they have many fully nude outdoor activities such as bike rides but for the MOST PART I prefer the USA.
Maybe some feel that children of all ages should be exposed to any type of content whatsoever, you may feel this way. I actually used a neighbor’s bathroom once when visiting his house and noticed numerous extremely hardcore porn mag’s in the magazine rack next to the toilet. I mean really nasty stuff. His kids, 4 and 8 used this bathroom every day with exposure to the magazine’s. Myself, I believe that’s WAY on the wrong side of the line. But I DO believe in a line, some line, JUST DEBATE THE LINE not how our government is fascist or something.
Showing a glimpse of a woman’s nipple on TV AFTER 10PM, I have no problem with that. Why, in fact, I rather like nipples. How did I miss that episode?
Best,
-ultra
There is a bit more to the story than you put here, as usual. This rule, good or bad, only applies from 6AM to 10PM, you don’t mention this.
The times of day during which the rule applies is irrelevant to the point I was making: That, in terms of indecency, I find the sight of a mangled dead body far more offensive than the brief glimpse of a naked living adult.
Should we have no FCC control over our programming? I think there should be some. If my kids were to turn on the TV and see extremely inappropriate content I would, of course, be upset.
There’s quite a bit of territory between “no control over programming” and regulations that focus on material proven to be harmful to children. Graphic violence, for example, or hard-core pornography. Does your idea of “extremely inappropriate” include the sight of an adult’s rear end (several networks have been fined for that) or a the sight of Janet Jackson’s pierced nipple? (Ouch! Maybe that’s not a good choice for an example!) If it were me, I’d be far more worried about my kids being exposed to television violence.
As for your neighbor with the porn in his bathroom. Besides being grossly inappropriate, what he’s doing is very likely illegal. If I had children, I’d be keeping them far far away from that guy. You might even consider calling your local family services office. I’d really wonder about a person who didn’t understand why that was a bad thing to do. What else are his kids being exposed to?
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
I agree with you on the intense violence or rather graphic images of death. It can be disturbing to say the least. With proper parental presence, communication and guidance (as I believe is present in my house) I believe that mild nudity or violence would not result in harm, great upset or anything else unpleasant. Some shoot-’em-up movies are OK with me. I have no problem with good vs. bad type gun movies in my house. We are there to offer guidance and this I find to be the key point. Personal responsibility.
I don’t find an adult’s rear-end offensive at all but this must be tempered with some degree of appropriateness. Of course we have all seen movies or cable shows that unexpectedly change scene to a strip bar or such thing. That puts me in a bit of a spot as a parent, pausing, explaining what’s happening, how it’s not the best thing that could be, what would be better, what kind of people frequent those places, etc. Now, our guidance may not be perfect but we do try. As far as a boob goes, well my response if viewing with my kids would probably be “wow, they showed a boob, normally that is the kind of thing that married people do.” End of discussion.
We live far from that fellow now and have communicated it to certain appropriate parties. I suspected him of other unsavory things as well . One gains experience with people and then makes new decisions about them. My kids were banned from playing with his kids after I saw this.
The 10PM rule seems fine to me, maybe not ideal but what would be a better suggestion? Just include more things into the rule such as the images of death? Do we include images of mummies or painfully desiccated corpses buried under volcanic ash (I find some of these images quite horrible) in this ban as well? Abolish it altogether?
While watching the Science Channel AND Discovery Times I have seen Girls Gone Wild commercials just today. These used to only be on Spike. I wonder if an unintended consequence of this type of rule makes it “more OK” to show further and further degraded content after 10PM. What if I considered the Science Channel “safe content” and recorded a show for my kids in the middle of the night (only time it was on) and then I allowed them to watch and learn about the moon or outer space without me present and they were repeatedly subjected to 18 year old girls making out? NOT exactly what I was aiming for there, ya know? Maybe I’m defeating my own argument about the 10PM rule being OK…
What it basically boils down to is a lack of personal ethics being substituted for by group morals. Far from an ideal situation and I think it has a lot to do with the phenomenon of how we get a worse police state that we seem to have at times already.
And the utter insanity in some cartoons is way way worse than many other things IMHO.
Probably we agree more than I initially realized. Or not, I’m sure you’ll let me know. I am at least always learning.
Wow, I really went on again.
What it basically boils down to is a lack of personal ethics being substituted for by group morals.
I agree with you completely.
I can certainly understand your frustration with the “Girls Gone Wild” commercial in the middle of the science show. It’s not the sort of thing you (or I) would have expected and, while those kinds of commercials aren’t indecent by my way of thinking, they do distract from the science show and create an unwelcome situation where you may find yourself spending more time explaining the commercial than the content of the show.
Grrr. I’d be annoyed. I mean..really..does ANYONE want their 6 year old daughter getting the message that it’s funny for her to flash her body for strangers? Uh..no.
I guess the only way to be completely safe is to review the show ahead of time and edit out the commercials (who’s got the time) or to get this sort of thing from Netflix or from a library. (Netflix has a truly impressive range of educational programming, by the way. I was pleasantly surprised.)
Anyway. Please don’t worry about “going on”. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to comment.
Thanks Rebecca, I am having fun talking to you.
Netflix is excellent. We get lots of movies from them and a fair amount of documentaries too. Their online movie service is pretty good too. Weird how you can’t re-watch a movie after you’ve seen it. I noticed that just yesterday. We clicked on an online movie (Real Genius [1985]) while shifting furniture for tiling and painting and after we watched it, it said N/A on the play button. What if I fell asleep and wanted to finish it? I couldn’t. Not flawless online but their delivery service is quite good.
Whether or not they are indecent commercials is an interesting point and an entire topic of conversation in and of itself so I will only attempt to gloss over it.
Probably I will leave the word indecent out of it as my main concern is really whether or not viewing something like those commercials assists my kids in life or detracts from their present or future. My viewpoint is pretty much that these girls are taken advantage of. Willingly yes but in many cases drunkenly. You probably know as I do that when one drinks alcohol one’s judgment is at least a bit different that it normally would be. I guess a drunken signature on a release or waiver is as legally good as a sober one though.
I can’t believe that there isn’t a fair percentage of these girls (say maybe 20% at a wild guess) who don’t look back after seeing themselves (or their family seeing them) on TV and regret it to some degree. Maybe they had boyfriends that were hurt by this. Maybe their future relationship potential was hurt by this, after all how long do these things circulate? They are selling a lot of them. 15 years from now some kids get their hands on some old GGW DVD’s and say “hey, that looks a lot like Mom’s old pictures, OMG”… Far fetched, maybe, but I’m just throwing out thoughts here. After all, I found some 1960′s Playboys (where if you were lucky you’d see a tiny bit of pubic hair in the centerfold) in the early 80′s. I’m kinda glad I didn’t see my mom in those magazines. What will we be as a nation when we are a nation with “tramp-stamped” grandmothers that have appeared on GGW?
Imagine for a moment if you will the most suave “sales” men with impressive production crews, $thousands (or even $hundreds) in-hand for “willing” performers. How does this upset the natural order of a young man’s and a young woman’s interest in each other? Who really profits? Joe Francis profits at their expense.
I don’t think it’s a nice thing to do to young girls and if I went and surveyed 100 parents as to whether or not they’d like their daughters to be on GGW, I bet at least 80% would say NO. That says something.
Now I could way too easily digress into about 5 other topics from here. I’d probably have to in order to fully explain why I wouldn’t want my kids watching these commercials. And just for the record, I think sex is the bomb, you won’t find a more avid supporter of having fun on a bed than me. I also think true romantic love is MUCH better than JUST sex.
Now, like I said, this gets into other issues which I’d be happy to discuss at length in the future but for now I think there is someplace we can agree here and I hesitate to digress further than I already have.
Is it the government’s place to come in and stop them? Not really. Of course I don’t want them on, so what does one do? Have a face-to-face with Joe Francis? Eh, that’s just ornery me, with my libertarian tendencies, believer in outdated concepts such as autonomy, the Constitution and the like…
Best,
-ultra