Indecency on tv (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/indecency-tv-supreme-court-fcc.html)
I'd like to see back-to-back episodes of the Vampire Diaries and True Blood on CW... :lol:
I was amazed at the cultural divide the other day, seeing an european flick rated 8+ with a nude scene from a female cast supposed to be a teenager (the actess was not, the character was 15, IIRC.
Silly policy imho. Children can watch Fox News all day long and it's much more damagin to their brains then hearing "fuck" on tv or seeing some breasts.
Of course, full on sex scenes like HBO is fond of might be too much for network tv on prime time, I guess. But I figure there can be a compromise.
Btw, are all movies still censored when they contain nudity or the F* word?
No swearing on broadcast TV during day time and prime time.
I've seen a couple of guys' asses on broadcast TV in the evening.
QuoteAll we are asking for is for a few channels" where parents can be confident their children will not hear profanity or see sex scenes, said Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Eh? I thought his job is to interpret the American constitution, not to implement his own personal wishes as public policy.
And what's your take on this Yi, is it a silly rule or is it essential to maintain?
The same kids who we're protecting from this crap are having after school threesomes and sexting each other all day.
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:24:49 PM
And what's your take on this Yi, is it a silly rule or is it essential to maintain?
I think the time will come in the not too distant future when mainstream America is OK with tits and swearing on TV, and the Church of Latter Day Tebow folks can stick to their niche cable channels. I don't think the time is now, and I don't think the right way to initiate the change is through the courts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 10, 2012, 04:24:49 PM
And what's your take on this Yi, is it a silly rule or is it essential to maintain?
I think the time will come in the not too distant future when mainstream America is OK with tits and swearing on TV, and the Church of Latter Day Tebow folks can stick to their niche cable channels. I don't think the time is now, and I don't think the right way to initiate the change is through the courts.
I thought that time was near a few times but every time there is a new wave of puritanism in NA. But I think the universe of unlimited cable channels have made this moot. People can watch what ever they want whenever they want.
I like early Madonna's take on it. She was obviously defending the sex bit and said (facetiously) that if we're going to crusade against our children seeing sex portrayed (and in the bits we do hide in the watershed hours) - why not violence? Sex that's railed against is often that of consenting adults whereas we freely allow shows to show violence and/or degradation to much greater extents.
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
QuoteAll we are asking for is for a few channels” where parents can be confident their children will not hear profanity or see sex scenes, said Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Eh? I thought his job is to interpret the American constitution, not to implement his own personal wishes as public policy.
That is just part of his job. All federal laws are in the jurisdiction of the USSC, the Constitution is just their most important function.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
I like early Madonna's take on it. She was obviously defending the sex bit and said (facetiously) that if we're going to crusade against our children seeing sex portrayed (and in the bits we do hide in the watershed hours) - why not violence? Sex that's railed against is often that of consenting adults whereas we freely allow shows to show violence and/or degradation to much greater extents.
I completely agree I could never get why violence did not hurt children's fragile innocence but sex was horrible. But I tend to shut up as I do not want to encourage more censorship.
Quote from: Valmy on January 10, 2012, 04:41:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
I like early Madonna's take on it. She was obviously defending the sex bit and said (facetiously) that if we're going to crusade against our children seeing sex portrayed (and in the bits we do hide in the watershed hours) - why not violence? Sex that's railed against is often that of consenting adults whereas we freely allow shows to show violence and/or degradation to much greater extents.
I completely agree I could never get why violence did not hurt children's fragile innocence but sex was horrible. But I tend to shut up as I do not want to encourage more censorship.
Well yeah that's why she was actually an advocate of the opposite. If violence and degradation are okay, allow sex.
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:55:19 PM
Well yeah that's why she was actually an advocate of the opposite. If violence and degradation are okay, allow sex.
I somehow doubt that the reason Madonna is in favor of relaxed standards on nudity in TV is to maintain consistency.
Early TV obviously had no skin but it had Westerns and cop shows and war shows. So violence has historically been part of American TV.
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 04:24:07 PM
QuoteAll we are asking for is for a few channels" where parents can be confident their children will not hear profanity or see sex scenes, said Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Eh? I thought his job is to interpret the American constitution, not to implement his own personal wishes as public policy.
The Court is supposed to give deference to the policy rationale behind a law in judging its constitutionality.
Of course, sometimes judges give more deference to some kinds of law then others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:04:42 PM
I somehow doubt that the reason Madonna is in favor of relaxed standards on nudity in TV is to maintain consistency.
I'm not sure why that matters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:04:42 PM
Early TV obviously had no skin but it had Westerns and cop shows and war shows. So violence has historically been part of American TV.
Ill-treatment of African Americans was historically part of America. ;)
Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 05:22:56 PM
I'm not sure why that matters.
It matters because no one is going to pay any attention to what Madonna has to say on the matter.
QuoteIll-treatment of African Americans was historically part of America. ;)
Not on TV.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:26:28 PM
It matters because no one is going to pay any attention to what Madonna has to say on the matter.
I wasn't trying to suggest we should pay attention to a television interview for Madonna in the late 80s/early 90s, just that I thought she raised a good point. Why is sex between consenting adults so taboo but watching people die/get hurt (both physically and psychologically) all right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:26:28 PM
Not on TV.
Also not my point. I was wondering why we can't revisit suspect policies simply because they have a historical tradition of being permitted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:26:28 PM
QuoteIll-treatment of African Americans was historically part of America. ;)
Not on TV.
Roots?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 04:33:41 PM
I think the time will come in the not too distant future when mainstream America is OK with tits and swearing on TV, and the Church of Latter Day Tebow folks can stick to their niche cable channels. I don't think the time is now, and I don't think the right way to initiate the change is through the courts.
I think the problem with that line of thought, is that nothing really ever changes without at some point the courts getting involved.
Waiting for people to change without pushing it usually means people's mentalities don't change.
Not that I'm confortable with the courts doing the work of the politicians, but in recent times, I tend to see the Supreme Court of Canada as both protection against government's reach into my life and a source of pressure on government to settle issues that they feel the population isn't ready yet. Gay marriage comes to mind. I think it first went to courts before making it into law, both in US states that allow it and Canada.