The Seven Words You CAN Say On TV

[TubaKing]

This is definitely a step in the right direction.
The articles SDS provided only seem to speak about profane words, but how does this ruling affect imagery that could could be considered offensive to some viewers, such as genitalia and "flipping people off"?
Semi-related question: Why the hell are female nipples censored on television, but not male nipples? That is just absurd!

 

[cantab]

Why the hell are female nipples censored on television, but not male nipples? That is just absurd!

Television reflects society in that respect. A man walking down the street topless gets barely a second glance (provided the weather is sensible for doing so). A woman walking down the street topless will get stared at and quite probably stopped by the police.
This, in turn, is because our society has sexualised female breasts and especially the nipples.
And this, in turn, may be to do with identifying youth in a potential partner. Big breasts droop with age, so a woman with big, non-droopy breasts is easily identified as young. With small breasts, this cue is lost. Younger women have more years of fertility and can produce more children and are thus more desirable partners. Hence, most men like big boobs.

 

[TubaKing]

Television reflects society in that respect. A man walking down the street topless gets barely a second glance (provided the weather is sensible for doing so). A woman walking down the street topless will get stared at and quite probably stopped by the police.
This, in turn, is because our society has sexualised female breasts and especially the nipples.
And this, in turn, may be to do with identifying youth in a potential partner. Big breasts droop with age, so a woman with big, non-droopy breasts is easily identified as young. With small breasts, this cue is lost. Younger women have more years of fertility and can produce more children and are thus more desirable partners. Hence, most men like big boobs.

Yes, but why is it okay to show topless African women on Discovery Channel, but not okay to see the nipples of, say, Halle Berry on American television?

 

[Objection]

I'm guessing it's a culture thing - women being topless is acceptable in African culture but not in American culture and Americans know this so they find topless African women on TV more acceptable.

This is all guesswork btw.

 

[TubaKing]

I don't think the angry conservative mothers of America are concerned about what country the documentary was filmed in that exposes her children to bare-breasted women. Nipples are nipples.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Remember that the FCC had determinations that handle whether or not the obscenity is "necessary" for the program. In the case of stuff like Discovery Channel and National Geographic, the nudity is more for "scientific purposes" such as documenting how these people live, rather than just for the shock value or sex appeal of "hey look there's some naked breasts".

 

[Zach]

oddly enough, the discovery channel is the channel the kids will actually see, and when they do, they wont understand that the naked women are being portrayed for "scientific purposes".

 

[Veedrock]

It's pretty evident that it isn't being portrayed for sex appeal or pornographic purposes.

 

[Jack Jack]

A woman walking down the street topless will get stared at and quite probably stopped by the police.

Fun fact : where I live, it is inconstitutional to have a law that apply only to women or only to men. Therefore, it will never be illegal for women to be topless in public.

More on topic, I am against any form of censorship or rating. My rationale is the opposite, I find it unnacceptable to have rating getting in the way of a good plot. Having a good movie is very much more important than protecting the "purity of children" or any of that bullshit. If your character have to swear in order to render the scene more realistic, then by all means, go for it.

You can have a target audience, that is all well and good, but ratings are not the same thing as target audience. In fact, a rating is pretty much telling me : you are a bad parent if you let your child see that. Well excuse me, but I know what is good for my daughter, thank you very much.

No matter what we show on media, children will swear. If they don't know of any real swear, they invent their own. And that is no better than actual swearing, now isn't it?

 

[wickdaggler]

Frankly I'm all for censorship of certain things until a certain age...
never mind that age is about 10, and that certain things include some of the worse swear words and most sexual content.

Other than that, I highly disprove of ratings of any kind, due to the fact that it is up to parents on how they want to introduced to profanity, and that kids, weather you like it or not, are going to find almost everything you don't want them to by the age of 13.

I'm really disgruntled towards people who are trying to protect the "innocence and youth" of children, because, honestly, it really only exists for a short time, and trying to hold away thing that your child should learn about naturally will probably cause serious problems later in life. I, for one, would defiantly not like to be restricted from porn by my parents; it would drive me crazy. And any parents who believe that their 13 year old kid is "innocent" is naive, simply put.
However, keeping certain ideas away from children till a certain age is really important as well, which leaves me angry at people who don't try to control their children's use of swearing and profanity; they need to be old enough to understand what situations that it's acceptable in. (again, I feel that that age is around 10).

Overall, though, as polar opposites that I've listed above may not make the best decisions, it is ultimately up to the parent to decide what their child can and can't do, and as such should do research into a movie, game, etc that their child wants to take part in/ buy... not leave it up to some obscure rating system.

The fact that shows are being prosecuted based off some obscure rating system that shouldn't even exist in the first place leaves me fuming. I'm defiantly going to do some more research on this...

 

[Jack Jack]

You know what is very cool with children?

If they find porn while too young for it, they'll say "yuck" and move on to something else.

 

[cantab]

Fun fact : where I live, it is inconstitutional to have a law that apply only to women or only to men. Therefore, it will never be illegal for women to be topless in public.

You just ban "public indecency" and leave it to the courts to decide that a woman being topless is indecent but a man being topless is not.

More on topic, I am against any form of censorship or rating. My rationale is the opposite, I find it unnacceptable to have rating getting in the way of a good plot. Having a good movie is very much more important than protecting the "purity of children" or any of that bullshit. If your character have to swear in order to render the scene more realistic, then by all means, go for it.

I think it's also common to have the opposite - producers adding violence or bad language in order to get a higher rating to avoid the perception the film's for children. Some types of movies will gross worse with a lower certificate. This is borne out by cases when there's like one use of something like "fuck", is that really for artistic reasons or is it just to bump up the rating?

 

[Jack Jack]

You can't ban just "public indecency". You have to be much more specific in what constitute an indecency and what doesn't. Otherwise, it gives too much power to the judges.

I am also against ratings in the first place. If you wanna market something, make a damn trailer. That's what they are for.

It's very possible to make instence of profanity drammatic.

 

[cantab]

You can't ban just "public indecency". You have to be much more specific in what constitute an indecency and what doesn't.

This is something for countries to decide. While vague laws may not seem ideal, almost all laws end up subject to interpretation at some point. And I know of no country with a constitution that prohibits vague laws - indeed, how could such a provision not itself be vague? There also tends to be I think a tradeoff between vagueness and loopholes - if a law tries to be very precise and specific, its "spirit" often ends up subverted.

 

[Jack Jack]

The solution is to include the spirit of the law in the formulation of the law in a "X, Y and Z are precise actions that are forbidden when they contradict moral principle P, as such exceptions can be made in cases such as but not limited to a, b and c." kind of way, althought it is not perfect. It is still better to have only the principle P in the law or only X, Y, and Z.

Be precise and tightly closed in what is forbidden, and both precise and wide open on what is permitted.

 

[Seven Deadly Sins]

This is something for countries to decide. While vague laws may not seem ideal, almost all laws end up subject to interpretation at some point. And I know of no country with a constitution that prohibits vague laws - indeed, how could such a provision not itself be vague? There also tends to be I think a tradeoff between vagueness and loopholes - if a law tries to be very precise and specific, its "spirit" often ends up subverted.

Actually, if you read the actual decision, you'll find that the reason that the FCC Indecency Policy was struck down is because it was indeed "too vague" to be legal. A law is only legal when there is a fair expectation that an individual that would be subject to said law would be able to sufficiently tell what actions would break that law. A law that just says "Public Indecency is banned" would never pass muster because it then becomes up to the enforcement officers to define what constitutes "indecent."

Consider that to some, pretty much anything short of sexual activity in public is fine, while others might be appalled upon seeing a woman's midriff exposed out in the open. Which definition of indecency "crosses the line" according to this law? Without explicitly stating what is okay and what is not, a law cannot be upheld, because a person cannot safely operate within the bounds of the law while not knowing what those bounds actually are.

 

[Jack Jack]

Consider that to some, pretty much anything short of sexual activity in public is fine, while others might be appalled upon seeing a woman's midriff exposed out in the open.

And to some people, actual sexual activity in public is also fine. Just a shame we are a minority.

 

[cim]

And to some people, actual sexual activity in public is also fine. Just a shame we are a minority.

Seeing as this is the second thread you've brought it up in, I might as well explain why sexual activity in public will never be the norm. Observing sexual activity, or performing where one could be observed, forces observers to become non consenting participants. Because observation and being observed is itself an erotic activity, public sex is kind of impossible because consent is something that can never be assumed or implied.

 

[umbarsc]

Actually, if you read the actual decision, you'll find that the reason that the FCC Indecency Policy was struck down is because it was indeed "too vague" to be legal. A law is only legal when there is a fair expectation that an individual that would be subject to said law would be able to sufficiently tell what actions would break that law. A law that just says "Public Indecency is banned" would never pass muster because it then becomes up to the enforcement officers to define what constitutes "indecent."

Consider that to some, pretty much anything short of sexual activity in public is fine, while others might be appalled upon seeing a woman's midriff exposed out in the open. Which definition of indecency "crosses the line" according to this law? Without explicitly stating what is okay and what is not, a law cannot be upheld, because a person cannot safely operate within the bounds of the law while not knowing what those bounds actually are.

That's not how it works. In an instance like this, when the law is intentionally vague, a judge interprets the law, which affects how it's enforced. It's not going to be a cop deciding "I've decided that that is indecent" arbitrarily. Once the law has been interpreted by a judge, the guidelines become distinct and not arbitrary. If a judge decides that women wearing anything less than full-length burqas constitutes "indecency", any woman wearing less will be arrested. But if a judge decides that women can walk around completely nude in public, then the cops can't do anything if a woman walks around without a stitch of clothing. This is oversimplified, but it's basically how it works.

 

[cantab]

Well, that's how it works in common law systems, as used by England and Wales, almost all US States and the US Federal judiciary, Canada except Quebec (which happens to be where Jack Jack is), Australia, India and several other countries - "Essentially, every country that was colonised at some time by England, Great Britain, or the United Kingdom".

By contrast, in civil law - as used by most of Eurasia, most of Latin America, and much of Africa, judicial decisions are not considered to set binding precedent - so one case could find a woman being topless is not indecent, then next year a woman could be found guilty of indecency for being topless. (But a civil law jurisdiction would probably have more specific laws, and anyway even though previous judicial decisions are not considered binding they are still likely to be adhered to).

 

[cim]

That's not how it works. In an instance like this, when the law is intentionally vague, a judge interprets the law, which affects how it's enforced. It's not going to be a cop deciding "I've decided that that is indecent" arbitrarily. Once the law has been interpreted by a judge, the guidelines become distinct and not arbitrary. If a judge decides that women wearing anything less than full-length burqas constitutes "indecency", any woman wearing less will be arrested. But if a judge decides that women can walk around completely nude in public, then the cops can't do anything if a woman walks around without a stitch of clothing. This is oversimplified, but it's basically how it works.

That's not what happened at all though. If you read the decision, a judge didn't interpret the law at all. He declared it null and void.

 

[Jack Jack]

Seeing as this is the second thread you've brought it up in, I might as well explain why sexual activity in public will never be the norm. Observing sexual activity, or performing where one could be observed, forces observers to become non consenting participants. Because observation and being observed is itself an erotic activity, public sex is kind of impossible because consent is something that can never be assumed or implied.

This is a little Farfetch'd no ?

 

[cim]

This is a little Farfetch'd no ?

No, not really. It's one reason flashing is a sex crime. Some people get an erotic response from being watched, or being observed, and involving others in your sexual activity without consent is generally considered to be morally wrong. Public sex is an extension of the same "observers become participants" principle, as that is precisely the reason many choose to have sex in public. There are other reasons, of course, but this is the main rationale that sex-positive human beings use for such laws

Regardless, little of this has to do with the FCC's ruling, which begs the question of why you felt compelled to bring it up yet again.

 

[Jack Jack]

no reasons. It all started because I mentionned the fun fact that it is inconstitutional to ban women from being topless in Québec and Ontario. It went downhill from there.

 

[TubaKing]

oddly enough, the discovery channel is the channel the kids will actually see, and when they do, they wont understand that the naked women are being portrayed for "scientific purposes".

This.

The intent of the program should not serve to justify its contents. Most parents who do not want their children exposed to bare-breasted women do not care whose breasts they are and where said breasts were filmed. A documentary should not get a lower rating than a program on HBO for showing pretty much the same thing (assuming neither of the owners of the exposed breasts were partaking in sexual activity), even if the breasts of the African women are not meant to be sexually appealing (though very well may be arousing to some viewers, anyway). This, to me, seems like a flaw in the system that needs to be fixed. Conservative parents use V-chips for a reason and I do not feel that giving bare-breasted tribes a Y, Y7, G, or even PG rating is quite suitable, regardless of intent.
I am not very familiar with censorship technology, but I feel there should be a way for parents to block not only certain ratings, but more specifically certain contents that they do not wish for their children to see. For example, if a parent is okay with his kids viewing "violence" and "coarse language", but not okay with his kids seeing "sexual situations", he should have the ability to do so, if this is not already the case.

I am in no way supportive of censorship, but if a large enough portion of the American people want to be able to exclude their children from certain content, I feel they should have the capacity to do so, however stupid of them I think it is to try to shelter their children from the real world.

EDIT: Vagueness in what constitutes such things as "coarse language" or "sexual situations" could be mitigated by Parental Control options breaking these down into more specific sub-categories of what in particular they don't want their children to see, I suppose. This is more of a hassle for everyone involved, but gives more power to the parents, greater freedom to the majority of viewers, and fewer fines for TV channels to worry about. There would need to be strict guidelines as to what classifies as what kind of explicit content.