• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Really? The FCC website is closed until further notice??

Does this mean I can curse on air now? Maybe show a boobie or two? Quick call Janet Jackson! :mrgreen:
 
Oh geez. Probably the only good thing to happen in all of this.
 
 
None of the FCC's operations are necessary.
 
Deuce said:
Websites cost money.
Click to expand...

Websites cost money to créate and update, not just leave there ionline.

It cost more to pay somebody to take it off line than if they would have just left it alone.
 
clownboy said:
Does this mean I can curse on air now? Maybe show a boobie or two? Quick call Janet Jackson! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Probably the biggest incorrect FCC action in American history.

- Neither the NFL nor CBS television were fined because they're not regulated by the FCC. The fines were handed out to 100 or so local TV stations across the country.

- As I thought I understood the FCC rules on indencecy there are supposed to be two factors tat lead to violations. 1). It violated (local) community standards. That would mean each and every station that was fined got complaints that tat were investigated and the individual investigations led to their individual fines. Doubt it. This would mean the Chicago station could have gotten a fine but if there were no complains in Phoenix to investigate Phoenix could have been spared 2). No action was not taken by the stations to remove the indecent content off that air but rather they willfully allowed it to continue. In other words, as I thought I understood the rules, wardrobe malfunctions are not violations in and of themselves. If they catch the station by surprise and once aired they immediately take it off the air, they did everything in their power to act appropriately, which is what was done. Stations are only supposed to get fined if they knew about it in advance and aired it anyway and/or once it was on the air they continued to allow it to air uninterrupted.

- FCC fines are supposed to be based on broadcast content. The 1/2 second wardrobe malfunction was of a wide angle shot that nobody could have known for sure what really happened. Nobody's eyes are tt good. However, the next day close up photographs using telescoping lenses began to appear in the Internet, photos with far more clarity than hat appeared on television. It is obvious the FCC refered to those photographs, not the actual television content as the basis for their action.

- bonus. Funny how Janet Jackson gets all the criticism while very little attention is paid to her on stage male companion. I personally doubt if many people remember his name despite the fact that he is one of America's most popular entertainers. In nearly every description I see of the incident, including this one, the details are a little inaccurate. Janet Jackson did not expose herself at the infamous halftime show, HE exposed her. Although I'm sure it was planned and agreed upon, he was the one who reached over and exposed her. SHE immediately covered herself with her hand, again part of the planned cherography but she was actually passive in the incident while he was the one who did everything yet nearly everybody demonizes Janet Jackson and never mentions her partner in the event. He also coined the phrase "wardrobe malfunction."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom