Michael Powell resigns from the FCC. Janet Jackson bares her breast in gratitude.

[catsix]

Let us hope it is not Tipper Gore.

[rjung]

@Cisco

You do realize, that despite the insanely conservative things that Colin Powell Jr. has been doing over the past few years, he’s been acting pretty moderate for the past few months, don’t you?

“Now that the tsunami’s over, I’ll stack a half-dozen sandbags here to make up the difference!”

[Cisco]

@rjung

“Now that the tsunami’s over, I’ll stack a half-dozen sandbags here to make up the difference!”

I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

[Captain_Amazing]

Personally, I’m glad he’s leaving because the Powell FCC has been overly friendly to big business at the expense of small business. In a lot of their decisions, I think, they show a complete disregard to the concerns of the small operators.

The obscenity thing doesn’t really bother me for 2 reasons.

First, it doesn’t really affect me. Most of our clients are wireless people, not broadcast.

Second, I don’t think Powell had much to do with it. Somebody flashed her breast on a popular live network show during prime time. That’s going to get a response and a tightening of the obscenity rules no matter who’s chairman. I really don’t see that Kennard would would have acted differently, and in fact, it looked like, at the beginning, that Powell was loosening up on the obscenity rules.

[Cisco]

@Captain Amazing

Personally, I’m glad he’s leaving because the Powell FCC has been overly friendly to big business at the expense of small business. In a lot of their decisions, I think, they show a complete disregard to the concerns of the small operators.

And I just happen to think whoever’s next will be worse…I have no more optimism in Washington for the time being.

@Captain Amazing

The obscenity thing doesn’t really bother me for 2 reasons.

First, it doesn’t really affect me.

A bad reason for something not to bother you.

@Captain Amazing

Second, I don’t think Powell had much to do with it. Somebody flashed her breast on a popular live network show during prime time. That’s going to get a response and a tightening of the obscenity rules no matter who’s chairman.

I think it got something like 50 unique complaints. How many tens of millions of people saw it?

[Captain_Amazing]

[QUOTE=Cisco]

A bad reason for something not to bother you.

I don’t see why. The Commission releases a whole lot of decisions and has a whole lot of policies, a bunch of which I disagree with. But if I have to choose between caring about a policy that adversely affects our clients and one that doesn’t, I’m going to focus on the one that does. Obscenity standards are the broadcaster’s problem.

I think it got something like 50 unique complaints. How many tens of millions of people saw it?

I don’t know how many complaints it got. It doesn’t matter. The “wardrobe malfunction” was an obvious violation of Commission rules. There’s no way that either statute , rule, or precedent could be interpreted so that that wouldn’t be considered indecent. And it happened during one of the biggest broadcasts of the year. More people were probably watching that than any other program aired that year. Finally, it received extensive news coverage. This isn’t something the Commission could have ignored, even if it wanted to. If it had tried, or if it had said “that’s not so bad”, Congress would have stepped in. So, that’s why I say you can’t blame that on Powell. Any Commission, from 1934 till now, would have acted the same way. And anyone who was Chairman, whether he was Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, would have done the same thing.

[Cisco]

@Captain Amazing

The “wardrobe malfunction” was an obvious violation of Commission rules

Cite?

@Captain Amazing

There’s no way that either statute , rule, or precedent could be interpreted so that that wouldn’t be considered indecent.

Cite that human female nipples are indecent? Cite that indecent (as opposed to “obscene”) material was not permitted at that time?

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, here’s a cite on the "indecent material not permitted at that time, from 2000.

In the matter of Communicast Consultants, Inc.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001567.txt

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld the Commission’s authority to restrict the broadcast of indecent
material at times when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The court subsequently concluded that a 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. “safe harbor” was justified as a properly tailored means of vindicating the government’s compelling interest in the welfare of children. Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 701 (1996) (ACT III).

I’ll look for the answer to your specific breast question tomorrow.

[Captain_Amazing]

Ok, nipples and indecency. First, the showing of a nipple in itself isn’t a violation of the indecency rule. However, it sets up a precondition where an indecency ruling can be made. Here’s a set of guidelines to broadcasters circa the beginning of 2001 regarding indecent and obscene broadcasts. Pay attention to some of the examples illustrating the differences between indecent and not indecent.

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01090.html

Here’s part of the analysis:

Indecency findings involve at least two fundamental determinations. First, the material alleged to be indecent must fall within the subject matter scope of our indecency definition - that is, the material must describe or depict sexual or
excretory organs or activities.

Second, the broadcast must be patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. . . .

The principal factors that have proved significant in our decisions to date are: (1) the explicitness or graphic nature of the description or depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or activities; (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate, or whether the material appears to have been presented for its shock value.