Skip to comments.FCC Is Investigating Super Bowl Show: Entire Halftime Performance Faces Indecency Standards Test
Posted on 02/02/2004 8:08:45 PM PST by new cruelty
The Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation into Sunday's controversial Super Bowl halftime show yesterday and FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell telephoned Mel Karmazin, president of CBS parent Viacom Inc., to express his outrage, saying the entertainment giant should have known what was going to transpire during the show.
The FCC probe will encompass the entire halftime program -- including the brief exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast and the sexualized dance routine precipitating it -- to determine if it violates indecency standards set in law and enforced by the FCC.
If indecency violations are found, each of Viacom's 200 owned and affiliate stations could face a penalty of up to $27,500. FCC officials said the agency may also pursue penalties against CBS and the individual performers, Jackson and Justin Timberlake
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The problem is, we have a lot of people who are so low class they don't see anything wrong with it. I guess when you are swimming in the cesspool, you can't tell it smells.
The worst part is it is so totally juvenile. Like a bunch of kids playing in their own dirty diapers.
Sure....I'll just call John Edwards and Geoff Fieger tomorrow....
Is everyone becomimg a sue happy ambulance chaser now?
I'm not surprised if I see something like this on a cable channel, but sure don't expect it during a commercial network show in the early evening.
Also was ticked off at Pepsi's commercial featuring kids that had been caught downloading music. I'm glad FCC is investigating. If some folks don't, then it's time for them to rally and have their friendly congresscritter change the laws.
There isn't anything particularly civilized about a guy ripping off a girl's top. Although, I suppose since he fostered some nudity, that makes it okay.
Sorry --- that doesn't cut it --- not in this case. If I paid for MTV and then complained about it, sure --- I have the right to not buy it --- and I don't buy it. If the Superbowl had advertised that there was going to be live nudity, then I could change the channel or forbid my kids to watch it. This was all about deception --- putting this kind of raunchy act into something that is advertised as wholesome --- football.
Now, the streaker, Yeah, that was unexpected. But not alot the networks could have done with that.
Please, take your morals elsewhere. I'm not buying into what your trying to sell; "take back the airwaves" through "outrage". Next thing I know, Ashcroft will be covering up statues due to some boobs...;Ooops, that's already happened hasn't it?
Yeah, let's have a morality police...!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know if that actually happened or was just a joke.
Yes, it did happen. The reason was that the juvenile photographers for the news outlets just couldn't resist shooting pictures that showed Ashcroft's head between two breasts. They also did it to people in the Reagan Administration.
Secondly, the whole "right" to not be offended thing..please. I go back and say, it's CBS. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Seriously? If you expected CBS to give you an honest shake, well, I'm laughing REALLY hard at you right now.
Hope ya learned your lesson.
I wonder what a "tit" being sucked by a newborn would do to you in a mall somewhere..You gonna call the cops? Gonna go and get offended?
I have an idea, let's put all women in burqa's, it's the only sure way to stem this type of problem!
It's YOUR HOUSE; YOU control what come's and goes in and out of it. Please, let's not give the gov't another reason to control something else...Our viewing habit's will dictate what is aired.
Straw man alert.
Please tell me which other CBS show has showed a man ripping a woman's clothes, the resulting nudity AND the woman's meek acceptance of it? Go ahead. They must do it all the time.
For some reason they were able to keep the camera off the streaker. They didn't show him at all.
I have no problem at all with women breastfeeding in public. I have done it myself, and have never seen anyone wantonly waving their breasts around to be sexual in that situation.
Context is everything. Do I take my kids to art museums? Sure. That doesn't mean that Penthouse is ok.
Seven-second delays are not SOP. The option is available, but it's rarely used unless the broadcaster has a reason to expect something bad is likely to occur (for example, during a car chase they'll turn on the delay so the public won't see the thief run over a pedestrian, or end up getting shot by the cops).
It's especially rare to have it used during sporting events, because a lot of people prefer to turn the sound off and use radio coverage as their audio while only watching the picture. If the radio broadcast and TV picture ended up being seven or eight seconds apart, the network would get tons of complaints.
I'm almost positive they had this delay for the World Series. I can't stand the Fox announcers, so I tried to listen to the radio ones and there was definitely a delay on the TV broadcast.
Of course, it was staged! Did it LOOK like he reached over, ripped her clothes and left her breast exposed? Yes it did. That was the effect they wanted. The 3 or 4 seconds it was on the screen wasn't enough time to see the snaps which showed it was designed to break away.
My children didn't even see it, as they were both out of the room. We do have decency laws. I want laws enforced. If you don't like the law, then lobby congress to shelve it.
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state." Recall article 52 of the Soviet Constitution: "The church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state and the school from the church." (Article 52)
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
Compare the above list to some of the libertarian party's platform: -----------------------------------
the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards";
We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;
We advocate a strict separation of church and State.
We condemn the attempts by parents... to force children to conform to any religious views.
Entirely different context. I would want someone who who defecated on the floor next to me in a restaurant to be arrested. That same individual in a hospital waiting room would deserve my sympathy, not an arrest.
Libertarians join forces with modern liberals in opposing censorship, though libertarians are far from being modern liberals in other respects. For one thing, libertarians do no like the coercion that necessarily accompanies radical egalitarianism. But because both libertarians and modern liberals are oblivious to social reality, both demand radical personal autonomy in expression. That is one reason libertarians are not to be confused, as they often are, with conservatives. They are quasi- or semiconservatives. Nor are they to be confused with classical liberals, who considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential.
The nature of the liberal and libertarian errors is easily seen in discussions of pornography. The leader of the explosion of pornographic videos, described admiringly by a competitor as the Ted Turner of the business, offers the usual defenses of decadence: 'Adults have the right to see [pornography] if they want to. If it offends you, don't buy it.' Those statements neatly sum up both the errors and the (unintended) perniciousness of the alliance between libertarians and modern liberals with respect to popular culture.
Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of 'rights' incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be deminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and "rights" cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.
The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do. The aesthetic and moral environment in which you and your family live will be coarsened and degraded. Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'; why so many of them do not understand the externalities here is a mystery. They understand quite well that a person who decides not to run a smelter will nevertheless be seriously affected if someone else runs one nearby.
Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality.
The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.' But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories. As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.
Can there be any doubt that as pornography and depictions of violence become increasingly popular and increasingly accessible, attitudes about marriage, fidelity, divorce, obligations to children, the use of force, and permissible public behavior and language will change? Or that with the changes in attitudes will come changes in conduct, both public and private? We have seen those changes already and they are continuing. Advocates of liberal arts education assure us that those studies improve character. Can it be that only uplifting reading affects character and the most degrading reading has no effects whatever? 'Don't buy it' and 'change the channel,' however intended, are effectively advice to accept a degenerating culture and its consequences. The obstacles to censorship of pornographic and viloence-filled materials are, of course, enormous. Radical individualism in such matters is now pervasive even among sedate, upper middle-class people. At a dinner I sat next to a retired Army general who was no a senior corporate executive. The subject of Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs came up. This most conventional of dinner companions said casually that people ought to be allowed to see whatever they wanted to see. It would seem to follow that others ought to be allowed to do whatever some want to see.... Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy.
Civil freedom . . . is not, as many have endeavoured to persuade you, a thing that lies hid in the depth of abstruse science. It is a blessing and a benefit, not an abstract speculation; and all the just reasoning that can be put upon it is of so coarse a texture as perfectly to suit the ordinary capacities of those who are to enjoy, and of those who are to defend it. Far from any resemblance to those propositions in geometry and metaphysics, which admit no medium, but must be true or false in all their latitude, social and civil freedom, like all other things in common life, are variously mixed and modified, enjoyed in very different degrees, and shaped into an infinite diversity of forms, according to the temper and circumstances of every community. The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere; because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment. Edmund Burke
Liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. The degree of restraint it is impossible in any case to settle precisely. But it ought to be the constant aim of every wise public council to find out by cautious experiments, and rational cool endeavours, with how little, not how much, of this restraint the community can subsist; for liberty is a good to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened. It is not only a private blessing of the first order, but the vital spring and energy of the state itself, which has just so much life and vigour as there is liberty in it. But whether liberty be advantageous or not (for I know it is a fashion to decry the very principle), none will dispute that peace is a blessing; and peace must, in the course of human affairs, be frequently bought by some indulgence and toleration at least to liberty: for as the sabbath (though of divine institution) was made for man, not man for the sabbath, government, which can claim no higher origin or authority, in its exercise at least, ought to conform to the exigencies of the time, and the temper and character of the people with whom it is concerned, and not always to attempt violently to bend the people to their theories of subjection. The bulk of mankind, on their part, are not excessively curious concerning any theories whilst they are really happy; and one sure symptom of an ill-conducted state is the propensity of the people to resort to them Edmund Burke
I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral, regulated liberty as well as any gentleman of that society [The Revolution Society], be he who he will: and perhaps I have given as good proofs of my attachment to that cause, in the whole course of my public conduct. Edmund Burke
In some people I see great liberty indeed; in many, if not in the most, an oppressive, degrading servitude. But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths. Edmund Burke
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite he placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot he free. Their passions forge their fetters. Edmund Burke
I have no idea of a liberty unconnected with honesty and justice. Nor do I believe that any good constitutions of government, or of freedom, can find it necessary for their security to doom any part of the people to a permanent slavery. Such a constitution of freedom, if such can be, is in effect no more than another name for the tyranny of the strongest faction ; and factions in republics have been, and are, full as capable as monarchs of the most cruel oppression and injustice. It is but too true, that the love, and even the very idea, of genuine liberty is extremely rare. It is but too true, that there are many, whose whole scheme of freedom is made up of pride, perverseness, and insolence. They feel themselves in a state of thraldom, they imagine that their souls are cooped and cabined in, unless they have some man, or some body of men, dependent on their mercy. This desire of having some one below them descends to those who are the very lowest of all, and a Protestant cobbler, debased by his poverty, but exalted by his share of the ruling Church, feels a pride in knowing it is by his generosity alone that the peer, whose footman's instep he measures, is able to keep his chaplain from a jail. This disposition is the true source of the passion, which many men, in very humble life, have taken to the American war. Our subjects in America; our colonies; our dependants. This lust of party-power is the liberty they hunger and thirst for; and this syren song of ambition has charmed ears that one would have thought were never organised to that sort of music. Edmund Burke
Liberty, such as deserves the name, is an honest, equitable, diffusive and impartial principle. It is a great and enlarged virtue, and not a sordid, selfish, and illiberal vice. It is the portion of the mass of the citizens, and not the haughty licence of some potent individual or some predominant faction. Edmund Burke
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. John Adams
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
Gotcha, nothing to offer..strawman...de-caf...blah...
Have any original thoughts yet?
Wait don't answer...Not worth any of our time.
That'd make a good tagline...
When you can construct a cohesive argument that doesn't involve setting up ridiculous strawmen, like objecting to nudity on broadcast TV during a sporting event equals wanting all women to wear burkas, then I'd be happy to have a discussion with you. Until then, I'll just laugh at you.
Too many years of democratic congress are the result of that list, but that's a different discussion. Rest assured, maintain a gov't entitiy in what is broadcast, that list will be rock solid in a few more years.
Side not to all..Wasn't the FCC origianlly encarnated to monitor the frequencies station's operated off of? How did they get into what's right or wrong?
My kids didn't watch the half time show. But it did happen to be the topic of the day in 6th grade. I'm doing my best to raise decent kids, with decent values. It's tempting to lock them in bubbles and never let them out of the house. I can't do that. I restrict what they watch, I know their friends and we talk A LOT.
I can't fight this alone. We have laws, they need to be enforced. If you don't like them, lobby congress.