Nudity and sex on TV - 2nd circuit ruling

[tyme]

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/bottoms_up_TVD8XC31Te6v2kQTNAWc0J#ixzz1AM2dCtnY
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/07/court-ruling-opens-door-nudity-network-tv/?test=faces

The 2nd Circuit has vacated a fine for some nudity on NYPD blue 7 years ago, saying "nudity itself is not per se indecent."

So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV?  What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days?  What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?

[zahc]

Why is the government regulating this at all? That's the real question I have, not the particular way they are regulating it.

[MicroBalrog]

You have a remote control. Failing that, if you find content offensive for any reason, you can disconnect from the channel or the network altogether. Failing that, you don't have to own a television at all. They are in no way a necessity of life.

[RevDisk]

So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV?  What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days?  What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?

It is the opinion of the US government that they own the entire electromagnetic spectrum.  Ok, since it's government property, obviously the Constitution applies.  Is nudity considered free speech?   Does the government have the right to infringe it if it does? 

I do recall various politicians ranting about "obscenity", often with a statue of Justice in the background with an exposed breast.  I doubt the government would arrest someone for filming a government PR thing.  So why would an exposed breast be acceptable in that case, but not in a late night broadcast TV show?

[Ben]

Regarding prevalent network nudity, be careful what you wish for. I still have nightmares about my first exposure to a nude beach when I visited Yugoslavia. They're not at all like the postcards.  

[Fly320s]

Regarding prevalent network nudity, be careful what you wish for. I still have nightmares about my first exposure to a nude beach when I visited Yugoslavia. They're not at all like the postcards.  

True, but sex sells on TV, very well as you know, and most people prefer to look at attractive people so it seems logical to me that the networks would primarily show attractive naked people just to earn more money.

I'm in favor of easing the restrictions on TV nudity. I will vote with my remote if things get too raunchy for my tastes.

[roo_ster]

I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside. 

Here's his front side:


Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.

[Ben]

I'm in favor of easing the restrictions on TV nudity. I will vote with my remote if things get too raunchy for my tastes.

I agree.

[zxcvbob]

I object to all this sex on the telly.  I mean... I keep falling off!

[erictank]

I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside. 

Here's his front side:


Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.

You know what the great thing about nudity on TV is?

You can change the channel or turn it off if you have a personal objection to it.

You can even write to the production team and network and voice your objections, even after turning it off!  Just because they CAN show something doesn't mean they HAVE to, and if their viewers let them know that they don't want to see it, they won't film or show it.



I understand that a lot of people object to televised nudity, though I do not myself.  I don't particularly understand why nudity - or even explicit sex - is considered to be worse than implied or explicit violence by our country.  Why is the latter acceptable on news and public network broadcast while the former is not?  Isn't it worse to glorify infliction of pain, suffering, torture, and death than to show two people sharing a loving relationship - or even just screwing?  Why is Jack Bauer acceptable for network primetime when, say, 'Red Shoe Diaries' is not?  Don't get me wrong, I loves me a good car chase or gunfight on TV or in the movies - but why are those no issue, where depiction of a loving or even simply consensual sexual encounter is (or at least is more problematic)?

[sumpnz]

I object to all this sex on the telly.  I mean... I keep falling off!

Monty Python is good for soooo many occasions.

[Perd Hapley]

So... is nudity unacceptable on network TV?  What about the violence that's pervasive on TV these days?  What justification is there for allowing one but not the other?

What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?

[erictank]

What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?

We (American society, that is) freak out over seeing a nude human body, or even a credible suggestion of consensual sexual interaction, on publically-accessible broadcast television.  We (again, American society) have far less of an issue seeing fairly-graphic suggestions on those same channels of human bodies being riddled with bullets, sliced to ribbons, or blown to shreds.  The former is healthy and typically harms no one, even in the story - the latter, at least in the story, KILLS people, and frequently (in the real world) glorifies violence and death being inflicted on people who frequently do not deserve such.  But we're okay with that.  Something which is, arguably, far worse - and we have far less of a problem with exposing children to it, while freaking out over showing nudity.  We DON'T handle them in the same way - we handle the less-harmful depiction as though it were far worse.  That's what I'm finding puzzling.

[MicroBalrog]

What justification is there for comparing the two? They're not the same thing, so why would we expect them to be handled in the same way?

Why shouldn't they? I'd think freedom of speech should always apply, whatever topic you're addressing.

[Monkeyleg]

Well, I want to see Dennis Franz naked while beating a suspect.

[red headed stranger]

I recall NYPD Blue gifting us with Dennis Franz's backside. 

Here's his front side:


Please excuse me for not being overjoyed at the ruling.

You just need to be more sex positive.  :D

[Ben]

while beating a suspect.

Is that what the kids call it nowadays?

[mtnbkr]

Is that what the kids call it nowadays?

ROTFLMAO!!!! 

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

You have a remote control. Failing that, if you find content offensive for any reason, you can disconnect from the channel or the network altogether. Failing that, you don't have to own a television at all. They are in no way a necessity of life.

A-men!

IMHO, if the GOP really loved freedom, they would defund the FCC, and try to dismantle it altogether.  Obama is trying to use it as a tool to limit access to free speech.  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the potential impact of net neutrality. 

[kgbsquirrel]

A-men!

IMHO, if the GOP really loved freedom, they would defund the FCC, and try to dismantle it altogether.  Obama is trying to use it as a tool to limit access to free speech.  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the potential impact of net neutrality. 

Tangent moment!

Chucking the FCC in its entirety seems like a rather bad idea to me. It should absolutely be gutted of any content censoring ability they are trying to use it for, but for other purposes, such as delineating portions of the EM spectrum to allow systems to function without conflict is actually rather important.

How would you feel about your airline flight making an instrument only landing approach to O'Hare International and suddenly the ILS beacon and ATC voice channels are being stepped on and blocked by someone else with a transmitter who didn't bother to check if the frequencies they are trying to use were already occupied. Or possibly couldn't know they were inadvertently jamming another signal because their receiver can only receive one particular kind of modulation while the very important other system (the one telling your airplane it's course and descent path so it doesn't slam into the ground and explode) is using an entirely different system.

[Jamisjockey]

Tangent moment!

Chucking the FCC in its entirety seems like a rather bad idea to me. It should absolutely be gutted of any content censoring ability they are trying to use it for, but for other purposes, such as delineating portions of the EM spectrum to allow systems to function without conflict is actually rather important.

How would you feel about your airline flight making an instrument only landing approach to O'Hare International and suddenly the ILS beacon and ATC voice channels are being stepped on and blocked by someone else with a transmitter who didn't bother to check if the frequencies they are trying to use were already occupied. Or possibly couldn't know they were inadvertently jamming another signal because their receiver can only receive one particular kind of modulation while the very important other system (the one telling your airplane it's course and descent path so it doesn't slam into the ground and explode) is using an entirely different system.

I didn't even think of those functions of FCC.  I'm wondering if there is another agency they could be combined with, while stripping out the censoring abilities. 
Many agencies have alot of redundancy with other agenices.  Were I King, one of the first things would be figuring out which ones could be combined and then eliminated. 

[mtnbkr]

I didn't even think of those functions of FCC.

The FCC also regulates the emissions from non-broadcasting equipment so it doesn't cause interference with other devices in your home (power supplies for example).  They do a lot more than the censorship activities most people think of when they hear FCC. 

Chris

[Sergeant Bob]

Well, I want to see Dennis Franz naked while beating a suspect.

Right after you get those nudies of Walter Brennan?

[Perd Hapley]

We (American society, that is) freak out over seeing a nude human body, or even a credible suggestion of consensual sexual interaction, on publically-accessible broadcast television.  We (again, American society) have far less of an issue seeing fairly-graphic suggestions on those same channels of human bodies being riddled with bullets, sliced to ribbons, or blown to shreds.  The former is healthy and typically harms no one, even in the story - the latter, at least in the story, KILLS people, and frequently (in the real world) glorifies violence and death being inflicted on people who frequently do not deserve such.  But we're okay with that.  Something which is, arguably, far worse - and we have far less of a problem with exposing children to it, while freaking out over showing nudity.  We DON'T handle them in the same way - we handle the less-harmful depiction as though it were far worse.  That's what I'm finding puzzling.

So we agree that sex and violence are different things, and showing one on TV doesn't "justify" showing the other. So far so good. But it simply isn't true that Americans "freak out" about sex and nudity on TV, and we are "okay with" violence on TV. The two subjects are almost uniformly combined in the popular discussion, as if they were the same issue. You are overplaying the objections to televised sexuality, while completely downplaying the objections to televised violence.

Nor will you be able to claim that sex, especially the sort of sex lurid enough to build TV ratings, is "healthy and typically harms no one." We all know the risks of sex, and that riskier sex makes better TV. Despite any talk of Americans freaking out, our airwaves are loaded with everything short of full nudity, and even that is available on the paid TV channels that so many Americans receive. So let's not pretend that present-day America is Puritan New England.

[Tallpine]

Oh no - sax and violins on TV