Will the FCC fine ABC for 32 vulgarities and violence?

[crazytimes]

Family Groups File Indecency Complaints Over 'Ryan'


It all seemed so simple. ABC planned to air Steven Spielberg's Oscar-winning war epic "Saving Private Ryan" in honor of Veterans Day. The network planned to show the movie uncut, complete with the violence and the foul language of war, but even that seemed simple enough, given that the movie had aired uncut on two occasions previously.
Instead, roughly 20 percent of the network's 250 affiliates, including the now notorious Sinclair Group, refused to air the movie on Thursday (Nov. 11). In addition, several organizations with conservative Christian ties have launched campaigns to flood the FCC with complaints.

The American Family Association, led by Rev. Donald Wildmon, has filed complaints with the FCC both times "Private Ryan" aired uncut previously. On both occasions the FCC ruled that the movie was not indecent.

"We realize it is important for families, especially our children, recognize the sacrifices made by our loved ones during wartime," reads a statement posted on the AFA website and on the sites of several affiliated groups, including the Mississippi-based One Million Moms and One Million Dads. "However, airing excessively profane language during prime-time television hours is not necessary to convey that sacrifice. We believe ABC should have aired their salute to heroes without violating broadcast decency laws."

Although countless soldiers are brutally murdered in the movie, the AFA's real concern isn't about the gory violence, but about several words the group is too sheepish to use.

"ABC crossed the line by airing at least 20 "f" words and 12 "s" words during prime time viewing hours!" the statement exclaims.

All of the sites contain forms that allow users to submit letters which will be filed "with all five FCC commissioners and the FCC Decency Enforcement Bureau." FCC Chairman Michael Powell's contact information is also provided.

In a statement, Arizona Senator John McCain questioned the logic of the protesting affiliates.

"'Saving Private Ryan' is a powerful and important depiction of the sacrifices made for our country," he says. "While it contains violence and profanity, these are not shown in a gratuitous manner."

Given that the FCC recently fined 169 FOX affiliates $7,000 apiece stemming from an episode of "Married by America" that nobody watched, this will make for an interesting test of the commission's new mandate to crack down on television indecency wherever it may roam.

Because of the number of affiliates pre-empting "Ryan," it's too early to know how many viewers tuned in for the screening, but ABC average around 9.2 million viewers for the evening, counting all programming.

Now here's the thing. I have NO problem with them airing this. Frankly I think it is historical and an excellent movie and the language in this context doesn't really bother me. Secondly, this has aired IN THE PAST on ABC (uncut) yet I don't remember any outcry. I wish people would stop trying to prevent others from watching things like this. If YOU don't like it or don't want your kids watching, turn the FREAKING TV OFF. And if you are that concerned about your kids watching it, get rid of your TV. This idea of "I don't like it and nobody else should" is ridiculous. Anyways what do you expect? Family-friendly programming just isn't that profitable in this day and age!

At the same time, we have the FCC which is SUPPOSED to monitor this stuff but why does the FCC allow ABC to get away with airing such a violent movie with extremely coarse language, yet other stations get like FOX get fined?

Do I think ABC should be fined? No. But if they are going to fine FOX and CBS, than ABC should be fined as well. The rules need to apply to EVERYONE or else be re-evaluated.

It's funny that the FCC seems to care mostly about sex rather than violence or language. But the MPAA movie ratings seem to rate more harshly based on violence and language, than sex (Austin Powers get's a PG-13 yet Air Force One gets an R...makes NO sense to me!)

[crazytimes]

Oh yeah for reference, CBS was fined $550,000 for showing a glimpse of Janet Jackson's boob.

Fox owned and affiliated stations were fined $7,000 each for airing an episode of Married By America (a show that NOBODY EVEN WATCHED; it was a ratings FLOP) -- a total of $1.18 million. They showed: bachelor and bachelorette parties, including scenes of (i) a topless woman straddling a man's torso while lap dancing, (ii) whipped cream being licked off another topless woman's chest and (iii) two female strippers spanking a man wearing only underwear, were indecent under federal standards. -- nudity was blurred.

[luvmetender]

Originally Posted by crazytimes

Oh yeah for reference, CBS was fined $550,000 for showing a glimpse of Janet Jackson's boob.

Fox owned and affiliated stations were fined $7,000 each for airing an episode of Married By America (a show that NOBODY EVEN WATCHED; it was a ratings FLOP) -- a total of $1.18 million. They showed: bachelor and bachelorette parties, including scenes of (i) a topless woman straddling a man's torso while lap dancing, (ii) whipped cream being licked off another topless woman's chest and (iii) two female strippers spanking a man wearing only underwear, were indecent under federal standards. -- nudity was blurred.

It's pretty ironic that the conservative FOX aired a show like that. I'll bet Bill O'Reilly was watching.

The FCC rules are so unclear. Why not just make a ruling on whether the movie could be shown BEFORE it was shown? It is so unfair to the networks to have to pull the movie without even knowing.

Oprah can talk about "tossed salad" and "lipstick parties" in graphic detail with 13 years olds and she is not fined. (Trust me, if you don't know what they are, you don't want to) Howard Stern talks about the fact that Oprah discussed these topics and he IS fined.

[Debbie42]

Our local station refused to air it but asked ABC if they could show it after the news at 10:30 but were refused. If they did not want to cause controversy why did they not let them show it later? I didn't understand that at all. And luv I agree with you about Oprah.

[chippers21]

My oh my... Sounds like the tv networks and all their regulations are even more messed up than I thought.


By the way, turning OFF the tv is probably a very good idea. My Harvard Law graduate who finished at the top of his High School class, attributes his success to having 10 years of no television in our home.

[trust no one]

Originally Posted by crazytimes

Oh yeah for reference, CBS was fined $550,000 for showing a glimpse of Janet Jackson's boob.

Fox owned and affiliated stations were fined $7,000 each for airing an episode of Married By America (a show that NOBODY EVEN WATCHED; it was a ratings FLOP) -- a total of $1.18 million. They showed: bachelor and bachelorette parties, including scenes of (i) a topless woman straddling a man's torso while lap dancing, (ii) whipped cream being licked off another topless woman's chest and (iii) two female strippers spanking a man wearing only underwear, were indecent under federal standards. -- nudity was blurred.

After investigation, it appears there were only three different complaints about Married By America. Without pellucid rules in place, the FCC is regulating without a precise and definite governance.

Television station owners appealed to the FCC for guidance on the “Saving Private Ryan”issue. Since the program had aired on national broadcast twice before without incidence, there should have been precedence for broadcasting it a third time. No response was given by the FCC, leaving television owners acrophobic of the wacky and arbitrary FCC rules.

[blueaguave]

the FCC is totally unconstitutional and should be abolished immediately. It is a prime example of the arrogance of government to interfere in every aspect of our lives. I mean, can't the government let the free market work, and concentrate on protecting us and catching the terrorists?

[blueaguave]

Originally Posted by luvmetender

It's pretty ironic that the conservative FOX aired a show like that. I'll bet Bill O'Reilly was watching.

The FCC rules are so unclear. Why not just make a ruling on whether the movie could be shown BEFORE it was shown? It is so unfair to the networks to have to pull the movie without even knowing.

the whole thing is arbritary, as you correctly point out the right wing Fox network can do whatever they want and barely be fined $7000.
but, on the other hand, I vigorously dispute that the problem is "unclear rules." The ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE FCC is unconstitutional. There shouldn't be any ruling in a free society over what networks are allowed to show or not. The entire mess should be abolished immediately. But, there are so many illegitimate things the government does. The NEA I spoke of in another post. And the Republicans have controlled Congress for almost 10 years, yet these boondoggles not only continue to exist, but the budgets grow.

. And I DID vote for Bush, but now I wonder what the difference is. Yeah, he won't ask the UN for permission, thats good. But look at the bloated budget for NON-DEFENSE domestic spending. He's wildly spending on domestic big government programs.
Honestly, both parties are responsible for this bloated big government

[crazytimes]

ABC, NBC, CBS...these networks do not own the airwaves. The government does (or is at least in charge of them) and they give networks the privelege of broadcasting on them and in return they must follow the rules. Unfortunantely the rules are not that clear. If ABC wants to show whatever they want than they should switch the cable.