TheAgitator.com
What a $1.43 Million Breach of America’s Collective Decency Looks Like
Monday, January 28th, 2008I posted last week about how the FCCslapped a $1.43 million fine on ABC for showing a woman’s buttocks in a five-year-old episode of NYPD Blue.
Below, see what $1.43 million worth of titillation gets you.
Video not safe for work if you work at the FCC.
So, there’s NSFW and then there’s NSFWIYWFTFCC (which is handy for identifying unacceptable prolefeed)….
Totally worth it. I remember seeing this live and being very pleasantly surprised.
Oh no! A woman’s hinder! And half a boob! And a lucky boy! My eyes!
maybe this is part of the “stimulus package”
From the article -
“We find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs — specifically an adult woman’s buttocks,” the FCC wrote in its ruling.
Just since when are buttocks considered sexual or excretory? My anus is the excretory, and lord knows most buttocks are pimply, pale, and cellulite riddled.
Next up: Why wearing veils really aren’t such bad ideas…..
Bureaucrats trying to justify their existence. Now that’s obscene.
A lot more risque than it sounded, I guess, but still playing within the rules I think, even if the rules are stupid. The butt is not a sexual organ. Sexy, yes, but very very different from any sort of genital or excretory shot.
I’m just waiting for the FCC to level a fine against NBC for that mooning scene they did on “St. Elsewhere” back in 1986 where Ed Flanders also told Ronny Cox to kiss his ass. That shot damn near brought down the government and turned us all into pagans. Who expects to see bare buttocks in a show set at a hospital? My god, think of the children.
The FCC sucks.
I’m scarred for life.
That was, frankly, a lot more than I’d expected to see–particularly on network television.
The producers of the show could have dialed it back and still gotten their point across, but *they* chose to take it as far as they did. And now the FCC is coming down (albeit way too late). Still, that’s what you get when you try to be “edgy.”
Is the fine ridiculous? Of course it is. But it could have been avoided.
The fine is ridiculous, and the five-year delay in levying it even more so. However, I was (um, rather pleasantly) surprised by what I saw, and I’m very glad I waited until I got home to view it. That wouldn’t have been SF my W.
“The producers of the show could have dialed it back and still gotten their point across, but *they* chose to take it as far as they did. And now the FCC is coming down (albeit way too late). Still, that’s what you get when you try to be “edgy.””
Right…because obviously showing body parts that pretty much every female or married person sees everyday in the bathroom mirror is “edgy”. Wow, a woman’s taking a shower…obviously we’re only seconds away from anarchy.
If I were the president of ABC I’d be sorely tempted in response to this fine to show the complete and uncut version of “Boogie Nights” in the 7 PM timeslot, advertising it as “must-watch family television”. Now THAT’S edgy.
I would support the fine if it had been Dennis Franz’s ass.
Careful you don’t hurt yourself on the slippery slope, UCrawford.
OK, smart guys, answer me this: What was the POINT behind showing, ahem, the behind (and side)? I say it was titillation for its own sake; I’m not buying that it was somehow artistically necessary. The producers knew they were taking a risk and that was their choice. Or don’t you believe in the concept of consequences? Again, not arguing the ridiculousness of the fine, but there was a line and they crossed it.
And another thing: If I want to see nekkid wimmins on my TV, I have HBO and Showtime.
BTW, what’s the record for negative votes?
How about Pat Robertson calling for assasinations and praying for death to come to people because of where they live on his TV show…now THAT is obscene. Can we fine that dumbass and the PTL???
Egon,
“OK, smart guys, answer me this: What was the POINT behind showing, ahem, the behind (and side)? ”
Who cares? Again, it was nothing that 90% of the population hasn’t seen.
“I say it was titillation for its own sake; I’m not buying that it was somehow artistically necessary.”
Maybe not to you, but to somebody else it may have been. Art (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. Are you saying that only your opinion or the government’s opinion is what should define what’s art?
“The producers knew they were taking a risk and that was their choice.”
They placed advisory labels on their ad campaigns for NYPD Blue and the content of what would be in the show was well-established long before 2003. Anyone who claims that a bare butt on that show was shocking is either a fool, a liar or a politician. And, as I pointed out, this was ground that had been broken 17 years prior on another show.
As for consequences I fully understand that actions have consequences. If you’re saying that we should, however, use that as a reason to accept thoroughly arbitrary government policies (which is what this is) then I find that a rather laughable position.
“How about Pat Robertson calling for assasinations and praying for death to come to people because of where they live on his TV show…now THAT is obscene. Can we fine that dumbass and the PTL???”
Nope…he donated to the President’s campaign. :)
No, Egon, the question is, why should ABC *not* be allowed to show that? Freedom, real freedom, is a negative concept. That is to say, real freedom involves restrictions on your actions only because they harm others — as opposed to your concept of defining things people can do, and requiring them to justify why they should be so allowed.
In this case, the only harm done was to prudes’ sensibilities, and speaking as a morally conservative Christian, I’m not crying for them. I never watched NYPD Blue and didn’t for a reason: it’s not my type of show. That doesn’t mean I’m going to shove my viewing choices down other people’s throats.
ABC’s motive was irrelevant. Nobody was forced to tune in and watch. If you’re channel-flipping, well, *you* assume the risk that you might come across something that offends you. In my case, it’s coming across Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews or the 700 Club.
Perry,
“That doesn’t mean I’m going to shove my viewing choices down other people’s throats.”
Nor should others be allowed to forcibly strip non-harming viewing choices from you simply because they don’t enjoy the same things that you do.
I suppose the logical conclusion of this argument is that network TV should be able to show hard-core porn whenever and to whomever they want, right?
…should be able to show hard-core porn whenever … they want, right?
Why not? Really, why not?
Bonus points if you don’t invoke public ownership of the airwaves.
should be able to show hard-core porn … to whomever they want, right?
Who controls that? Not the broadcasters…
Y’know, I was about to write a long rebuttal, addressing the salient points and all that, until I went back and read the first few lines of the original article and realized that…
“proposed” is not the same as “levied.”
I also realized that it wasn’t the producers who committed the “infraction”; it was TIME ITSELF. (OK, broadcast stations in the wrong time zones.)
So if the ultimate purpose of this post and discussion was to say, “Hey, look how stupid the government is!” (and then get points by jumping on the “Me, too” bandwagon) then I don’t really see the point.
Egon, not sure what your realization has to do with anything. They are proposing to levy it, and we’re arguing with the basis of that proposal.
No one has mentioned this yet that I’ve seen, but it’s worth pointing out that while the buttocks are not an excretory organ (or even an organ at all) there IS an excretory organ on display in that clip… and in fact virtually every single television program: the skin.
I suppose that means the government should fine every single one of us for this constant obscenity.
Sydney,
“I suppose the logical conclusion of this argument is that network TV should be able to show hard-core porn whenever and to whomever they want, right?”
Sure, why not? I’ve got a remote control to change the channel and to turn it on or off. And if I don’t like anything that’s on I can do something else, like read a book or go for a run or watch a movie or go to a bar or whatever. The television’s not actually the center of the universe and last I checked I wasn’t required to watch it…nor was anybody else.
As for hard-core porn on the airwaves, why not? Let NBC decide, for themselves, as a publicly owned company (GE, isn’t it?), and see if they can make money. Same with Fox, CBS, etc. The answer probably is “no”. most advertisers they have for those time slots would pull out (har har) and the company would lose money, ratings, etc. The FREE MARKET would decide what is right for that time slot. And, of course, civilzation might have to endure “Debbie Does the DMV” or something once in a while, but the market (a.k.a the populace) would decide if its right or not…Not the government, nor some stuffy bureaucrat in DC who thinks they know what is “good & moral”.
And if the free market scares you, then just remember, our “government” forced the V-chip on the TV manufacturers, so science can prevent you from seeing too much, right? So why bother with programming if the TV is supposed to protect you (one of Radley’s points, I believe).
Besides, my Yahoo inbox is crammed full of so much more unspeakables than what I saw there….
I’m always flabbergasted that exteme graphic violence is fine to show…we all know that leaves no lasting impression on kids. I guess they would have been fine if they showed her getting her butt blown off with plenty of blood and splatter.
Make war…not love kiddies…
How many hard core porn channels do you see on basic cable?
Wasn’t this show on after 10? I thought you could get away with stuff like this after 10.
Oh, should have read the article first. Stupid central time zone. Aren’t they all in bed by 9 anyway?
Damn but that was some fine looking arse! Here in Australia we had our first boob shot in prime time in…1973 or 4, in a soapy called Number 96! You yanks are INCREDIBLY uptight about nudity, I find it hysterical. ’cause I am rather disturbed at your love of violence.