Max: FCC, Protecting America From Blurred Bits
Via Ars Technica
The FCC first issued a Notice of Apparent Liability on Married in 2004 after it received complaints about the program. In correspondence with the Commission, Fox TV acknowledged that in 2003, 161 affiliated stations broadcast the episode before 10 PM, the so-called "safe harbor" hour when risky material become more permissible. The "reality"-based program is no longer produced. It recruited single women and men who had never met but consented to become engaged and even marry each other in some instances.
The April 2003 episode in question featured the participants partying at a strip club. The strippers dance over the engaged couples, who massage, kiss, and even lick whip cream off the performers' bodies. Meanwhile, they make comments like "there's nothing wrong with kissing a stripper before you're married. Kissing a stripper after you're married, that’s when the trouble begins."
Fox attorneys noted in the network's appeal that the program visually concealed various parts of the strippers' anatomy. The FCC ruling acknowledges that, throughout the episode, the producers pixelated—that is, digitally distorted the performers "sexual" body parts—particularly breasts and buttocks. But the agency decision still classifies the scene as "graphic."
"The fact that isolated body parts were 'pixelated' did not obscure the overall graphic character of the depiction," the statement concludes. "The mere pixelation of sexual organs is not necessarily determinative under our analysis because the material must be assessed in its full context. Here, despite the obscured nature of the nudity, it is unmistakable that the party goers are participating in sexual activities and that sexual organs are being exposed."
The FCC is also considering banning nudity beneath clothing.
The FCC first issued a Notice of Apparent Liability on Married in 2004 after it received complaints about the program. In correspondence with the Commission, Fox TV acknowledged that in 2003, 161 affiliated stations broadcast the episode before 10 PM, the so-called "safe harbor" hour when risky material become more permissible. The "reality"-based program is no longer produced. It recruited single women and men who had never met but consented to become engaged and even marry each other in some instances.
The April 2003 episode in question featured the participants partying at a strip club. The strippers dance over the engaged couples, who massage, kiss, and even lick whip cream off the performers' bodies. Meanwhile, they make comments like "there's nothing wrong with kissing a stripper before you're married. Kissing a stripper after you're married, that’s when the trouble begins."
Fox attorneys noted in the network's appeal that the program visually concealed various parts of the strippers' anatomy. The FCC ruling acknowledges that, throughout the episode, the producers pixelated—that is, digitally distorted the performers "sexual" body parts—particularly breasts and buttocks. But the agency decision still classifies the scene as "graphic."
"The fact that isolated body parts were 'pixelated' did not obscure the overall graphic character of the depiction," the statement concludes. "The mere pixelation of sexual organs is not necessarily determinative under our analysis because the material must be assessed in its full context. Here, despite the obscured nature of the nudity, it is unmistakable that the party goers are participating in sexual activities and that sexual organs are being exposed."
The FCC is also considering banning nudity beneath clothing.
posted by Max Dobberstein at 2/25/2008 09:35:00 AM
3 Comments:
Three+ years later? Isn't there a statute of limitations on pixelated nudity?
No. It is never too late to fine a broadcaster for making Baby Jesus cry.
In seriousness, this is a very vague definition of what isn't allowed. I realize the supreme court is known for the "I know it when I see it" definition, but can't we come up with something better?
If we are going to fine people people for breaking the rules, let's give them rules to break.
If we don't want to damage the viewing public, let's go back to what used to be done and have the FCC set up a panel of censors. With all the fines they have laid down recently, they should be able to fund people to do this work. The censors could review material before it's aired.
Yes, we're talking censorship. I'm not endorsing it. All I'm saying is that if we are going to censor, let's do it right. If the FCC is laying out millions in fines for a show that aired four years ago, we are already censoring.
This "harmful material" already got out. It was viewed (not by me, never heard of this show). If it is so harmful that as a country we can pass out multi-million dollar fines, let's lay out a way so that major networks can have the material approved BEFORE the viewers see it.
This wouldn't stop what might happen on live TV, like the Janet Jackson Boobiegate. But, if there had been a group of censors and if all live shows were on a ten minute delay, there would have been a chance to pixelate the "wardrobe malfunction".
Laying out millions in fines after the fact (years after the fact!) is uselessly punitive. Getting Paul McCartney for the Superbowl half time show a year after Boobiegate was a punishment of the innocent.
Post a Comment
<< Home