[BC] How far is ok?...

[Mike McCarthy]

It's no secret that CBS is going to challenge not only their fine for the 
Janet Jackson incident, they are going to challenge the whole system which 
the FCC uses to define what it considered indecent or patently 
offensive.  Note, I'm not using the words profane or obscene.



If I were to go along with what the moral conservatives would define as 
offensive, then the National Geographic programs on indigenous cultures 
which don't clothe themselves other than their most privates would be 
considered in the same light.  The same for anything related to medical 
discussions or such where certain anatomical parts are shown, even in 
animation, for serious scientific discussion.

The Supreme Court years ago got it right.  Its the context in which the 
information is portrayed.  Is it titillating, sexually explicit, or 
appealing to the prurient interests? While the malfunction could be 
considered titillating, it's context is simply blown out of proportion and 
I think CBS has a valid argument. In context, the "malfunction" was 
certainly not front and center...so to speak. It was zoomed out and 
momentary. The director and TD both reacted quickly enough that it was 
incidental to the overall production. How can that be considered prurient? 
It was not sexually explicit or appealing to those lowest interests.  It's 
there where I think CBS will prevail and the FCC will be handed a clearer 
set of standards unto which they can not deviate.

Now...will CBS prevail with anything left from Howard Stern or Emmis with 
Mancow Muller?  Probably not given the context of the programs.

But the accidental F bomb or other incidental out of context utterance 
should not receive the same harsh punishment as would someone who laces up 
an explicit comment or planned program just to skirt the issue.

MM





At 01:13 PM 6/16/2006 -0500, Kent Winrich, K9EZ wrote
>Sheeesh, I guess I might be the only one that thinks this way, but to me, 
>it take MORE creativity to skirt around the "obscenity" laws, than it does 
>to blurt out stuff.  Trust me, I am no prude, but I think it is more fun 
>when people toe the line as opposed to crossing it.
>
>Perhaps these "Creative types" need to engage their collective brains a 
>little to actually think about how they can toe this line...and be 
>creative about it.
>
>
>
>Burt I. Weiner wrote:
>>Just how far and in what direction should creativity in the public 
>>go?  Should Common Decency be allowed to play a part or even be guidelines?
>>
>>Burt
>>
>>
>>Court Challenge for Indecency?
>>
>>At least one analyst who follows communications believes a broadcast 
>>group will challenge the new indecency fines in court. Bear Stearns 
>>analyst Victor Miller said in a bulletin to expect such a challenge "soon."
>>
>>"The impact on the creative process, which will no doubt be altered by an 
>>increased fine regime, is unknown at this time," states Miller.
>>
>>
>>Burt I. Weiner Associates
>>Broadcast Technical Services
>>Glendale, California  U.S.A.
>>biwa at earthlink.net
>>K6OQK
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>http://www.radiolists.net/