Nudity and sex on TV - 2nd circuit ruling

[erictank]

If people don't want to see it, they won't watch the shows.  If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on. 

Per-zactly.

[Tallpine]

If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on. 

Clothes...? 

[seeker_two]

If people don't want to see it, they won't watch the shows.  If people don't watch the shows, the networks will put something else on. 

....and yet 60 Minutes is still on the air..... 

[Perd Hapley]

You've omitted half of my post.

Mind, may it be that this means that a lot of people want to see that?

Yes, I omitted half of your post. I quoted the half where we agreed that fiction tends to focus on relationships outside of marriage, rather than in. That settles the question we were debating. Thanks.

I don't quite understand the question at the end of that post. What is it that people want to see? If you mean non-marital relationships, then yes. Again, we agree.

[MicroBalrog]

So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?

[Perd Hapley]

So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?

Didn't argue for that. I was just responding to one question that tyme asked about the different treatment of sex vis-a-vis violence.

[KD5NRH]

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).

Thanks for reminding me that there's an even better example of the FCC's unwillingness and/or inability to perform its basic functions than CB.

[lupinus]

Keep the ratings system and pre-show content warnings, perhaps even increase their visibility in some way the more "objectionable" the content, and let that be that. Violence, nudity, sex, etc. should be the choice of the network and production company, not the government. Watching it should be the consumers choice, not the government saying when and where they can or can not.

Beyond that, if you don't like it, DON'T watch. If you see the little rating in the corner that shows you wont like something that's going to be included, change the channel to a program that more suits your tastes. If you don't want you kid's watching it, monitor their TV time. Show me a TV that is anything short of a dinosaur and it almost certainly has parental controls. Take five minutes and set it to block certain ratings.

Just because they can show it, doesn't mean they have to, and it doesn't mean you have to watch it.

[roo_ster]

So why does the government need to be involved, again? If there are people who want to watch that, by what right do you think the majority can limit their access to that?

Been covered several times:
* RF spectrum allocation is the most important, IMO
* Gov't/Taxpayers supposedly own the RF spectrum on the USA

There are plenty of means for folks to see nudie bits and ultraviolence in their home.  The access limitation is only via one media of several and (given the free and openly accessible nature of OTA TV) is roughly equivalent to the public spaces, which also have reasonable limits on violence & nudie bits.

No one is limiting what sort of sex & violence you can get via one of several other means that are somewhat more private in nature: dialup, cable broadband, cable TV, DSL, FIOS, satellite broadband, satellite TV, microwave broadband, your neighbor's WiFi, 3G & 4G cellular broadband, etc.

I see the issue as analogous to one group wanting sex & nudity in public spaces to be hunky dory and the other group saying, "Get a room."

[red headed stranger]

No one is limiting what sort of sex & violence you can get via one of several other means that are somewhat more private in nature: dialup, cable broadband, cable TV, DSL, FIOS, satellite broadband, satellite TV, microwave broadband, your neighbor's WiFi, 3G & 4G cellular broadband, etc.

That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet. 

[MicroBalrog]

Been covered several times:
* RF spectrum allocation is the most important, IMO
* Gov't/Taxpayers supposedly own the RF spectrum on the USA

And that is in itself a faulty principle.  All the problems with FCC overregulation come from here. A property-based system has already been advocated by men like Hayek and Friedman.

[roo_ster]

That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet.  

Expect to see the FCC get spanked by Congress, both Dems and Repubs.

Also, there are practical problems to scanning every data bit for naughty nudie bits.  

And that is in itself a faulty principle.  All the problems with FCC overregulation come from here. A property-based system has already been advocated by men like Hayek and Friedman.

Faulty is debatable (especially WRT freq alloc).  More to the point, it is current reality.  You are not Adam Savage.

Get a room. 

[MicroBalrog]

Since when are you of all people a political 'realist'?

[roo_ster]

Since when are you of all people a political 'realist'?

Hey, if you have a path to privatize the airwaves that does a better job than the FCC, run with it.  Until that comes to fruition, talk about privatizing the sidewalks airwaves has some realism constraints. 

In this case, the constraints are pretty darned light, as one can do an end-run around the FCC and not restrict oneself to OTA transmissions.  Nobody who really wants T&A and violent entertainment is denied it.

I am not ignorant of the FCC's shortcomings as a RF frequency arbiter, either.  I think its greatest failing is how it has stifled some technologies.  I do, however, have some doubts about the application of libertarian theory in the face of physical reality where RF interference is a serious problem.

[MicroBalrog]

What is the problem? Why is it not possible to have a company own, say frequency X, Y, or Z in a certain area, and then have the government enforce it by punishing people who 'trespass', so to speak, onto that frequency with their pirate transmissions? The mechanism would be much the same as it is today, except the legal basis would be different.


My technical knowledge is limited, so feel free to explain why am I wrong.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Radio waves propagate strangely. In my area, a certain radio station comes in clearly during the day. When night comes, this english-speaking station signal is completely overwhelmed by some kind of spanish-speaking station, whose signal is filled with mostly static. Maybe the ESS cuts power down at night, maybe the SSS ups their power.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Radio waves propagate strangely.


understatement!

[tyme]

That could be coming next, since the FCC has ruled that they have authority of the Internet. 

Umm, no.  The FCC has jurisdiction over ISPs, and to the extent ISPs are selectively promoting or blocking some standards-compliant internet traffic, they need to be stomped on.

[roo_ster]

Radio waves propagate strangely.


understatement!

Back in 1995 or so, an Arkansas AM station was bought up by a big-time NY City station.  No, the New Yawkers did not take up a sudden interest in Arkansas market.  They bought it out of their petty cash because some new solar or atmospheric activity caused the low-powered Arkie AM station to blast out the New York AM station at night (up in New York) and the New Yorkers were tired of listening to high school basketball games taking place in the Ozarks when they really wanted to listen to the NY City AM station's programming.

Oh, I might add that the AM station was bought out and shut down.

[Monkeyleg]

Radio waves propagate strangely. In my area, a certain radio station comes in clearly during the day. When night comes, this english-speaking station signal is completely overwhelmed by some kind of spanish-speaking station, whose signal is filled with mostly static. Maybe the ESS cuts power down at night, maybe the SSS ups their power.

AM stations have to reduce their output wattage to certain levels at sunset to reduce the amount of interference. I forget why the signal is more prone to do that after sunset.

[Tallpine]

AM stations have to reduce their output wattage to certain levels at sunset to reduce the amount of interference. I forget why the signal is more prone to do that after sunset.

Something about bouncing it off of a thermocline in the atmosphere, which is higher in the cooler hours of darkness...   

[sanglant]

what i want to know, is who are these "illiterate?" people that can't change a channel, or setup they're Lewinsky chip.(hey it was done in prez billy bob's term, i stand by the pun )


hah! google has four hits for "Lewinsky chip"

hmm, quite the example of government working right.

[kgbsquirrel]

Something about bouncing it off of a thermocline in the atmosphere, which is higher in the cooler hours of darkness...   

You're thinking of ionospheric bounce. The particular layers of the ionosphere are heavily ionized during the day from solar radiation in various wavelengths, this allows radio signals to be refracted or "bounced" back down, like a racket ball rebounding. At night some of these layers lose their charge and others merge, changing which frequencies bounce where, thus certain radio waves are able to reach a much higher altitude before refracting back towards the earth (and are also able to achieve bounce at different angles than usual) and thus achieve a much longer "hop" at night, giving them a longer broadcast distance for the same given power output.

There's a lot more to it and a lot of math dealing with angle of incidence, frequency used, power output, the particular ionization state of the different layers at a given time, et cetera ad naseum, but that's the cliff notes version for ya.

[Monkeyleg]

I knew someone here would know why radio waves bounce more at night. I also knew it wouldn't be me.

[RoadKingLarry]

What?....no oboes?....  

Pervert!

Every once in awhile when I was on the boat doing ops in the SOCal are I could pick up good ole KVOO out of Tulsa.
That station used to save my butt alot when I was a kid. In the evenings in winter they would change their beam at 5:15pm and we would loose the signal, all that came across was a soft hiss of static. Mom's car had a hideously noisey, RF wise, ignition system. We could hear her coming 3 blocks away. If you listend close you could even tell where she was by the RPM changes when the transmission shifted.