yo yo yo search it!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

i never thought i'd say this

and i most likely will NEVER say it (or think it) again. fox impressed me. yes that's right. they did.

ALL of the stations fined should have REFUSED to pay. is someone going to turn into a mass murderer because they saw janet jackson's nipple for a nanosecond? is someone going to turn into a butcher of human beings because they saw the naked ass of some nypd blue actor/actress? we have choices in television viewing. i would NEVER watch the reality shite on faux (the fine was for a show i never even heard of much less watched). i'm a reasonably intelligent human being that KNOWS MY TELEVISION SET HAS AN ON AND OFF BUTTON AND I ALSO KNOW I'M CAPABLE OF CHANGING THE CHANNEL IF I DON'T LIKE WHAT IS ON. it's NOT 1808, it's 2008. people are dying in an illegal immoral unjust war and THIS is the shite we're all fining people for? no, it's wrong

Fox Refuses To Pay 2004 FCC Indecency Fine

By Frank Ahrens Washington Post Staff Writer
In an unusually aggressive step, Fox Broadcasting yesterday refused to pay a $91,000 indecency fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission for an episode of a long-canceled reality television show, even as the network fights two other indecency fines in the Supreme Court.
In 2004, the FCC proposed fining all 169 Fox-owned and affiliate stations a total of $1.2 million for airing a 2003 episode of "Married by America," which featured digitally obscured nudity and whipped-cream-covered strippers.
Fox appealed immediately after the FCC ruling. Last month -- four years later -- the FCC changed its mind, saying it would fine only the 13 Fox stations located in cities that generated viewer complaints to the FCC about the program. The total fine was lowered to $91,000.
Despite the sharp reduction, Fox said it will not pay the fine on principle, calling it "arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with precedent, and patently unconstitutional" in a statement released yesterday.
Typically, after the FCC determines that a broadcaster is culpable for an indecency fine, the broadcaster pays it -- by writing a check to the
U.S. Treasury -- or may attempt to negotiate a settlement, sometimes dragging the process out for years. Sometimes, a broadcaster will take a case to court. Other times, the broadcaster will pay the fine and appeal, hoping for a reversal and refund. ........

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Arbitrary and capricious is correct. Personally I'm not in favor of censorship, but I am in favor of warning people about graphic and violent content. I'd rather have my kids see some boobs than a brutal murder, or any sort of graphic violence for that matter.

Censorship - no. Full disclosure on appropriate content so viewers can make their own decisions - yes.

Fox Network - meh.
Faux News - bad.

Unknown said...

i'm watching house on fox right now. not THE best show but passable.

as a rule, violence plays. we let violence play. yet show a backside or a hint of nipple, WHOOOOOOOOOA the world is coming to an end.

of course i agree with you on disclosure. most shows do that now, even the cable ones.