Boobstruck Bluenoses in Radio Daze—Our Man Cries: "You're Next!"
New at Reason: In a country where you can hear the F word on any street corner, says Jesse Walker, "the censor's victories will feel as frustrating as their defeats." That's why they'll be fighting for more victories.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"ER has already excised a shot of an elderly woman's breast, and while I'm not an ER fan myself I have a hard time imagining that the show was trying to be salacious when it conceived the scene."
I've never understood this line of reasoning. Why is nudity considered less offensive when it's unattractive? A sensible FCC would keep the salacious content and crack down harder on nudity among the elderly.
Nudity is only bad if you enjoy it. Just ask any religious fundamentalist.
Xavier-
To paraphrase Dave Barry, "You can only use the word breast for educational purposes, not salacious purposes. Thus, you can say 'two breasts plus two breasts equals four breasts,' but you can't say 'Hey, get a load of that breast.'
I assume the same rule applies to images of breasts.
I trust this clarifies the matter.
"Nudity is only bad if you enjoy it. Just ask any religious fundamentalist."
. . . or some feminists.
The day after the Superbowl, Katy Couric rhetorically asked on the Today Show, "What ever happened to feminism?" Coming from a woman who showed us the inside of her colon on national television (over breakfast no less), we can only assume that Ms. Couric finds body parts objectionable only if they are displayed in a titillating manner.
Feminists did us all a big favor back in the '60s and '70s by destigmatizing nudity and sexuality. Having done so, a minority of feminists want to roll back the clock by restigmatizing the female body and sexuality to the extent that any red-blooded heterosexual male might find it arousing.
They came for Janet, but I was silent because I hated pop music. Then they came for Bubba, but I didn't protest because I wasn't into toilet humor for twelve year-olds.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to fart, flash or make a dick joke in my defense.
Or if you prefer...
I may not enjoy your wrinkly flaccid breast, madam, but by God I'll defend your right to show it.
Does anyone else find it interesting that Powell and the Republicans are the biggest proponents of free market forces when it comes to ownership and deregulation, yet become the biggest opponents of those same free market forces when it comes to content?
This should be very simple. The first amendment clearly states that Congress cannot make laws abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or the press.
'Community standards' should only be enforced with 'community dollars'. If the people don't like what's on the air, they won't listen/watch and the broadcasters will change or go out of business.
mdd
Well, the world keeps getting dirtier and dirtier, and the government hasn't gotten any better at doing their job as is. It was already indecent to show tits on TV. Already a fine in it for those who would do it. It was open and shut. The FCC should have done its job and gotten out of the way. At the end of the day all the FCC is going to do is reaffirm, yes, bare breasts on TV are bad. Pay a fine. Do not pass Go. Of course, the fine will probably not even come close to what it will cost to do all of this in the first place. Why we should pay through the nose for the FCC to chase down something that in the long run means very little to our lives and well-being, who knows.
Don't get me wrong, I wish for nothing less than for the FCC to be disbanded and its employees beaten with ham antennae. But it's there, nobody's likely going to blow it up or anything (it's probably one of the few facets of our gov't that would garner al Qaeda's appreciation), so we're stuck with the fuckers. The least they could have done was be efficient about it. It is our money they waste with this silly nonsense.
i realize what rst meant by ham antennae after a while, but for a few minutes i was trying to figure out why someone would put ham on a car antennae.
very homer simpson-esque.
someone called me a republican the other day. i was surprised at how offended i was.
You think that's bad? I voted in the VA dem primary yesterday. I've been scrubbing my skin ever since, but the smell just won't come out.
What in the hell are we to do
when we have no words left
with which to offend, or worse,
no one who can be offended?
I guess all we will have left
is calling one another republicans
or democrats, or worst of all,
atheist, drug loving libertarians,
not that there is anything wrong with that,
but how would you like being called
a republican or democrat?
Not that....
that's what you get for voting.