<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What's wrong with PBS? The Discovery Channel? The History Channel? Animal Planet?
I could go on and on, but there are <i>lots</i> of worthwile educational TV programs.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Last time I checked, the verdict on the 'right way' to live was still out. Guess I should move with the times... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is.
*shrug* I'm more of a PJ or underwear kinda guy... I just don't find women flaunting about in the nude appealing... I find it more like whorish and such *shrug*
then again... I'm also the one that gets horney when his g/f rubs his ear the right way (don't ask...)
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+Mar 1 2005, 03:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Mar 1 2005, 03:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> then again... I'm also the one that gets horney when his g/f rubs his ear the right way (don't ask...) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> O.o
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Last time I checked, the verdict on the 'right way' to live was still out. Guess I should move with the times... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its an exclusive deal. The people who want nudity are apeasable with shows that push the boundries but don't acctually breach the threshold like blind date or other such racy shows. The converse is not true.
<!--QuoteBegin-Swiftspear+Mar 1 2005, 06:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Swiftspear @ Mar 1 2005, 06:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Feb 27 2005, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 27 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Last time I checked, the verdict on the 'right way' to live was still out. Guess I should move with the times... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its an exclusive deal. The people who want nudity are apeasable with shows that push the boundries but don't acctually breach the threshold like blind date or other such racy shows. The converse is not true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you mean the inverse?
Not all are appeasable with borderline shows, hence the existance of hard and softcore porn and the Playboy channel.
To be honest, I find a woman in certain outfits to be much more sexual than a plain nude woman, and I'm sure that many agree with me. (Though maybe not... Most people don't share my view that he human body is art and is always beautiful, these days. :/ Note that I said beautiful, not neccessarily sexually attractive.)
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
Maybe they should realise to TV isnt only for children. Adults wanna have there fun too. They already have it, but make more specific set times as too when things can be seen.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
Don't tell the FCC, but we let 2 eff bombs fly over the air <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Turns out the mix was clean except for "what the **** this is flipping awesome"
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Bush has his way...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it just me... or is that completely out of nowhere?
It doesn't contribute to the article other than directing hate towards the president, it isn't backed up in any way, and it neglects a little thing called "congress."
Although honestly... I really hate how articles like this compare monetary values to pull on people's heart-strings.
Why not measure Bill Gates' worth in how many nuclear violations he can mount before he runs out of money?
Or how about how much brutal dictators took from starving children last year?
"FCC Violations now cost more than your grandma!" is a nice summary of the article.
In all honesty, i'm pretty sure the fine is so jacked up because it's in the public eye. All of the others aren't. Also, the whole "morality" blah blah blah thing is much more recent than illegal drug testing and the like. I'm sure if a recent atrosity in regaurds to nukes, drug testing, or killing grandma were to be printed all over the newspapers then the fine for that would go up to an equally astronomical amount.
Futermore, I'm fairly sure that man slaughter, nuke violations, and medical accidents can, according to severty, carry jail time as well as a fine. I don't think this FCC matter could.
Fines are also put in place as a means for detering something from happening so that the person who could potentially violate the restriction would be reasonably cautious to prevent it. When you're talking about media conglomerates and celeberties, that value is going to be higher.
If the previous value were to be kept, there is a chance that somebody could go onto the airwaves and spout off whatever they want, create controversy, and use the publicity of it as a counterbalance to the "operating cost" of FCC fines. The role of the FCC is to say "we don't want that on Television/Radio. You haven't taken reasonable measure before, so we're going to make you more apt to do so."
<!--QuoteBegin-NumbersNotFound+Mar 1 2005, 06:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NumbersNotFound @ Mar 1 2005, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "we don't want that on Television/Radio. You haven't taken reasonable measure before, so we're going to make you more apt to do so." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Who is "we?"
These sorts of FCC fines didn't crop up yesterday. They've been around for a long time, it's only recently that they've come into any sort of public view, causing a review of the system to tighten it up a bit.
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 27 2005, 11:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry I missed this, I didn't see your reply until now.
I find it disturbing, confusing, and saddening that people are actually fighting to have nudity, profanity, and otherwise bad content on the public airwaves. While people complained of the "restrictive" content of the **** Van Dyke-era shows, I <b>liked</b> them because they were safe. I know when I stick a Jerry Lewis movie in the DVD player, that Jerry isn't going to throw out an F-bomb to "push the barriers". I would have no problem with protest against these censors if the censors were unjust. I don't think they are. I'm pleased with them.
If I gave the impression that the FCC <b>has</b> to change the policies to match what I want to see, I'm sorry. I'd <b>like</b> the FCC to do so. I don't watch many television shows, because of the problem with the content. There aren't many shows that are worthwhile these days. So, when I say I'd like the FCC to continue with the restrictions, I say it because deep down inside I really wish that everyone didn't want to see such things on the airwaves, and weren't as corrupt as they are these days. I have to expect it, as I'm the oddity, but it's always disheartening to see.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+Mar 1 2005, 07:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ Mar 1 2005, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I find it disturbing, confusing, and saddening that people are actually fighting to have nudity, profanity, and otherwise bad content on the public airwaves. While people complained of the "restrictive" content of the **** Van Dyke-era shows, I <b>liked</b> them because they were safe. I know when I stick a Jerry Lewis movie in the DVD player, that Jerry isn't going to throw out an F-bomb to "push the barriers". I would have no problem with protest against these censors if the censors were unjust. I don't think they are. I'm pleased with them.
If I gave the impression that the FCC <b>has</b> to change the policies to match what I want to see, I'm sorry. I'd <b>like</b> the FCC to do so. I don't watch many television shows, because of the problem with the content. There aren't many shows that are worthwhile these days. So, when I say I'd like the FCC to continue with the restrictions, I say it because deep down inside I really wish that everyone didn't want to see such things on the airwaves, and weren't as corrupt as they are these days. I have to expect it, as I'm the oddity, but it's always disheartening to see. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahh, sorry for misinterpreting you. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally, I feel that nudity and swearing should be allowed on TV, and allow the producers of the shows and the television stations decide how much is too much. You won't ever see Barney lounging in the sun next to a naked woman on TV, that's for sure.
Then there are people who want nudity for two reasons (Me, for example): 1) sometimes, it's sexually exciting. It's not always exciting. For me, at least. The girl has to be doing something obviously meant to give off the impression of sex for it to turn me on. If she's just standing there naked, doing everything normally, it's not really that exciting. But it gives you a chance to appreciate her body. Not necessarily sexually, just looking at her body and admiring it like you would admire any other piece of art.
As for swearing... I'd say that they're just words. I don't believe that the rights for an artist (In this case, the TV show writer/director, etc...) should be restricted. There certainly will be shows that feature someone swearing every five seconds, but they won't be very popular if that's all they're doing. It's the same with nudity, in the suppression of rights for free expression. Nudity or swearing may be a key part in someone's works of art, and their art will be butchered if they're not allowed to show certain parts of it. It'd be like cutting the **** off of Michelangelo's David.
I guess I'm the oddity, too, but on the other side of the scale.
Comments
What's wrong with PBS? The Discovery Channel? The History Channel? Animal Planet?
I could go on and on, but there are <i>lots</i> of worthwile educational TV programs.
If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is.
imagine the fines on that one....
<span style='color:white'>This is not AOL. Keep the caps lock down and the stereotyping out.</span>
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*shrug* I'm more of a PJ or underwear kinda guy... I just don't find women flaunting about in the nude appealing... I find it more like whorish and such *shrug*
then again... I'm also the one that gets horney when his g/f rubs his ear the right way (don't ask...)
O.o
If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its an exclusive deal. The people who want nudity are apeasable with shows that push the boundries but don't acctually breach the threshold like blind date or other such racy shows. The converse is not true.
If television stations were more willing to provide "wholesome" entertainment that would appease the audiences who don't like nudity and/or bad language, then I doubt the argument against such things would be less vehement. However, there is very little on television that is worthwhile. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what about those who <i>want</i> nudity and/or swearing? And those who just don't care, either way? And those who like both nudity and swearing as well as "wholesome" things? I fail to see why all TV stations should have to cater to one audience and not the other. There are things for those who don't like either to watch. Or you could, you know, just turn the TV off and do something a little more wholesome, if that's what you want. TV doesn't have the exclusive rights to what entertainment is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its an exclusive deal. The people who want nudity are apeasable with shows that push the boundries but don't acctually breach the threshold like blind date or other such racy shows. The converse is not true. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you mean the inverse?
Not all are appeasable with borderline shows, hence the existance of hard and softcore porn and the Playboy channel.
To be honest, I find a woman in certain outfits to be much more sexual than a plain nude woman, and I'm sure that many agree with me. (Though maybe not... Most people don't share my view that he human body is art and is always beautiful, these days. :/ Note that I said beautiful, not neccessarily sexually attractive.)
Turns out the mix was clean except for "what the **** this is flipping awesome"
$250,000
Is it just me... or is that completely out of nowhere?
It doesn't contribute to the article other than directing hate towards the president, it isn't backed up in any way, and it neglects a little thing called "congress."
And this is insanely ridiculous. More and more proof that humans are stupid as hell every day.
Why not measure Bill Gates' worth in how many nuclear violations he can mount before he runs out of money?
Or how about how much brutal dictators took from starving children last year?
"FCC Violations now cost more than your grandma!" is a nice summary of the article.
In all honesty, i'm pretty sure the fine is so jacked up because it's in the public eye. All of the others aren't. Also, the whole "morality" blah blah blah thing is much more recent than illegal drug testing and the like. I'm sure if a recent atrosity in regaurds to nukes, drug testing, or killing grandma were to be printed all over the newspapers then the fine for that would go up to an equally astronomical amount.
Futermore, I'm fairly sure that man slaughter, nuke violations, and medical accidents can, according to severty, carry jail time as well as a fine. I don't think this FCC matter could.
Fines are also put in place as a means for detering something from happening so that the person who could potentially violate the restriction would be reasonably cautious to prevent it. When you're talking about media conglomerates and celeberties, that value is going to be higher.
If the previous value were to be kept, there is a chance that somebody could go onto the airwaves and spout off whatever they want, create controversy, and use the publicity of it as a counterbalance to the "operating cost" of FCC fines. The role of the FCC is to say "we don't want that on Television/Radio. You haven't taken reasonable measure before, so we're going to make you more apt to do so."
Who is "we?"
These sorts of FCC fines didn't crop up yesterday. They've been around for a long time, it's only recently that they've come into any sort of public view, causing a review of the system to tighten it up a bit.
Sorry I missed this, I didn't see your reply until now.
I find it disturbing, confusing, and saddening that people are actually fighting to have nudity, profanity, and otherwise bad content on the public airwaves. While people complained of the "restrictive" content of the **** Van Dyke-era shows, I <b>liked</b> them because they were safe. I know when I stick a Jerry Lewis movie in the DVD player, that Jerry isn't going to throw out an F-bomb to "push the barriers". I would have no problem with protest against these censors if the censors were unjust. I don't think they are. I'm pleased with them.
If I gave the impression that the FCC <b>has</b> to change the policies to match what I want to see, I'm sorry. I'd <b>like</b> the FCC to do so. I don't watch many television shows, because of the problem with the content. There aren't many shows that are worthwhile these days. So, when I say I'd like the FCC to continue with the restrictions, I say it because deep down inside I really wish that everyone didn't want to see such things on the airwaves, and weren't as corrupt as they are these days. I have to expect it, as I'm the oddity, but it's always disheartening to see.
If I gave the impression that the FCC <b>has</b> to change the policies to match what I want to see, I'm sorry. I'd <b>like</b> the FCC to do so. I don't watch many television shows, because of the problem with the content. There aren't many shows that are worthwhile these days. So, when I say I'd like the FCC to continue with the restrictions, I say it because deep down inside I really wish that everyone didn't want to see such things on the airwaves, and weren't as corrupt as they are these days. I have to expect it, as I'm the oddity, but it's always disheartening to see. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahh, sorry for misinterpreting you. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Personally, I feel that nudity and swearing should be allowed on TV, and allow the producers of the shows and the television stations decide how much is too much. You won't ever see Barney lounging in the sun next to a naked woman on TV, that's for sure.
Then there are people who want nudity for two reasons (Me, for example): 1) sometimes, it's sexually exciting. It's not always exciting. For me, at least. The girl has to be doing something obviously meant to give off the impression of sex for it to turn me on. If she's just standing there naked, doing everything normally, it's not really that exciting. But it gives you a chance to appreciate her body. Not necessarily sexually, just looking at her body and admiring it like you would admire any other piece of art.
As for swearing... I'd say that they're just words. I don't believe that the rights for an artist (In this case, the TV show writer/director, etc...) should be restricted. There certainly will be shows that feature someone swearing every five seconds, but they won't be very popular if that's all they're doing. It's the same with nudity, in the suppression of rights for free expression. Nudity or swearing may be a key part in someone's works of art, and their art will be butchered if they're not allowed to show certain parts of it. It'd be like cutting the **** off of Michelangelo's David.
I guess I'm the oddity, too, but on the other side of the scale.