Jerkoff If You Want, but No Fucking, Please
In case broadcasters were not confused enough about what they're allowed to air between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the FCC has muddied the waters further by rejecting 36 complaints about TV show content from the Parents Television Council. I gather from the Washington Times report that the targets of the complaints included the use of the word jerkoff on shows such as NYPD Blue, Dawson's Creek, and Boston Public. The PTC's followers were also offended by an episode of Scrubs "in which a male doctor ribs a female doctor because she aroused a patient during a pelvic exam."
Three FCC commissioners determined that the content cited in the complaints did not constitute indecency ("language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities") or profanity ("language that denot[es] certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance"). But two commissioners disagreed, which makes you wonder how broadcasters can be expected to predict what sort of content will trigger fines. That task will become even trickier when FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who voted with the majority on these complaints, steps down in March.
As evidence of the confusion fostered by the FCC's malleable standards and inconsistent enforcement, a Fox executive notes that the network blurred the bare bottom of Stewy, the baby on the cartoon comedy Family Guy, for a repeat of an episode tham ran uncensored four years ago. That example illustrates another arbitrary aspect of the indecency crackdown, since Family Guy also airs on Cartoon Network, which as a cable channel needn't worry about the FCC's content rules and therefore can show Stewy's unblurred butt with impunity.
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
Anyone who is offended by a cartoon baby's buttocks should really go see a professional psychiatrist. There's something seriously fucked up about that.
Or perhaps blurring Stewy's butt is a joke about censorship, a meta-joke.
Dammit!
What episode of Scrubs was that?
Roger: Given that the original FamGuy airing was "uncensored", that means that Seth Macfarlane & the rest of the writers had nothing to do with it. And, for some reason, I doubt that the folks who replay syndicated shows for Fox are that clever.
What's this? A naked baby bottom!!?! What the devil?!
I think the correct term is "what the deuce!?"
Mike Powell was being interviewed on Fox news, and he was talking about his accomplishments, including making wireless technology much better, or something like that.
How does the FCC chairman make technology better? Anyone know that one?
I think if I were to make rules about movies and what you can show. I would make it illegal for anyone to alter the movie. Thus if you can't show the whole movie, then you can't show the movie.
I watched 'Gladiator' recently on the 'Armed Forces Network', and so much of it was cut out that the coolest part of the movie, which is the first fight scene in Rome, was totally meaningless.
That was the 'Armed Forces Network', in Iraq, where you might have to spray the blood off of a humvee with a hose. And they can't show a fight scene in a movie.
Powell's wireless claim is based on his prior statements that the FCC essentially turned a blind eye to the usage of the part of the spectrum that wireless relies on.
How does the FCC chairman make technology better? Anyone know that one?
I believe just by staying out of the way, the FCC can make anything better!
Kwais - are you in Iraq? Are you a soldier?
"Anyone who is offended by a cartoon baby's buttocks should really go see a professional psychiatrist. There's something seriously fucked up about that. "
-- evan: people who get all frothy about stuff based on "morals" and try to control the rest of us are seriously fucked up to begin with..... remember, these are the same people who believe dubyah's rhetoric and are convinced that they stand for "freedom". all that.
Kwais,
You make a good point. I mean, what's the difference between editing out big chunks of a movie, and, for example, changing the ending? It would seem to me that it should be protected by IP law.
On the other hand, we need to completely do away with this notion that television is a public good. OK, so, most of us pay for TV like we pay for a movie at Blockbuster or Carmike. So, it's no longer a public good. Just post a rating at the beginning of the program, and let the person make the choice for themselves, whether or not they want to see or hear so-called "offensive" things.
Hell, even though the notion of an antenna "broadcast" being a public good makes more sense than this, I still never bought that. I mean, just because it's up in the air doesn't mean that you have to look at it or listen to it. You still have a choice. I just never really understood why people refused to take that responsibility upon themselves, and instead, demanded that the FCC make the choice for them...along with everyone else.
Hey, where's today's obligatory Oscar post, where we get to gripe and grumble about films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" getting the shaft?
kwais,
It's for your own good. The plan is to turn us into fanatical military ascetics. Thus, no drinking, smoking, whoring or depictions of violence. That way we'll be so pent up, we'll slaughter anyone on any pretext.
Dragoon!
I for myself am disturbed out by the use of naked baby butts in any advertising context. By a tiny margin, diaper marketing gets a "bye". But why don't they show old people butts for Depends commercials? Of course, granted that the last Depends commercial I saw was that SNL "Oops I Crapped My Pants" parody.
Anyway, Michelin, I'm looking at you. Tires? Nekkid babies? I simply don't get it.
Lever 2000, I'm looking at you. Sure, the baby uses soap, and everyone's skin is "baby soft", but I'd much rather see the mom's butt, thank you.
I don't watch much teevee anymore; are non-animated baby butts still used in campaigns? When will the FCC pixellate those away?
I remember the baby sitting in the Michelin tire. I don't remember seeing its butt, though.
"Imagine this pitcher of iced tea is a gallon of your feces."
, these are the same people who believe dubyah's rhetoric and are convinced that they stand for "freedom". all that.
How about my freedom not to have to be subjected to immorral garbage.
J
Is someone forcibly subjecting you to immoral garbage?
Juanita, you do have the right to stop subjecting yourself to the immoral garbage of Hit&Run.
Libertarians should always take care to dig past the blah-blah-blah on this kind of stuff and get to the root of the matter.
Much in the way that smoking-ban debates should focus not on "health issues" but on the rights of property owners, this argument should be not about "immorality" but about the government's role in the broadcast spectrum to begin with.
The idea that the airwaves belong to the "public" and thus demand regulation by a "public" agency is the starting point that turns the rest of the debate into such a confusing, contentious mess. It's only by focusing on that foundation that we can come up with legitimate answers -- and solutions.
This idea of "public airwaves" wasn't always part of the broadcast discussion. Ironically, the concept was introduced not by populist do-gooders, but by the big corporate broadcasters of the 1920s. Threatened by upstart broadcasters mushrooming across the country, these power players pushed the notion that broadcasters should be mandated to serve the broader "public" interest -- something, coincidentally enough, that these big boys were equipped to do more painlessly than the emerging whippersnappers.
Hence was born legislation embracing this idea, ultimately snowballing into all manner of goofiness, including the establishment of the Federal Radio Commission, which would become the FCC.
In other words, it wasn't the "public" that demanded "public airwaves." It was a consortium of special interests. Surprise, surprise. Of course, it's fun to watch today's corporate broadcasters continually get bitten in the ass by that fine piece of lobbying work performed by their ancestors.
Juanita, are you dropping a troll and disappearing, or are you asking for a REASONable response to the idea of you being forced to watch "immorral garbage"?
Juanita,
Do you watch TV strapped down in a chair with your eyes held open ala Alex in a Clockwork Orange. In my house, when I see something that offends me I use this magic device called the remote. Works everytime.
Evan wrote:
"I mean, what's the difference between editing out big chunks of a movie, and, for example, changing the ending? It would seem to me that it should be protected by IP law."
Hey, that's actually a pretty decent parlor game: which movies would be the most bizarre with a few choice scenes removed. Personally, I'm so offended by the sacreligious notion that someone of Clarence's apparent persuasion would make it into Heaven, that I'd cut straight from George diving into the icy river to the Bailey family tombstone, and then to some shots of the whole town cheering and singing.
It would make room for a lot more of those groundbreaking beer commercials.
"I love you too, Michelob."
"WHAT did you just say?"
"I said, 'I love you, Theresa.'"
"No you didn't. You called me Michelob."
[she storms off]
"Hey, while you're up, could you get me a Michelob?"
In my house, when I see something that offends me I use this magic device called the remote.
Me too, but some people may continue to watch the stuff, which can have serious downstream effects on society, i.e. violence, rape, unwed teenage mothers, etc. I believe the immorral garbage rots the soul and the government has the responsibility to protect our souls.
Let freedom ring!!!
J
Everyone knows that the word "juanita" is Himalayan for "yanking-people's-chain."
You want freedom and rights, what about my right not to ever be offended by anything on TV?
The problem with Juanita's satire is that it reads too much like what about 82% of the people in this country really believe.
Sad but true, Isaac.
People can't seem to accept that there are different standards for what offends people. I had a regulation argument in college with a girl who thought that if there were no regs, every channel would feature hardcore porn 24-7.
Smacky, babe, yep.
Evan Williams
Exactly, many movies change the meaning when you edit out certain phrases. I would rather chainging a movie because of your political beliefs be against the law than it be against the law to say certain things. I firmly believe that there are movies for kids and movies for adults, and a responsible parent should know the difference.
Dragoon,
I wonder sometimes if there is some attempt at intelligent design with the rules of the military or if it is just the path of least resistance. I am inclined to think it is the latter, but I will examine evidence to the contrary if you have any.
I think Juanita just did a drive by.
David: "People can't seem to accept that there are different standards for what offends people."
Totally. Same goes for parenting standards. Some of the best parents I know, with some of the best kids I know, have raised the kids with plenty of exposure to stuff that other parents of my acquaintance consider moral poison. But we human creatures seem highly predisposed to a belief that the nature of the good and bad is manifest, and that individual moral differences consist merely in how much of the latter one is willing to tolerate. Heh. I, for one, have trouble appreciating someone who would find more moral fault with "Reservoir Dogs" than with "Baby Geniuses".
On the other hand, Fox recently did play an episode of Family Guy, "To wish upon a Weinstein", that it had refused to air when the show was originally on. I didn't see it, but I imagine they did censor some parts. Thoguh...I have seen the episode on DVD and the cartoon network, and it seemed that it was the show's broader theme, not any gag or language that would have made it so offenseive (namely, Peter thought if he converted his son Chris to Judiasm, it would make Chris successful in life). I guess perhaps the FCC can't really regulate being broadly offensive as such, maybe Fox turned it down simply to avoid a public outcry.
Family Guy is returning in May with new episodes. While I couldn't be more excited, I'm wondering if it'll be too toned down. I understand MacFarlane was hassled enough getting many of the jokes/gags on the air back in 99/00, and I have the think the climate for this kind of thing is worse today then it was five years ago.
kwais,
Naah. I used to think that there was a plan, too. I thought, maybe we purposely made being in garrison so miserable in order to get soldiers to want to do a 90 field problem, six month deployment, or invade Iraq just to get away from all the bullshit.
Then I realized that it was just normal human stupidity. We make ourselves miserable in garrison just to be making ourselves miserable in garrison. It's like some units have early dismissal if the day's work is done and some make you wait around for last formation.
I miss AFN, especially the commercials, e.g. "I didn't know first sergeant would come get me when I got a DUI". That shit is comical.
Dragoon!
Semolina is spot on about the govt.'s nationalization of the spectrum. People should read Jesse Walker's book.
Kevin