Dictatorships always move to control mass media. Our government is doing that too.

From http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5312.shtml
"Government Should Not Control the Airwaves
By ROBERT GARMONG
Sep 23, 2004, 06:02

The Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" is not just a scandal; it's now been ruled a criminal act. The Federal Communications Commission has fined CBS a half-million dollars for the incident.
This is just the beginning of a crackdown. The FCC now calls for the power to regulate cable television, in addition to broadcast media. Congress has voted to increase by tenfold the maximum fine that the FCC may impose, from $27,500 to $275,000. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has vowed that he will not be satisfied until "I see us send one or two ... cases for license revocation."

In this headlong rush to expand the government's authority over the media, no one has paused to consider whether the government should have such authority in the first place. No one has noticed that the very existence of the FCC is a flagrant violation of the right to free speech.

Throughout history, the norm was tyranny over the mind. People were allowed to speak only by government imprimatur until America's First Amendment established freedom of speech as a central premise of our nation. The First Amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This language could not be clearer, or more absolute: No matter who disagrees with you or considers your speech offensive, the government may not abridge your right to say it.

Free speech protects the rational mind and its literary, intellectual and scientific products. It means the absolute right to express one's views, so long as one does not violate the rights of others. Free speech means no American should fear the fate of Galileo, persecuted for daring to assert scientific truths that contradicted official church doctrines, nor the fate of Socrates, put to death for offending the state.

Yet the FCC exists to dictate what can be said on-air. Since the early days of radio, every broadcast station has been allowed to exist only if it applies to the FCC for permission to use the airwaves. In exchange for their licenses, broadcasters must promise to serve the "public interest." Stations that the FCC regards as having failed to do so can be fined, or even shut down, at the FCC's sole discretion."
=============SNIP===============
Hmmmmm...do tell?

i couldn't really say it better. i'm sure someone will argue that we need to be "protected" from obscenity. to them i say change the channel. what is obscene to you is normal to me. protect our rights. smallest gov't is the best gov't

Change the channel?!?!?! WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD ONE HAVE TO!?!?! It's the SUPERBOWL! Is this "Free Speech" crap people gripe about so much so great that people can get naked on national tv and damn anyone who doesn't like it? If thats the case then sign my fat ass up. I'll parade my fat ass on TV for all to see and SURELY you free speech nuts will change your mind and demand further acts should be barred.

No free speech was violated by the fine. That whole "Malfunction" was a carefully planned stunt to sell more albums. Damn mmnuc3.... Do you not have children? If you do, do you let 'em watch porn so you can exercise your free speech rights?

Yes, but the change the channel arguement is countered by the popular 'protect the children' argument. And that cannot be countered, as it overrides all logic.

Just as an example, consider Cleanfeed. Britains largest broadband ISP, BT, set up a program called 'cleanfeed', to filter pedophile websites and so prevent their customers seeing them. Free-speech activists protested heavily at this. Not at its goal, but at its method. The list of banned sites is secret. BT claims it amounts to a pedophile shopping list, so wont release it. If a site is blocked, the user isn't given any indication as to the cause. They recieve only the standard 'unable to establish a connection' error. Finally, BT was caught exagerating statistics about the number of blocked access attempts - counting attempted connections, rather than attempted visitors, and not making the distinction clear. Thats just the cleanfeed-specific problems. Then theres the potential that BT could be forced by a court to use the mechanism to filter, say, hate speech, pro-terrorist propaganda or our favourite subject, copyrighted material. Or that a similar thing could happen due to a changing political situation.

Dispite all this, Cleanfeed recieved hardly any public criticism. Because protecting the children overrides all. The only publicly acceptable view was to praise BTs effots. The government did so, and asked why other ISPs were not doing the same. Experts on TV gave interviews. The only public criticism I read was in an opinion column on the BBC website.

Tonight, Center for Creative Voices in Media Executive Director Jonathan Rintels will discuss the FCC's $550,000 fine of CBS/Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl on PBS's "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer."

Rintels argues that while creative artists do not condone indecent content, FCC fines and regulation of program content are Constitutionally suspect and the wrong method of addressing the issue. As a result, broadcasters, networks, creative artists, and others are "self-censoring" decent and appropriate content, with the American public the ultimate loser.

More information on these exciting developments is available on our website, www.creativevoices.us.

If you have any comments or questions, please don't hesitate to contact us.

How is it OK to show Lynndie England, smiling, pregnant with a cig dangling out of her mouth and pointing at a guy's privates...and that can be shown on tv, but a breast, which is the symbol, in many ways, of motherhood, generates a half mill fine and becomes a criminal act?

To me, Lynndie's grinnin' cigarette puffing, pregnant image (possibly harming the fetus even more than being born to a trailer trash lookin'
sadist) is more obscene than every breast ever shown on Cinemax at 10 pm on every Saturday night ever!

Come on people, if ALL the channels were allowing smut to infiltrate the airwaves, who would pay extra for the Playboy or Hustler channels?

http://www.thesyndrome.com/archives/iraqi_torture.gif
Kids can see this on the news but not part of Janet Jackson's breast
?
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3530159
"Lynndie England Should Face Court Martial - Judge

A US military judge has recommended a court-martial for Private Lynndie England over the Iraq prison abuse scandal, but said the young army reservist was “easily led” and had been “heavily influenced” by an ex-boyfriend."

Agreed Code. It shouldn't have been shown on TV. The only people that needed to see these photos were the people investigating the scandal.

If the "Malfunction" was truly a malfunction than I also agree that it shouldn't have been fined. BUT anyone with half a brain knows it was not an accident.

The biggest discrepancy in your argument is Cinemax. That is a cable station that has to be paid for. CBS comes on regular airwaves. That and this was the Superbowl. People expect to be able to watch the show and not have to worry about changing the channel.

Protect the children my ass. The viewing of a breast by any person of any age is not detrimental in anyway shape or form. However, screwing up your kids minds by filling their brains with all of that puritanical breasts are evil bullshit is going to produce little deviants who hopefully will abandon you when you're old, decrepid and need them the most.

The super bowl itself is more offensive than any display of Janet's breast. Ritualized violence that teaches winning at all cost, while entertaining and fun, is much more offensive than any breast.

The Superbowl went to hell when they turned the half time over to MTV and the likes to turn it into a freak show for profit. Bring back the marching bands. They have more talent!!

I have no problem with pay channels showing body parts, but I have to agree, that NO ONE was expecting a peep show during the super bowl, therefor we were forced to watch, without any type of warning. That violates people's freedom and rights, as well... the right to know and choose to turn the channel before hand.

Also, I do not agree that the affiliates should be fined. Maybe I don't even think CBS itself should be fined. I don't think they expected it, either. I think Janet, Justin, and MTV should be fined for it. I do believe they planned it.


"but a breast, which is the symbol, in many ways, of motherhood, "
Oh yes, and I really enjoy it when I'm eating my dinner at a restaurant and some white trash whips it out to feed the spawn. The argument in favor of it is "But it's natural". Oh, well, in that case, taking a dump is more natural, since EVERYONE has to do it, so does that mean I can drop trau in the middle of a restaraunt and crap in the isles?

"To me, Lynndie's grinnin' cigarette puffing, pregnant image (possibly harming the fetus even more than being born to a trailer trash lookin'
sadist)"
I don't what's more scarry, the fact that these people thought it was okay to torture POWs, the fact that they enjoyed torturing POWs, or the fact that Lynndie England is acting breeding.

" or the fact that Lynndie England is acting breeding."

should have read "actually breeding"
Caught it after I hit the post button.

Damn, I must be going to the wrong restaurants....never seen the bare breast feeding the baby routine. Call me weird...but I think old Janet looks much better than Lynndie...
To give Jeff Foxworthy some new material...
"If your sister appears on the evening news,
pregnant, with a cigarette hanging out her lips,
grinning and pointing at a naked Iraqi she's
been torturing....You MIGHT be a redneck"..

lol

They fine CBS for showing PART of JJ's breast, but they allow
Richard Armitage to appear, face uncovered, for hours on CSpan...

see Richard Armitage, aka "Uncle Fester" here....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38066000/jpg/_38066856_rumsfeld_armitage_ap150.jpg

and, the Today show while people are eating breakfast , for Pete's sake!

I say, any network, showing a barefaced Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary of State) should be fined for showing obscene material before 10 pm!

Gimme a bare breast over a barefaced Armitage, or a barefaced Bush (hmmm...do tell!), or a barefaced Real Slim Cheney...any time.

Riddle me this Batman...
why aren't all networks fined when they show a "Shaved Bush" during
State of the Onion (smile...Union) address....

"never seen the bare breast feeding the baby routine"
You aren't missing much. Most of the women who do this are total white trash, and it's the only way they can get attention. That wrinkled ol' bimbo Creepy Lee Gifford wouldn't stop talking about how she would breast feed in public, even after her hatchlings were in school. That woman annoyed the hell out of me. Anything to bring up her stupid kids. Someone talks about building a car and she would say that reminded her of a day she was breast feeding her daughter on an airplane. Someone talks about cats and she says that reminds of a time when she was breast feeding her son at a restaraunt.



" ....You MIGHT be a redneck"

Should be more like "You ARE a redneck" or "Praying that you are adopted"

Brings to mind one of the funniest things that Gilbert Godfried said. A question that he was asked while on the Hollywood Squares:
"What most people wish for during the holidays"
Gilbert responded "That they are adopted".

"Richard Armitage to appear, face uncovered, for hours on CSpan..."

"why aren't all networks fined when they show a "Shaved Bush" "

ROFLMAO!!!




"Real Slim Cheney"
Holy dumbshits, batman, I haven't heard this one before. This is excellent!!

Have to agree with you on the breastfeeding in public issue


Am watching the debate between Fred Upton and Mr. Rintel on PBS right now.

Fred Upton reminds me of a brown haired Cary Sherman.

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=40910
""Based on a careful review of the record," said Adelstein. "I find today’s remedy totally inadequate. After all the bold talk, it’s a slap on the wrist that can be paid with just 7½ seconds of Super Bowl ad time. The $550,000 fine measures up to only about a dollar per complaint for the more than 542,000 complaints that flooded into the FCC after the broadcast."

"While the Commission must always proceed cautiously in broadcast decency cases, this type of graphic and gratuitous nudity is not a close call," continued Adelstein. "The millions of our nation’s children who were ambushed by the Super Bowl halftime show deserve better protection. A fine of 7½ seconds of ad time is scarcely any deterrent. The shockwaves are still being felt by this shameful episode. I fear that today we’re responding to a 'wardrobe malfunction' with a regulatory malfunction."

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps was another of the commissioners that wanted to take the fines further, stating, "I agree that the Super Bowl halftime show violated the indecency statute and am pleased that we are taking this step to address a deplorable incident. I remain troubled, however, by certain aspects of the decision and therefore do not approve it in its entirety."



"The Commission received complaints about other aspects of the halftime show and some of the commercials," continued Copps. "Yet, the Order dismisses these complaints in a footnote with hardly any analysis or explanation. The FCC relies on viewers and listeners to file complaints about indecent broadcasts and places a heavy burden on complaining citizens. The citizens that filed these complaints have a right to expect more of a Commission follow-through on their complaints."



Commissioner Kevin J. Martin agreed with Copps, stating, "First, hundreds of thousands of viewers across the country filed complaints asking us to find various aspects of the Super Bowl halftime show indecent. Some even complained that the whole show was indecent. This Notice, however, analyzes only one segment of the show. We have a duty to the public to fully analyze all of the complaints that we receive."

Powell also addressed an issue being raised by many broadcasters about having no set guidelines for an indecency definition, saying "it is not possible to write a 'red book' of dos and don’ts, nor is it wise. There are simply too many subtleties and too many contexts in which a given form of speech might occur to generalize a set of rules. The individual facts and the context are critical to separating protected speech from unlawful speech."

Apparently, an FCC official was asked if the first ten minutes of the miniseries "ROOTS", would be illegal by current standards or not. The FCC person refused to answer.

"The super bowl itself is more offensive than any display of Janet's breast. Ritualized violence that teaches winning at all cost, while entertaining and fun, is much more offensive than any breast."

WOW! Just simply, WOW!

Maybe we should just pass a law that says no one under 18 can watch tv, use the internet or email. That will take care of all the problems, and there won't be any complaints. I mean I didn't enjoy seeing Janet's knocker, but I didn't call up and complain, because I didn't have a kid watching and I'm not a Pentecostal.

Another way to look at this this. Where I live the only way you can get any TV is on a dish. What choice do I have for my kids. If you look at what is on the dish it's anything goes. The way I see it whats good for one is good for the other. Not saying I agree or disagree with whats on TV. I just think they both should be the same.

Hi CodeWarrior Been a long time. I have now got internet again. And old friend gilbd.

Not Baghdad Bob anymore
Now Baghdad Bush

Here's the problem wihh that logic Baghdad, you can filter out things on the Dish and on Digital cable by setting passwords for shows and ratings. On CBS (which is broadcast for free) they have a different set of rules. I really don't care if they show hardcore sex on cable, because I can filter that out. (And my children would know better then to watch that.) But the superbowl was rated Adult because of nudity, because it was just supposed to be a football game. That is the only reason that it blew up, because it was the SUPERBOWL. Duh, if it was on a soup opera or E.R. there would be problems, but not like this.

Here's the problem with that logic Baghdad, you can filter out things on the Dish and on Digital cable by setting passwords. And the kids can put it back. So they can see what they want. That's like the pills bottles. Most of us can't open them give it to a kid and they will get open for you.

Not Baghdad Bob anymore
Now Baghdad Bush

See, that's when the parents come in...if you're with your kids, you (presumably) control the remote. And that's one tough parental control to defeat.

But back to the FCC, I'll say it: Right now, the standard is tolerable for me. I've been training for a campus radio station, and part of the manual is a quote from Miller v. California, which establishes a three-part test for obscenity that I'm yet to see posted in this topic. I quote:

1) The average person applying contemporary community standards would find the material appeals to the prurient interest
2) The material describes or depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner
3) The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

That's the standard the FCC holds our college station to. It doesn't seem like too much to me. The penalty (which I don't plan on worrying about, since I don't usually talk about anything that passes that test) is awful high for a campus station, though. I don't want to be the moron who cost the station five figures.

billfred--Janet's performance failed on w of your 3 criteria. It depicted sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner--remember he removed the piece of her costume; and, the work, taken as a whole or any other way you want to take it lacked all serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. And why does this entire discussion seem to be males discussing a breast???? Do you guys like her breast that much, or what?

Aw, crap, carla isn't here, is she? Not w, but 2. Sorry, hurricane watch will probably go up here at 5 in the a.m. and we are all so tired of it all, we don't care....

"I have no problem with pay channels showing body parts, but I have to agree, that NO ONE was expecting a peep show during the super bowl, therefor we were forced to watch, without any type of warning."

Gee SkippyQSB, I think you should call the police and report a crime, because the ONLY way anyone would FORCE me to watch ANYTHING on TV would be if they did so with a gun against my head.
No one forced ANYONE to watch ANYTHING. The TV still has an off switch. Superbowl or not.

Things that make an MA-16 or R rated movie get censored on television:

1) Foul Language. Freedom of Speech... as long as it's only said and not recorded, broadcast, overheard by conservatives or trademarked by Howard Stern.

2) Nudity. Sorry we can't exist with our manufactured "second layer of skin", should we actually remove any clothing, look at ourselves in a mirror after a shower, or try to get a glimpse of the Girl Next Door who just happens to be an ex porn star we're guilty of indecency.

3) Violent Content. Let's face it, people get beaten, stabbed, tortured, burned, shot, blown up, and even beheaded enough in real life. We don't need *fictional* works coercing our children to become gang members.

4) Alcohol and Drug Use. See above, except we don't want them to become alcoholics before 21 or drug addicts outside of California.

Well, I guess I should chime in on this. CBS really shouldn't have been fined because of this. They didn't know it was going to happen so how are they responsible? If anyone should be fined, it should be Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. We all know they purposely staged this so everyone would buy Miss Jackson's album that came out shortly thereafter. Fortunately I didn't see it since I don't watch the Superbowl Freak Show.

Now you got these people out there saying "Hey, you got a V-Chip in your TV. Use it!" I got a V-Chip also. It's not in my TV, however. It's my brain. If I see something I hate, I pick up the remote control and change the channel. I don't need a piece of silicon to decide for me and neither should responsible parents.

And doesn't anyone find it a little odd that the FCC is just now getting around to fining CBS? Maybe the documents were real and the FCC struck a deal, but CBS broke it and now they're getting find half a million.

This isnt a blatant attempt to control the airwaves. What those two losers did was just a stupid attempt to hock sales for thier shitty, cookie cutter music. If anything, these two idiots should be fined.

Just goes to show that RIAA artists are trying to corrupt our young with sex to sell thier awful music.

NiceGuy, I agree that the half-time show was a "Superbowl Freak Show". I caught glimpses of it, including the "unveiling" of the tit. The whole show, approved by CBS, was tasteless. I guess they (the producers) never paid any attention to Timberlake's lyrics during the rehearsals. Wrong "entertainment" for the wrong audience. Actually, mislabled as entertainment.
Now the FCC has an event and public reaction for their censorship and subjective fines. Now they have moral outrage on their side...because of what "those two losers" did. I say: Fine the RIAA!

Are most of you on crack, have you ever been to a football game? People cuss and sware and cuss and sware the whole damn time. As far as your child is concerned then don't turn on the TV, no one forces you to watch it at all. Your kid can watch Oprah at 4 in the afternoon and listen to her talk about "tossing salads" and giving blow jobs and she doen't get fined and you do not complain. This country is ignorant when it comes to the human body, Is your child allowed to look at "David" ( the naked staute created by michaelangelo) ? Why, is it because it is art, can they watch Britanny look like a slut while standing in line for the supermarket. No one should have been fined at all. shit happens and for those of you who think this was planned give me a damn break, only a complete marketing mron would tell someone to show their Breast during the half time show at the Superbowl. Howard Stern is going to be taken off of the air for this shit, there is no free speech left and we are that much closer to a facist society. Who ever controls the Present Cotrols the Past.

Say what you will, I have to this day never understood the two faced stance on sex. Just seems like there is too much influance by puritans.

I am not talking about pornography. I am talking about the need to cover up the idea that how kids came to be is through sex. It is like everyone wants the kids to believe that mom and dad had just enough sex energy and drive to make little Jimmy and then it died and doesn't exist anymore.

Now we talk about how violence and drugs mess up kids. Why does anyone one think that discovering mom and dad "did it" (and does it still) isn't a shocker to a kid on whom this false idea has been fostered on him for all his life.

Liberals could find conservative views 'obscenity' (and vice-versa of course). Should political views therefore be removed from free speech? The RIAA could find criticism of copyright laws 'obscenity'- shoudl such criticism be removed from free speech?

Domethius: I've listened to Stern and I regularly visit his site. You know what you're going to hear and see there. I agree with his take on the Oprah show. The FCC subjectively decides who gets fined and who doesn't.
The Super Bowl broadcast is an event. People have parties. Many people only watch the commercials. It was on CBS. They run a lot of "family shows". People weren't warned that the half-time show sucked! It was really trashy. To me, it wasn't about the skin that was revealed, it was how it was revealed. He intended to rip off her clothes. It was sleazy and offensive to me as a woman. Because of Janet and Justin's theatrics, everybody is threatened all the time with huge fines by this conservative commission. They have ammunition to censor.

Lachatte, I understand that people have parties and stuff for the superbowl and pretty everybody thought it was trashy, my point was no one forces you to watch it. Also since we are talking about football, why is it OK to watch a bunch of men beat the crap out of each other (extremely violent sport) but not to see a boob. That is the whole problem I have with this, football is violent and children should not be watching it anyway. I always tell people this story I was at a baseball game and a freind of mine was cussing, the parents in front of me got upset and asked him to stop, I asked them if they are sucj good parents then why were they both downing beers like there was no tomorrow, who's driving home, they had no response and moved to a different location. How quick we are to judge the actionsof others but not ourselves.

"football is violent and children should not be watching it anyway"
That's your opinion. You don't have to watch it. Freedom of choice.
Most people don't see it that way. Most people see big guys, wearing pads and helmets. Kids don't see the pain and the injuries in the locker rooms after the games. They see passes and receptions. It's pretty sanitized on the television screen most of the time and even harder to see in a stadium.

Lachatte, that was my point you nor your children have to watch TV at all, no one forces you to own one or watch anything on it, that is the choice you make. If you see something on TV that you think is offensive then don't watch TV, the coice is yours.

Whoa, Domethius! All or nothing at all?

The problem here is one of expectations--when we watch a football game, we know there is violence. We do not expect to see Justin removing clothing in a suggestive manner from Janet's body. In the normal course of programming, that simply does not occur on commercial television. I agree with Domethius in one point: if you don't like it, don't watch it (especially Oprah!). But when you watch those shows, you know what you will get--and when you watch a football game, you think you know what you will get--and it's not a Breast (and why did you capitalize that? Is it The Breast? Or just the breast?)

ShadowMan,
I wasn't trying to capitalize anything, typo, sorry. And actually yes I do beleive in all or nothing, gray lines just cause more problems and give lawyers more things to sue over, it is just my opinion, I just don't really see what the big deal was, it is a part of the female anatomy, but I guess people still find the human body offensive, I just see it as the human body, once again just my opinion and I hope I have not upset anyone just voiceing my opinion, I respect everyone elses opinion as well, Rock ON, Speak Out, and Free the Music

ShadowMan??? Now you hurt my feelings..

Sorry, ShadowMom, once again typo, I am at work, I do multiple things while I am here, sorry.

"Change the channel?!?!?! WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD ONE HAVE TO!?!?! It's the SUPERBOWL! Is this "Free Speech" crap people gripe about so much so great that people can get naked on national tv and damn anyone who doesn't like it? If thats the case then sign my fat ass up. I'll parade my fat ass on TV for all to see and SURELY you free speech nuts will change your mind and demand further acts should be barred.

No free speech was violated by the fine. That whole "Malfunction" was a carefully planned stunt to sell more albums. Damn mmnuc3.... Do you not have children? If you do, do you let 'em watch porn so you can exercise your free speech rights?"


This reminds me of something i heard while listening to George Carlin. Sickminded little man, but he does occasionally make sense.

"The FCC, an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the President, decided all on its own that radio and telivision are the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amendment to the Constitution. Why? Because they got a letter. From a minister. In Mississippi. A reverend Donald Wildman(name?) heard something on the radio that he didnt like. Well reverend, did anyone ever tell you that there are two knobs on the radio? Course, I'm sure the reverend isn't that comfortable with anything that has two KNOBS on it. But hey reverend there are two knobs on the radio. One of them turns the radio off, and the other one...CHANGES THE STATION! Imagine that reverend, you can actually change the station. It's called freedom of choice, its one of the principles this country was founded upon, look it up in the library if you have any left when you've finished burning all the books."

That wasnt my quote, but I share the sentiments. you dont like whats on the tube, change the damn channel.

OH and if I offended anyone with that.....screw you, the First Amendment still applies, and i just excercised it.

Understood, Domethius--just kidding. And ringmaster--free speech has nothing to do with nudity. I believe that's more along the lines of public indecency. The moral climate of the country is what is supposed to determine that. And we all know the FCC is well in tune with the public, don't we.

Some people do not seem to have grokked StinkMonkey's point that it was not the breast, it was the context. I would not really care if Jackson wanted to let loose her floppy breast on Conan O'Brian. That is hardly a family show... for me to poop on, if you get my drift.

But the Super Bowl is hallowed ground, and Janet desecrated it. She may just as well have pissed on the American flag.

Nevertheless, the worst attrocity or which CBS is guilty is SURVIVOR! That piece of stench has spawned a whole genre of programs that I find insulting on almost every level. Really, getting entertainment by watching others forced to eat grubs is only one step down in depravity from downloading those Iraqi beheading videos.

I saw a clip from a foreign TV show, I think it was Japanese, where they suspended a young man on a crane dangling about 100 feet in the air, naked except for a pair of boxer shorts. People on the ground then threw things at him until his very loose-fitting shorts fell off. Sad to say, I think this is the future of entertainment, given what I see at the networks today.

Remember that parody of game-show TV at the beginning of Terry Gilliam's movie Time Bandits? The contestants end up face down (presumably dead), suffocated in a large vat of puddling. Basically, that is only a millimeter away from not being parody any more. It is already so close to truth, it isn't funny.

But if it comes to that, I'm sure you free speech nuts will be there to defend it. God Bless America.

Yeah, I agree CBS should be held accountable for allowing Survivor to be produced. That show spawned all of the reality TV we've ever known and it just keeps getting worse and worse. They had the show "The Swan" on CBS where attractive women are made into the image of Hollywood - because they have been led to the belief that they are not attractive - and then they compete in a beauty contest! They're doing it again this year, but I'm just waiting for the day FOX announces they're doing a show where men who would prefer to be women are given a sex change and then compete in a beauty pageant.

And you know what, once that happens, that's it. TV will officially be dead.

Tv is already dead. It always has been.

hey stinkmonkey...check out pbs...the only "obscenities" you'll see there are some naked african woman with her ears stretched to her knees. for the rest of america, i think that controlling what you see is wrong. yes i have a daughter. i am raising her around playboy...is it wrong? no. i'm just not sexually ashamed. she's gonna see it at school. if i don't tell her about what happens, then her friends will give her the distorted, drink lots of beer, be a cheerleader for all the football guys version of what sex is. so in short, i'm a reformist that believes sex is awesome, JJ looks too much like MJ, and the gov't should never control anything other than violent criminals. period.

This is a discussion about what should or shouldn't be seen on television. Like ShadowMom said, it's about "expectations". We want to be informed about what kind of a show it is, so that we can decide whether or not we want to view it.
mmnuc3: IMHO, what Timberlake did to Jackson was a distorted view of sex. The man wants it - he grabs it. I think that's criminal.

"No one forced ANYONE to watch ANYTHING. The TV still has an off switch. Superbowl or not."
if you think about it, we were forced to see it. If there had been a warning saying TV-MA due to nudity and adult situations, then people would have been warned and would have had the choice to turn the channel, and then piss on them for complaining.

"This country is ignorant when it comes to the human body, Is your child allowed to look at "David" ( the naked staute created by michaelangelo) ?"
There's a huge difference:
1) Michaelangelo created art, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake don't.
2) I have no problem with the human body, but there is no member of the Jackson family that is a human, so that point is mute here. :-}

" and the gov't should never control anything other than violent criminals "
That's the other point of this. Did you hear the lyrics to the song? Attacking women and ripping their clothes off sounds like violence to me.

"...check out pbs...the only "obscenities" you'll see there are some naked african woman with her ears stretched to her knees."
Better than boobs down to her knees.

" I have no problem with the human body, but there is no member of the Jackson family that is a human, so that point is mute here. :-}"
Quite amusing, Skippy. Speaking of the Jacksons, have you seen this page (It's one of my all-time favorites: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html

I love how there is a picture of George Bush with the caption "Dictatorships always move to control mass media. Our government is doing that too."

Even though it was Congress who voted to raise the maximum fine, and the FCC who moved to regulate cable, not Bush.

Hey CodeWarrior, did you happen to post a huge article about how the Democrats and John Kerry were trying to enforce censorship back with the swiftboad ads?

Not aware they tried to censor "swiftboad ads"...

Are you trying in vain to spell "swiftboat vets ads?"


If so, you failed!

I heard they are going to have a "Shaved Bush " that actually talks (but NOT WELL) representing Repubs in the debate with Kerry...should be interesting viewing

I should note that there have been some calls to have CBS fined for their Bush Air National Guard document hoax, which one radio talk show host has deemed even worse than the whole Janet Jackson-Super Bowl flapdoodle.