Fuck the FCC. Why not just let adults decide what they want to watch, and let parents decide what their children can watch?
What, are you fucking crazy? If we did that, then your kids might watch something I find objectionable!
I think this would be a good strategy. I get the feeling that the cancelling is more of a “see what you make us do FCC?” rather than a real fear of being fined.
If the attention-whore didn’t have a “wardrobe malfunction” :rolleyes: , then this conversation would not be happening. That brief showing of nipple seems to have taken away our ability to decide for ourselves what may or may not be seen on broadcast television, and in some cases, taken away our ability to operate the remote control. 
Cunts maybe? Fucking clown-cunts. Has a decent ring to it.
I agree the movie sucks. The Super Bowl also sucks, I wouldn’t be caught dead watching it, much less the half-time show (when the half-time Simpsons episode is on?), but that doesn’t mean I think it should be fined.
Fuck the FCC for cracking down on what had been an expanding open-mindedness about what was aired. The curse-word on ER (I think it was fuck?) and the South Park shit-fest probably couldn’t air with great publicity now, even though they were both on after 10 PM. Yes, I think those things were helping our society. Censoring bad words is childish. We were evolving past that.
What happened to the FCC that gave Puritans the smackdown for complaining about Eminem’s lyrics? What happened to the FCC that allowed Schindler’s List to be aired at 7 PM?
Even given the FCC’s attempt to be the Ministry of Truth, I ultimately blame and pit the affiliates, since ABC said it would cover any fines levied. Props to ABC for that. The only thing worse than oppression is cowardace in the face of it…
… No wonder they don’t want that movie to be aired.
It really is incredible how that one fricking incident is having such a cascading effect through culture. I’d like to kick her in the teeth.
That’s fucked in the extreme. Why are the rules governing free to air stations so puritanical?
On our national station we get Natural Born Killers, Sex in the City, Sopranos, OZ etc. all uncut in fact their policy is not to cut a movie or program at all and try and acquire the most complete version. SPR which has been shown several times.
Do you guys not have a watershed? We have one. After 9pm it’s the viewers responsibilty to control what is viewed in the house as the station will broadcast
Wha???! She shows some skin and you want to kick her in the teeth!?!
If you really want to hate someone go for those who sit there trying to tell you what to watch and what not to watch.
Quick question for all those opposed to censorship: Would it be OK if, during airings of Sesame Street, a few scenes of hardcore porn were cut in? Should the Disney Channel randomly show (real life) decapitations? Should capital punishment be a prime time show?
If not, then where do we draw the line? Is any level of censorship acceptable?
What the fuck? Were you born an asshole or did you have to work really hard at it?
I think there are two issues here. The first is the general sense of puritanism (is that a word) driven by the more right-wing fundies that seems more focused on anything even remotely related to naked bodies and, to a lesser extent, language, but that couldn’t care less about violence it seems.
The second is the surprise factor. I wouldn’t expect to find hard-core porn during Sesame Street. But I would expect bad language and gore in a world-famous, Academy Award winning recently produced movie about World War 2, especially one that specifically gives warnings about said language and gore in every advertisement about it, and before and during the show itself.
So, from my personal point of view, I thought the nipple incident was no big fucking deal, and I pit the people who think that seeing a nipple is going to ruin society. But, on the other hand, I can understand their point that “well, I shouldn’t have to expect to see nudity during the half-time show of the Super Bowl”.
So you draw the line somewhere in between. But if as consenting adults we can’t watch a movie with bad language before 10pm because some other people think it’s offensive, we’re getting into a quasi-censorship area.
In other words, I have no idea what I’m talking about
Trite? Yes. Propaganda? By Spielberg? Perish the thought.
rexnervous, damn you and your good point! I do respect an informed public who can make their own decisions, and believe the expectations you present are reasonable regarding the nipple incident. I’m afraid that rational, free-thinking people who can see both sides of an issue and find middle ground, however, are a danger to society. I hope your passport is current.
It’s a false dilemma. No, nobody wants hardcore porn in the middle of Sesame Street. But that on its own is sufficient. We do not need censors to point this out; the very fact that no-one wants it means it will not be present. If there were an episode brought to you by the letters Oh Oh Oh, the audience would drop off immediately and the creators would be buggered (as it were). Do you believe that it’s only by the grace of the FCC that such episodes have so far failed to air? The same goes for decapitations on the Disney Channel. We really need to give more credit to people for having the capacity to make their own choices, and to networks for being able to respond to them.
As for televised executions, I believe that making them entertainment would clearly bias the judicial process. The government should therefore not contract with anyone to televise executions, making judicial fairness a priority over profit. I don’t believe this is the same thing as censorship, however, since it is in effect a rights-holder simply withholding those rights. Self-censorship is perfectly fine in my eyes, and in this instance there is a clear reason to do so.
I was with you up until that last sentence. Where’s the clear reason?
A further point has occurred, which is that a lot is made of the surprise factor. However, this presupposes the existence of a set of expectations regarding content. It seems to me that these expectations are themselves created largely by censorship. A nipple in the daytime? Shocking; but (IMO) it’s shocking largely because it’s not allowed, rather than for any intrinsic shock that a little bit of skin evokes. When I hear someone on TV say “fuck” before 9pm, I am surprised; but I could go to any pub and hear much worse at 3pm. There’s nothing shocking about “fuck” at any time of day. It’s 2.45pm here, and I just typed “fuck” twice without the world ending. The surprise caused by pre-watershed "fuck"ing is entirely generated by the fact that it’s forbidden.
I therefore think groups like the FCC are invoking censorship as a means of protecting the expectations that censorship creates. This is patently stupid.
Is it any clearer if “in this instance” refers to the televised executions question, and not Private Ryan? Sorry, I wasn’t being very clear.
No.
trite
- Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.
- Archaic. Frayed or worn out by use.
prop·a·gan·da
- The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
What doctrine or cause would Spielberg be advancing in this case?
For those of you who think this movie is ‘trite’ or ‘propaganda’, please keep it to yourself. Some of us have fathers and grandfathers who fought it that war and believe the movie to be an accurate depiction of what happened there.
Um, no. It was the people who called in/wrote in, whatever, to complain. And it was the ball-less FCC who had to make an example of CBS (?) who caused this problem.
This is really the crux of all of the FCC problems: No clear rules, no apparent statute of limitations on offenses (people are getting fined now for things done 3 years ago), no legal remedy or appeals process (since the FCC has demonstrated it will merely suspend renewals of broadcast licenses if the accused try to go to court to protest). Basically, you’re taking your livelihood in your hands every time you broadcast something–and you won’t know for years whether or not it was appropriate.
Sorry, Bruce_Daddy, I meant banal. Let me point out that I never accused Spielberg of propaganda, nor would I, regarding this particular film. One point for each of us. Truce?
How is that not illegal? (Please don’t answer. It’s a rhetorical cry of pain).
Yes. :o Carry on. I’ll be out for a bit taking Reading Comprehension for the Third Grade.