FOX gets pass on FCC violation in media...bias *WS pic of hot girl*

[Thorgrim]

Nevermind that everytime the attorney general gives a speech, there is a big breast right behind him, yet I don't see "fuck" behind any respectable institution

Gee, I wonder which is more obscene...a woman's breast or "FUCK DA EAGLES"

Which is worse, a network who didn't realize how an entertainment plan was going to play out, or a network that blatantly plans on moving it's camera's to capture that shirt as part of its purposeful decision making

Bias

Christians see FOX, they see Fox News/Murdoch and go 'oh no, how could they do this, these are our friends?'

It's like with Mark Foley, it took them DAYS to condemn him, and then they dropped the issue the next week

However, Jackson and Timberlake=celebrities=hollywood=jewish liberals=omg i hate them!...crucify them crucify them!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Nevermind that everytime the attorney general gives a speech, there is a big breast right behind him, yet I don't see "fuck" behind any respectable institution

Gee, I wonder which is more obscene...a woman's breast or "FUCK DA EAGLES"

Which is worse, a network who didn't realize how an entertainment plan was going to play out, or a network that blatantly plans on moving it's camera's to capture that shirt as part of its purposeful decision making

Bias

Christians see FOX, they see Fox News/Murdoch and go 'oh no, how could they do this, these are our friends?'

It's like with Mark Foley, it took them DAYS to condemn him, and then they dropped the issue the next week

However, Jackson and Timberlake=celebrities=hollywood=jewish liberals=omg i hate them!...crucify them crucify them!

So now this isn't just about media bias. It's about Christians, Jews, Mark Foley and your personal beliefs of which is more offensive.

In any event, Fox is being treated the same as everyone else. The fact that there's not as much outrage over this is most likely because not as many people were effected and not as many people cared.

However, we all have our own theories as to why this isn't a bigger story.

I believe Janet Jackson made front page on the NY Times and every other liberal newspaper in the nation. Why didn't this make it? Conservative media bias at the NY Times, Boston Globe, etc?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So now this isn't just about media bias. It's about Christians, Jews, Mark Foley and your personal beliefs of which is more offensive.

In any event, Fox is being treated the same as everyone else. The fact that there's not as much outrage over this is most likely because not as many people were effected and not as many people cared.

However, we all have our own theories as to why this isn't a bigger story.

Not really a personal belief, Gonzales stands infront of a breast, not an engraving of "Fuck da injustices"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not really a personal belief, Gonzales stands infront of a breast, not an engraving of "Fuck da injustices"

Now you're comparing a historic statue of Justice to Janet Jackson's live human breast?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Now you're comparing a historic statue of Justice to Janet Jackson's live human breast?

Do they both have stars on their nipples? That would be patriotic...

[phreak]

belichick said "fucking" at the post-game interview after the pats smoked the jets on the 7th. did cbs get fined? probably not...

this thread is pathetic attempt at trolling.

[kinggovernor]

anyone that watches sports on tv knows that the occasional profanity slips through, plus it is pretty easy to read lips.

[Thorgrim]

So why do we prevent 17 year olds without an adult from seeing movies that say "fuck" a lot of it's so widespread through national television

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

"gee, I didn't know it said that"

I hope someone gets canned over that, and FOX gets a nice hefty fine for it. Actually, they're NOT getting a "pass" on it. This post here isn't the first I've heard of it, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

You're a Paleolibertarian and you advocate government censorship?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So why do we prevent 17 year olds without an adult from seeing movies that say "fuck" a lot of it's so widespread through national television

Because much like the FCC regulates the airwaves, the MPAA regulates the motion picture industry. The only reason there is no federal body governing theaters is because they do a decent enough job regulating on their own. They have been trying for the past decade to get rid of the MPAA and replace it with a federally funded and run entity.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because much like the FCC regulates the airwaves, the MPAA regulates the motion picture industry. The only reason there is no federal body governing theaters is because they do a decent enough job regulating on their own. They have been trying for the past decade to get rid of the MPAA and replace it with a federally funded and run entity.

Ok so we prevent 17 year olds because the MPAA isn't federal?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ok so we prevent 17 year olds because the MPAA isn't federal?

Yes, that's exactly what he said.


Jesus Christ, I'm astonished by how many people actually bash their heads against the wall for you.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, that's exactly what he said.


Jesus Christ, I'm astonished by how many people actually bash their heads against the wall for you.

If I ask a question and that's the answer he gives, I have only the option to question the nature of the answer

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If I ask a question and that's the answer he gives, I have only the option to question the nature of the answer

Apparently three posts is a little difficult for you to follow. I'm not even a part of your conversation, but I will help you out a bit. Consider this pro bono, and don't worry, you don't have to thank me for helping you find the answer.

Alright, here goes nothing...

Thorgrim>So why do we prevent 17 year olds without an adult from seeing movies that say "fuck" a lot of it's so widespread through national television

JaJae>Because much like the FCC regulates the airwaves, the MPAA regulates the motion picture industry.

Thorgrim>Ok so we prevent 17 year olds because the MPAA isn't federal?

So to answer your question, since it seems to have escaped you the first time, 17 year olds can't see "R" movies without adults because the movie industry is self-regulating.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

If I ask a question and that's the answer he gives, I have only the option to question the nature of the answer

That's not the answer I gave. Your question was why do we prevent people under 17 from seeing R rated movies (in a sense). I think this is what you meant.

The answer is because there is an association (non-government run) that makes rules and the theaters typically choose to follow them. They can't be fined in any way for not following their own regulations. There are no laws in place. That is why the government wants to get involved. So they can take legal action against theaters much like the FCC does. But since theaters have such a high rate of compliance they haven't ever been able to get anything to pass.

The MPAA has been in existence for for about 40 or so years now. They're a self-regulatory commission that rates movies and sets guidelines for theaters to follow.

Your question of why we prevent under 17 year olds from being exposed to "fuck" in theaters is also incorrect. The word "fuck" can be used in a movie several times and still receive a PG-13 rating. Which gives theaters NO restrictions on who to sell tickets to, just simply advises parents of inappropriate language in case they want to self regulate the movies of their children. PG-13 movies use the word fuck all the time.

A PG-13 rating is nothing more than a strong caution to parents with children under the age of 13. And, there is no legal binding to hold theaters to any regulations whether it was rated R or rated PG-13.

In summary, the reason theaters prevent under 17 year olds from watching rated R movies is because they choose to and not because they have to. However, if theaters stopped complying with their self-regulatory measures, the federal government would step in immediately much like the FCC and take over. Therefore, to prevent future fines and another government entity down their business's throats, they comply at a very high rate to the MPAA guidelines and have thus prevented a government takeover.

[Thorgrim]

The question did not say "Who regulates" or "who specifically stops 17 year old kids"

If someone said "Why do we keep adding welfare benefits to mothers on welfare for having more children?" and the response was "Congress and the President are incharge and they haven't opted to change anything"

Well thank you captain obvious (in this example) but I think what the question means is WHY do we as a society accept certain things, not demand certain things, etc

Obviously, I was asking why do we as a society take a certain approach, why do we value such a thing?

Also, to the note that "fuck" is sometimes in pg-13 movies, i dont think i ever have...but in that case, i'd note there are brief topless shots in some pg13 movies more graphic than JJ

Also ontop of that, while no one would object to a field trip of 7 year olds going to see the lion king at a private or public school, they'd be up in arms if they went to see a movie that said fuck

Yet everyone seems fine with 7 year olds who saw "fuck da eagles" on a tee-shirt on a fixed shot that was on spot that the slowest reader could read it several times over

Outrage in one instance, cool reception here, why?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The question did not say "Who regulates" or "who specifically stops 17 year old kids"

If someone said "Why do we keep adding welfare benefits to mothers on welfare for having more children?" and the response was "Congress and the President are incharge and they haven't opted to change anything"

Well thank you captain obvious (in this example) but I think what the question means is WHY do we as a society accept certain things, not demand certain things, etc

Obviously, I was asking why do we as a society take a certain approach, why do we value such a thing?

Also, to the note that "fuck" is sometimes in pg-13 movies, i dont think i ever have...but in that case, i'd note there are brief topless shots in some pg13 movies more graphic than JJ

Also ontop of that, while no one would object to a field trip of 7 year olds going to see the lion king at a private or public school, they'd be up in arms if they went to see a movie that said fuck

Yet everyone seems fine with 7 year olds who saw "fuck da eagles" on a tee-shirt on a fixed shot that was on spot that the slowest reader could read it several times over

Outrage in one instance, cool reception here, why?

As far as I know, it's really only the PTC that bitches and complains about "all the horror" on TV. The Janet Jackson case is different because it was a tit, and apparently Americans freak out when they see a nipple. PTC has been trying like mad to get Nip/Tuck taken off the air because of the ménage à trois on it. The whole thing is really inconsistent, though. Where were the complaints when Titanic received a PG13 rating, even though it has "disaster related peril and violence, nudity, sensuality and brief language"? It's all a bunch of shit. PTC, RIAA, FCC, MPAA, ESRB, etc. are all a bunch of unnecessary entities, but I am glad that all but one of them are private organizations.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yet everyone seems fine with 7 year olds who saw "fuck da eagles" on a tee-shirt on a fixed shot that was on spot that the slowest reader could read it several times over

Outrage in one instance, cool reception here, why?

Society deems what is appropriate and what is not. If Janet Jackson had been walking down the street with her breast hanging out like that in many states it would have been illegal. Wearing a teeshirt that says fuck generally wouldn't be. Society deems what's acceptable and what isn't.

I haven't seen the clip of this, but I would agree the cameraman purposely filmed the girl because of her shirt and broadcasted it live. They deserved to be punished for it to follow the precedent. If they're in the process of changing the laws I have no problem holding over complaints until they settle the new laws. Let them focus on one thing at a time. Fox hasn't gotten off with this. Nobody said it was acceptable or that everyone is "fine" with it.

Personally I think "fuck" on a tee-shirt isn't nearly as bad as purposely exposing yourself during the half-time show of the Superbowl. But that's my opinion. I also disagreed with CNN showing the sniper being killed on CNN, you said you wanted them to show the whole thing. We draw the line differently with different scenarios. As with all such laws, the line is arbitrary and judged on a case by case basis. It's hard to have defined laws with this. The general public doesn't want TV to be 100% show what you want, yet we don't want it to be over-regulated either.

As of now, the shirt is in violation of the rules of the FCC. Nobody is denying that. The FCC is going to rule on it the same as they've ruled on any other case. There is no bias here, there is nothing to tie into religious discrimination, GOP sex scandals or anything of the like that has been brought up in this thread. The reason people are responding in the way they are I think would be because it's being blown way out of proportion.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

1) I bet it has to do with FOX being government run and owned, and being the mouthpiece for the GOP

2) She's definitely not hot. Don't tell me lies.

I suspect serious