FCC considering allowing profanity and non-sexual nudity

[nclib]

Very pleased at the results of this poll as a local radio station opened comments on this on Facebook and most comments were against. Perhaps we're finally challenging the absurd sex (and nudity and profanity)/violence double standard.

That said, this site has a higher percent of young, childless people which would make it more supportive of relaxing the policy.

[tik 🪀✨]

The Australian system I found jarring at first, but it works well. The classification system lets viewers know if a program contains coarse language, nudity, sexual references, drug use, etc. If they do that, they have a pretty free reign to show just about everything. Dexter on free to air is a beautiful thing.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

There should be no restrictions on words in anything anywhere ever. Same goes for body parts.

[angus]

There should be no restrictions on words in anything anywhere ever. Same goes for body parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

[Redalgo]

I'm pretty much in agreement with politicallefty and dead0man in this thread.

They should go ahead and stop censoring sexual content while they're at it.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

Agree, of course. For these reasons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

[Blue3]

Has the FCC made a decision yet?

If not, when?

I'm not going to count on this happening until it actually happens.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

There should be no restrictions on words in anything anywhere ever. Same goes for body parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

Awesome.

[DemPGH]

Totally agree. Bleeping minor swear words, even, is really annoying and a little antiquated. The FCC, especially in a digital age, should not feel compelled to protect virgin ears. And I also strongly approve of a ratings system with reasons for ratings - that should be sufficient.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Totally agree. Bleeping minor swear words, even, is really annoying and a little antiquated. The FCC, especially in a digital age, should not feel compelled to protect virgin ears.

If the stopped bleeping and started using F[inks] Sh[inks] Mother F[inks]er or something like that, I could handle it better.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

There should be no restrictions on words in anything anywhere ever. Same goes for body parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

Awesome.

Awww I totally missed that post. Dammit.

[angus]

Totally agree. Bleeping minor swear words, even, is really annoying and a little antiquated. The FCC, especially in a digital age, should not feel compelled to protect virgin ears.

If the stopped bleeping and started using F[inks] Sh[inks] Mother F[inks]er or something like that, I could handle it better.

someone has already thought of it:

https://www.clearplay.com/

Be sure to check out the product comments.  Here are a few choice tidbits:

Love it & use it regularly. Our first movie clearplayed was Pirates of the Caribbean #1 - our 5 children & us loved the fact that we no longer had to listed to the Lord's name taken in vain, & all of the deleted violence.


WE LOVE OUR CLEARPLAY.
IT PROVES THAT MOVIES CAN BE FUN WITHOUT ALL OF THE FILTHY LANGUAGE. EVERY HOME SHOULD HAVE ONE!


I love Clearplay. It's the best way to watch movies.


I lost my remote and the machine will not work without it. How can I get another remote?

[tik 🪀✨]

Those reviews sound so.. sponsored.

[King]

Lol the top rated movie on that site by users is Smokey and the Bandit.

[The Mikado]

I'm really not sure why people care.  Cable and satellite radio are already beyond the FCC's reach, and who watches broadcast television or listens to terrestrial radio?

[Link]

I have never watched a TV program and said to my self, this would be enhance by some cursing and nudity.  Most TV is poorly written garbage or reality shows.

I've heard Chris Matthews accidentally curse during prime time and I don't think anything happened.  I don't have a problem with that.  I don't think if there is a slip during a live broadcast the FCC should go nuts.

Honestly though if you want to see cursing and nudity just rent a movie.  And there is tons of nudity on the internet.  Unless you live under a bridge with no wifi who is really hurting for nudity?

Anyway I find that if you are getting laid on a regular basis you are far less fascinated by tits.  You get numb to it.  It's kind of nice.  It frees you up to think about other things.

[Link]

I'm really not sure why people care.  Cable and satellite radio are already beyond the FCC's reach, and who watches broadcast television or listens to terrestrial radio?

I do.  It's free.  Plenty of news programs to DVR and things like Leno in the evening.  Plus broadcast TV is the closest thing to true HD.  Satellite and cable are over compressed.  It's an insult to my intelligence that a corporation would want me to pay for something that looks worse than what I get over the airwaves for free.

[perdedor]

Is television not mindless enough? You have an entire universe of tits and vulgarity on the Internet--why is it necessary to introduce those elements to the depraved deluge of police unit abbreviations, trashy talk shows, singing competitions, and perhaps worst of all- the commercials. Television needs to be less stupid and juvenile, not more.

The automatons have been hooked, now the networks are liquidating the intellectual assets of everyone who watches it. The government has a vested interest in promoting an intelligent culture, regardless of what the founders thought about the proper role of government.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

[perdedor]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

Call me an authoritarian, but I don't see how an existing problem of violence on television is solved by correcting a double standard related to nudity and profanity. If you agree that the violence is more of a problem than what we ban, why not regulate it? Is the implication that television writers will not have as much time for violence if we give them sex and vulgarity to work with? Unlikely.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

Call me an authoritarian, but I don't see how an existing problem of violence on television is solved by correcting a double standard related to nudity and profanity. If you agree that the violence is more of a problem than what we ban, why not regulate it? Is the implication that television writers will not have as much time for violence if we give them sex and vulgarity to work with? Unlikely.

My elusive point was far simpler.....considering the crap that's on TV now, it's no big whup if a few titties and a few of the 7 words you can't say on TV are said.

[perdedor]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

Call me an authoritarian, but I don't see how an existing problem of violence on television is solved by correcting a double standard related to nudity and profanity. If you agree that the violence is more of a problem than what we ban, why not regulate it? Is the implication that television writers will not have as much time for violence if we give them sex and vulgarity to work with? Unlikely.

My elusive point was far simpler.....considering the crap that's on TV now, it's no big whup if a few titties and a few of the 7 words you can't say on TV are said.

You're right, but would you agree that that speaks a larger volume about the problems with television than it does the merits of relaxing broadcast regulations?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

Call me an authoritarian, but I don't see how an existing problem of violence on television is solved by correcting a double standard related to nudity and profanity. If you agree that the violence is more of a problem than what we ban, why not regulate it? Is the implication that television writers will not have as much time for violence if we give them sex and vulgarity to work with? Unlikely.

My elusive point was far simpler.....considering the crap that's on TV now, it's no big whup if a few titties and a few of the 7 words you can't say on TV are said.

You're right, but would you agree that that speaks a larger volume about the problems with television than it does the merits of relaxing broadcast regulations?

I can agree with that.  To me it's just bizarre that Janet Jackson's tit generates a whopper of a fine and some crazed psycho killer raping and slicing apart his victim is legit.  If they're not going to tighten up on the violence then ridding ourselves of some antiquated prude rules won't cause further problems, IMO.

[perdedor]

Ever watch an episode of Criminal Minds?  That's far more disturbing than tits and a few swear words.

Call me an authoritarian, but I don't see how an existing problem of violence on television is solved by correcting a double standard related to nudity and profanity. If you agree that the violence is more of a problem than what we ban, why not regulate it? Is the implication that television writers will not have as much time for violence if we give them sex and vulgarity to work with? Unlikely.

My elusive point was far simpler.....considering the crap that's on TV now, it's no big whup if a few titties and a few of the 7 words you can't say on TV are said.

You're right, but would you agree that that speaks a larger volume about the problems with television than it does the merits of relaxing broadcast regulations?

I can agree with that.  To me it's just bizarre that Janet Jackson's tit generates a whopper of a fine and some crazed psycho killer raping and slicing apart his victim is legit.  If they're not going to tighten up on the violence then ridding ourselves of some antiquated prude rules won't cause further problems, IMO.

It's most certainly bizarre. I dabbled in screenwriting in an ill fated trip to Los Angeles and I learned one important thing: staging is everything. We accept the vicious rapist and his gory mess on Criminal Minds because the staging is appropriate. Hotch and Morgan pursue him, and he is brought to justice. They introduce you to something disgusting and vanquish it in front of your eyes. Climax is always achieved. Psychologically speaking, you could almost call it therapy. Compare that to a saggy tit making an appearance during the boring part of the Super Bowl and you have your answer. This has nothing to do with television regulations though.

Overall you're correct. We are already operating on he lowest common denominator and this proposal couldn't make it much worse. I'm only suggesting that going in the opposite direction and regulating TV violence would be the most sensible approach. This wreaks of "let's cut money from something unpopular that most people don't entirely understand".

[Hatman 🍁]

As a parent, I'm more concerned about my 2 year old daughter seeing violence than nudity. I'd rather not have her hear profanity though, as she is at the age where she repeats everything. But once she knows what words she shouldn't say, she can start hearing them