FCC Wary of Greeks Baring Gifts at Games (washingtonpost.com)
In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.
Ironically, the night before, NBC’s Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB’s broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare…
Yet another example of how open we Americans are to free expression and ideas from other lands nowadays…
• 
“One or more indecency complaints” doesn’t say how many of them are actually distinct…
“One or more indecency complaints” doesn’t say how many of them are actually distinct…
Ok, I guess the sky really IS falling. Or at least, so it would appear.
Jim in Iowa
For those of you who think Bush is leading a drive to turn America into a theocracy, here is a more moderate view. I personally think this writer has a much clearer understanding of Bush than is often portrayed. Read it if you want to hear another perspective:
http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article4B1054F1E3404954A473E0DD1C849B01.asp?printerFriendly=true
Jim in Iowa
Something about this one strikes me as just plain silly.
Okay. This specific case reeks of ridiculousness.
If this type of stuff continues, the pendulum that swung after the “Janet incident” will swing back and there will be a backlash.
Peter, but censorship, as Bill Maher would say, it’s FOR THE CHILDREN.
— Ken from Chicago
Ken, the original post is from Glenn, not Peter.
And just to get the facts straight, the FCC is asking for tapes to investigate a complaint. The story doesn’t say if it’s one complaint, a dozen, or a mass e-mail campaign. Investigating complaints IS part of their job.
I didn’t see NBC’s broadcast, but stills (which you could get on Yahoo) from the opening ceremonies showed that the opening performances included a woman portraying a greek fertility goddess with her breasts bare, although they were painted white. Male members were also dressed as greek statuary, with full genetalia visible. I couldn’t tell from the pics whether they were fake or not, but I’m guessing the males at least were wearing something.
My first thoughts were “I sure hope NBC takes full advantage of that 10 hour delay (or whatever it is) to edit this broadcast so they don’t get a call from the FCC.”
Does anyone remember the broadcast? From what little I did see, it looked as though NBC was trying to make it seem like it was being broadcast live, including cutting in from commercial in the middle of a commentator’s speech.
I don’t believe the men were wearing anything over their groins, except bodypaint.
But so what?
From John:
“I don’t believe the men were wearing anything over their groins, except bodypaint.
But so what?”
Not that I’m supporting the FCC or any censorship, but the only times broadcast TV has allowed nudity is in rare exceptions and with prior notice to viewers. When Schindler’s List was shown on network TV, they had a warning before and during the broadcast.
Whether we like it or not, nudity isn’t something that the FCC allows, in general, in broadcast TV.
What surprises me is that it took the FCC this long to react. Those complaints have to be months old, unless someone taped the show and re-watched it recently.
So, the “so what” is that if NBC broadcast naked men and mostly naked women, they should be fined.
Although knowing the FCC, they’ll find some way to call the somewhat classy and respectful nudity of the Olympics not obscene, reserving such terms (and fines) for the MTV nudity displayed by Janet and Justin.
Kathleen Parker: And it was John Kerry, not Bush, who made stem-cell research a political issue.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I thought Reagan’s death, Christopher Reeve’s death, and Nancy Reagan’s stated position on it had something to do with it.
Investigating complaints IS part of their job.
And jumping on the “It’s censorship” bandwagon, seems to be Glen’s job!
The sky is falling!
Ken,
To be fair, if this is motivated by the nudity, and the FCC doesn’t do anything about it, then the FCC (and our current administration through association/oversight) *will* be essentially guilty of exercising censorship as far as what is and isn’t fined on broadcast networks.
If the FCC determines that NBC broadcast nudity (full male, female top) during the broadcast, but does not impose any fines, most likely because the nudity was not “obscene”, then that’s censorship. When the government allows one entity/speaker to broadcast an event without penalty, but fines a different entity for broadcasting a similar event, it’s censorship.
Say did ABC and its stations get in trouble for the opening segment of ROOTS which had topless African Women? Perhaps the FCC should now put the hammer down on ABC. Better late than never. 🙂
I…I can’t say much…they are watching….*THEY* ARE WATCHING!…you guys have no idea how bad it really is!…I can’t even [edit] to my [edit] anymore! Just the other day the [edit] came knocking and told me I had to [edit]! …Oh no! I’ve said too [edit]!
[this post has been edited by the VRWC]
I was just about to make the same point that J. Alexander made in his above post.
As an African American man this topic has less to do with nudity and more to do with racism.
Not to get off on a rant here (Ode to Dennis Miller) but historically this country doesn’t have a problem with “tribal” nudity…I believe it is due to the horrible amount of racism and skin color hatred that exists in America.
Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized.
I always find myself saddened by this but the FCC going overboard (with censorship)in my opinion is just an extension of one of the many social issues that our current society is facing today.
Regards:
Warren S. Jones III
Kathleen Parker: And it was John Kerry, not Bush, who made stem-cell research a political issue.
Luigi Novi: Funny, I thought Reagan’s death, Christopher Reeve’s death, and Nancy Reagan’s stated position on it had something to do with it.
Oh, so the media made him do it! 😉
Jim in Iowa
Warren S. Jones III: “Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized.”
I agree with this assessment for the most part. I submit the we in the western world are not as civilized as we would like to think we are. Oh, we’ve made some headway when it comes to caring for people with certain infirmities, but it usually takes a press conference to get us there.
We’re mostly civilized on a one-to-one basis. Get us into large groups and organizations and we become superstitious, petty, and unreasonable.
But that’s all beside the point of this thread.
I just wonder how far back the FCC will have to go in televesion history before someone in authority starts asking some serious questions as to the motivation behind some of these witch hunt… err… I mean investigations. I just hope someone starts asking before “Burning at the Stake” becomes the newest reality T.V. show.
I wonder if that would be limited to cable…
Regards,
Mitch Evans
IRCC, Roots did have a “some scenes are disturbing, viewer discretion is advised” or some such running before it. I recall my parents having a discussion of whether I should be allowed to watch it or not (I did. The most disturbing scene for me was when Cicily Tyson spit in the old woman’s drink… I was a lot nicer to the school lunch crew after that…)
Robnn brings up maybe the biggest point about the FCC. I’m pretty sure that those disclaimers before shows, or scenes even, hold a lot of sway with the FCC. It creates a viewer beware situation, where the broadcast network delcares that something is coming that parents might want to insulate their kids from. And if the parents decide to allow youngins to view, they get what they deserve.
Take last year’s Superbowl…no warning was given. Although the bare breast was maybe the least offensive part of that show.
Of course, the fine imposed on Howard Stern tears this little theory to shreds. You could make a very defensible argument that Stern’s show doesn’t NEED a disclaimer: You can be guaranteed to hear something offensive during every show, so it should be a perpetual listener beware case.
But here’s where it all falls down.
AMENDMENT ONE:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievences.
Congress just recently passed a law upping the fines for “broadcast indecency.” I believe they passed previous laws establishing such fines as well.
They clearly have no legal right to do so. See italicized section above.
Leviathan,
Courts have determined that Free Speech does not encompass public obscenity, or even private displays of such, in some cases. Private rights are always balanced against public good. Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good, which can trump private rights, including Free Speech.
As far as Free Speech goes, no one is totally free to say or do anything they want. You can’t yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater (reckless endagerment) or call anyone a murderer (slander) or even say it in print (liable). We are a democracy and we (meaning all Americans) make laws to protect us all. I have an 8-year old child. I don’t want him to see nudity (cultural, tribal or otherwise) on TV. Warnings are all well and good as they allow me to change the channel, but the Olympics/SuperBowl had no such warning. I agree that Free Speech is one of the most important rights and freedoms in America, but it DOES NOT mean you can say what you want (or show what you want) on TV or anywhere else.
Trace
Trace: You certainly can yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre–presuming the theatre is actually on fire and people are going to die if they don’t immediately evacuate. Keep in mind that you are still likely to cause a panic.
“Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good”
No, in fact, it doesn’t. If you’d like to dispute that, please be so kind as to produce the section of the Constitution that covers that.
And if it did, it wouldn’t trump the Bill of Rights.
“I have an 8-year old child. I don’t want him to see nudity (cultural, tribal or otherwise) on TV.”
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you’re not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you’ll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off. Otherwise, you have to weigh the risks and benefits of it, and decide for yourself whether the benefits of having your child watch TV outwiegh the risk of him seeing something you’d rather he didn’t.
But in your decision you should have to live within the laws of the land, which clearly disallow Congress from taking the action they have.
Necessary and proper clause, innit, Leviathan? With that on their side, they can do anything they feel like.
I say, as plainly and as rationally as I possibly can state it, that the sky IS falling.
Censorship is real and our feedoms as americans and as artists, writers and creators of free speech/art/expression/news and what have you are in SERIOUS jeapordy.
See the story here as a for instance:
What is the basis of censorship here other than someone just didn’t like it or think it should be permitted?
“Take this peice down or I’ll have you arrested”? On what grounds?
This troubles me deeply and it really should trouble us all.
I say, as plainly and as rationally as I possibly can state it, that the sky IS falling.
Censorship is real and our feedoms as americans and as artists, writers and creators of free speech/art/expression/news and what have you are in SERIOUS jeapordy.
See the story here as a for instance:
What is the basis of censorship here other than someone just didn’t like it or think it should be permitted?
“Take this peice down or I’ll have you arrested”? On what grounds?
This troubles me deeply and it really should trouble us all.
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you’re not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you’ll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off.
If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see.
I choose not to have cable for this very reason. Others are paying for the privilege to see “Sex in the City” or unedited movies on cable. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when I am told I can’t watch network TV with my child or that I can’t let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Jim in Iowa
Here’s one Glenn missed.
Bush photo at farmer’s market causes row
Councilman from Lancaster orders picture removed
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/10403120.htm
“I do have a problem when I am told I can’t watch network TV with my child or that I can’t let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.”
To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim…..are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act?
Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Or is it that you’re just another prejudiced, bigoted, small minded, terrified-of-the-unknown-and-what-you-can’t-understand conservative that wishes all these dámņ gays, blacks, powerful women, foreigners and liberal terrorists would stay out of your sensory range and stop their insidious challenging of everything you cling to and use as a crutch.
ps. Why DO you still post here? I thought that ‘inside every conservative christian is a sadomasochist just bursting to get out’ was just a myth.
Hardman,
A gallery owner telling an artist to remove a painting is not censorship. It’s been established that censorship can only be done by the government, which is plain in the story didn’t happen.
This artist seems to feel he can be critical of someone thru his art, and yet others can’t be critical of him. Sounds like someone went to the Michael Moore school of logic that says that “I can produce something negative, but if you say anything negative about me, I’ll sic my lawyers on you”.
Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ášš about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.
And about the Olympic opening ceremony, well first of all no one was actually naked. The performers wore costumes that made them look like nude statues. There’s a pic in this link:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/51086559JS041_OLYopener.jpg
I guess if thats considered indecent than the closing down of art museums all across the country is next order of business to make sure our children are saved from the awful influence of nonsexual nudity.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
US Constitution, Article 8
General Welfare = Public Good
Bill of Rights are amendments, Article 1 is an original construct. BoR will at times trump express legislative powers, but if Congress identifies something as in the General Welfare/Public good or interest, it exceeds the reservations expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Such as, you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Or you can’t stand on a street corner and shout obscenities to people passing by. Or you can’t collect child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home.
“If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see.”
Poor Jim, totally at the mercy of the networks. Oh, if only someone would make a list of what shows were on what channels at what times, and what would be happening on them, perhaps with notations giving the level of violence, language, sexuality, etc. A sort of Guide to the TV, if you will.
Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ášš about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.
Then why complain here? Write or call your Congressman and let him (or her) have an earful. By the way, I’m no cheerleader for the FCC. I don’t think I’ve ever said whether what they do is right or wrong. I’ve always just tried to point out that they have the power and authority to do it.
First, the pics Derek posted are onoly part of the problem. I’m *pretty* sure those are fake or pants of some kind. But they also had a woman with bare breasts portraying a fertility goddess, and while she was also painted, she wasn’t wearing anything to cover her.
Second, for those laying into Jim for his opinion that he’d like some standard of decency to be imposed on broadcast TV, get real. Anything that goes out to the masses FOR FREE is going to have to have some standards. And anyone who isn’t concerned that their kid may stumble across some violent/explicit sex filled show either isn’t a good parent, or isn’t a parent, period. Can anyone honestly say that they’d not mind their 5 year old tuning into the Playboy channel?
If someone wants to watch more explicit/violent/whatever shows, there’s a place you can go, where you can pay for it, and not have to worry about the FCC imposing a minimum level of decency.
And as long as we have a public level of decency, that’s going to swing back and forth between lenient and strict. At the moment, it’s strict. In 10 years we’ll be watching re-runs of Benny Hill on Fox at 2pm on a Sunday.
Posted by: Michael Pullmann:
“Poor Jim, totally at the mercy of the networks. Oh, if only someone would make a list of what shows were on what channels at what times, and what would be happening on them, perhaps with notations giving the level of violence, language, sexuality, etc. A sort of Guide to the TV, if you will.”
Um, Michael, that’s exactly what Jim is saying. The Superbowl incident had no kind of disclaimer at the beginning saying that the program would involve nudidity. Also, because football (and sports in general) there are no on-screen bugs about violence. Janet Jackson’s stunt, be it her and Justin alone, or in cooperation with MTV/Viacom/CBS, was a sneak attack (so to speak) upon the viewers. Personally, I think it was wrong to fine the O&O stations. Any fines should have come from the performers and the producers of the segment. Same with the Bono “f-bomb”.
And have you actually read a TV Guide recently? It’s more programming grids than any kind of program description.
public obscenity
Yeah, it’s good to know that seeing tits is obscene.
The rest of the world must think we’re the most shallow dûmbáššëš on this planet because we’re so farking afraid of looking at our own bodies and *gasp* perhaps liking what we see.
Sorry, I’m not in a politically correct mood. This constant crap from the FCC regarding UNobscene nudity is pathetic.
Your TV has an off-switch, and a plug, and you’re not even required to have one in the house. You want to make sure your child sees nothing on TV you’ll find objectionable, you can just turn it off and keep it off.
If I paid for cable that included HBO, Showtime, etc., your point would have some validity. But there has been for years a standard that nudity is not shown on public TV, particularly during hours a child might be watching. Whether you feel that standard is right, legal, fair, etc., is beside the point. The standard has existed since TV began. As a result, it is NOT an unreasonable demand to say that I should be able to watch TV with my child without having to worry about what might be shown. Until that standard is clearly changed and public notice is given, or unless a warning is clearly posted on a given show, I should not have to lock my TV in a closet for fear of what my child should see.
I choose not to have cable for this very reason. Others are paying for the privilege to see “Sex in the City” or unedited movies on cable. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when I am told I can’t watch network TV with my child or that I can’t let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Jim in Iowa
Here! Here!
Just the other day I was wacthing some old show in re-runs that featured Lucille Ball in a..I don’t even know if I can say this… a “motherly way”. This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarressed. Add to this the fact that those trampy Brady parents are often shown SLEEPING IN THE SAME BED, not the mention all those šlûŧš talking about their periods on in tampon commercials.
What chance do the kids of today have?
It’s good to see the FCC finally taking up the slack of my role as a parent.
Jim in Iowa: I do have a problem when I am told I can’t watch network TV with my child or that I can’t let them use a radio to listen to music because there is no standard for what will be played or shown.
Wolf in the Forest: To misquote Gaines, during the Senate hearing on comics, Jim…..are you that scared of your child that you think something they see on tv or something they hear on the radio will turn them into a serial killer or engage in some form of criminal or antisocial act? Is it that you have no faith in your child or no faith in your parenting skills?
Luigi Novi: Why does not wanting your kid to see certain things have to do with fear of them, or of one
Jeff: “It’s been established that censorship can only be done by the government, which is plain in the story didn’t happen.”
Sorry, but I must point out that censorship is cencorship regardless of who’s guilty of it. You are correct, however in pointing out that this instance of cencorship is not sponsored by our government. Does that make it any less wrong?
Kingbobb: “”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
US Constitution, Article 8
General Welfare = Public Good”
You know Article 8 at no time states that General Welfare = Public Good. The idea that General Welfare = Public Good seems to be an extrapolation at best.
Besides, if the framers of Article 8 meant Public Good why not simply state “Public Good?” I think in this case it’s best to look at the definition of the word “welfare.”
wel
Look, the words “But,” “Except,” “Excluding,” “Indecency,” “Obscenity,” and “Pornography” predate the Bill of Rights by centuries. If the framers had intended to exclude such from the protection of the First Amendment, the power to do so was readily available to them.
It is clear that such was not their intention.
Equally is it clear that they had no intention that material before the Bill of Rights could trump that Bill, nor any of the rights codified therein. In fact, the Bill of Rights merely highlights a few of the biggies, as it was always intended by the framers that Americans live in a sea of rights, interrupted by small islands of restrictions, while the government lived in a sea of restrictions, interrupted by small islands of rights. It was always their intention that the government be forbidden any power not expressly granted them, and thatthe citizens be granted by default any right not specifically restricted in a body of law.
And the notion that the Federal Government’s charge to “promote the general welfare” gives it the power to pass laws “for the public good” is simply false. Consider that Federal drug laws are drawn on the basis that drug abuse has an impact on interstate commerce. If Congress were allowed to pass laws in order to “Promote the General Welfare,” don’t you think that would be the basis of narcotics laws?
In the end, it comes down to this: The First Amendment isn’t needed to defend popular speech. It isn’t needed to defend uncontroversial piety. The only reason to have a First Amendment is to defend speech that would otherwise be quashed, spoeech that is unpopular, that is unconscionable, that is intolerable. The rest is defendedby its inoffensiveness. If you see something that offends you, remember: That is what the First Amendment is for, and you are the stronger for it.
Posted by Leviathan at December 13, 2004 04:43 PM
“Congress has the express power to regulate the Public Good”
No, in fact, it doesn’t. If you’d like to dispute that, please be so kind as to produce the section of the Constitution that covers that.
And if it did, it wouldn’t trump the Bill of Rights.
Well, there’s this interesting little bit of the original Constitution, prior to even the Bill of Rights, wehich is generally referred to as the “Elastic Clause”, which gives Congress the power to do just about anything it caN SLIP PAST THE cOURTS…
“Sometimes I get really embarrassed by the people in this country. The fact that the FCC is asking for tapes is ridiculous and the fact that so many people here are cheerleading for the FCC in this instance is ludicrous. I am a lot more concerned about the fact that the FCC seems to not give a rats ášš about the consolidation of the so-called public airwaves by a handful of companies than I am about whether a child sees the naked human form.”
“Then why complain here?”
Why do YOU?
PAD
You beat me to the punch, PAD.
And just so you know, eclark, I do (and most likely will in the future) write to my elected officials when I feel strongly about things. And just because the FCC has the authority and power to do certain things doesn’t mean we should sit back and allow them to misuse it.
Here are I assume the “offending” moments:
Warning! Nipple alert!
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/14%20August%202004/51086559JS154_OLYopener.jpg
The fertility goddess (who seems to be clothed)
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961450_b.jpg
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961616_b.jpg
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/51086559MS060_OLYopener.jpg
More of the statue guys:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961681_b.jpg
Coed statues:
http://www.athens2004.com/Images/Sport%20Gallery/Ceremonies/13%20August%202004/1961683_b.jpg
Looking at the statue guys, you can see a waistband around the abdomon and it appears that all the legs are the same mold.