This is just the asshole FCC at work, and most voters let it happen because they got a hole in their heads, their heads in holes and getting fucked in the ass, all at once. Stern was DAMN SMART to leave terrestrial radio. Besides, what’s more offensive, the Superbowl scandal or Sept 11?
Think about that.

Please note that in my description of the film in no way do I claim I admire the protagonist in the film, and to attempt to draw a comparison between the character of V and the 9/11 terrorists is rediculous and just exposes the fact that your lack of knowledge is no barrier to you having an opinion on something. The original source material for the film was written two decades before the 9/11 attacks as a reaction to Tatcher’s policies in Britain, so trying to make a connection with al-Queda is intellectually dishonest.

So we disagree on what is hardcore porn. Fine. You’re welcome to not view anything you wish to avoid. However, given the ratings success of WITHOUT A TRACE, it seems that there are many, many people who would also disagree with you as well. I thought it was a conservative ideal to allow the marketplace to decide such matters. I guess that’s true only when the marketplace’s opinion happens to match your own opinion.

Please excuse any misspellings folks, as I’m a little tired and have just gotten in from an advance screening of V FOR VENDETTA- an interesting movie about a man who fights back against a government that has robbed people of their civil rights in the name of security and which is headed by a frothing religious fanatic.

The PTC even acknowledges this aspect of that episode of Without A Trace. They just don’t care.

This episode’s theme does not glorify or glamorize teen orgies or promiscuity; quite the opposite. Viewers see first-hand how relationships and lives are destroyed by this reckless behavior. But CBS crossed a line by depicting teens in such sexually provocative situations. What’s even more disturbing is that CBS chose the holiday season to re-air this most graphic and gross episode of debauchery.

As I noted on my blog, the PTC has updated ComplainBot, so that you can complain in detail about a show you haven’t actually seen.

Even legal pornographers in the United States know better than to produce shows involving underage actors. The Without a Trace episode in question violated no laws, nor did it even depict any actual underage sex acts — CBS was fined merely because the show “suggested” such activity. Simulated sex is not sex, just as simulated murder is not in fact murder (surprising, I know!).

Furthermore, Without a Trace airs at 9pm on CBS. If impressionable children are up watching this program, the fault lies not with the network but the negligent parents. Don’t hold what I can watch and what I can’t hostage to “protect” adolescents who shouldn’t be allowed to tune in and mollify crybabies like the PTC who don’t even view the stuff except to find fault with it.

So now you’re resorting to heresay? (OK, I am, as the Brits would say, taking the piss here a bit with that comment…)

What I think this comes down to is one’s personal definition of pornography. Kat, if I may put words in your mouth, gives the impression that merely the suggestion of the real-world fact that many teens have sex is automatically child pornography, regardless of the fact that eighteen and nineteen year olds are still technically teens but are legally allowed to engage in the porn business.

I think most others here would argue that child pornography would somehow involve the graphic depiction of genitalia probably combined with thrusting, penetration and assorted squirting fluids, bodily or otherwise. Somehow, I doubt this is what CBS aired.

Kat’s definition would sweep everything from PORKY’S to Shakespeare’s ROMEO AND JULIET under the “Child Porn” banner. The other definition which I offered would only apply to things like those Traci Lords movies that were banned once she revealed that she had been underaged at the time of their production.

howard stern didn’t like when CBS dumped him. that was “censorship”… they were messing with his first amendement rights.

and that is fine… but based on his interview with hannity… will jarvis please stop tagging this nonsense as “howard stern”

howard stern could give a flying fuck about free speech.

I noticed you used the phrase “isn’t it” before you threw around some inflamatory language about what you are suppossing the fined scene in question contains. Rather a disengenious arguement, in my own analysis and opinion.

Also, I’m sure that going by what most folks would consider the standard definition of “hard porn teenage sex orgy,” such a scene would never pass a network’s internal Standards & Practices department. Now, I don’t watch WITHOUT A TRACE myself, I can’t attest to it for certain, but I feel confident that at no time did the show feature a scene showing actual shots of a 16-year old girl being subjected to a bit of DVDA penetration. Of course, if you have any video tape to the contrary, I’d be willing to view your evidence.

And by the way, I thought that community standards were supposed to be the qualifier for whether something was obscene or not. With some 20.3 million viewers, WITHOUT A TRACE is one of the top rated shows in the country. I believe the community has spoken, and it is not represented by the likes of Brent Bozell.

You’re right that what the FCC censors and what Mel Karmazan censors or what Lowery Mays censors are different issues. My point is don’t hold someone up as a bastion of the Free Speech movement, when in their eyes censoreship is relative, and hinges on whether or not it benefits them.

Hannity supports Stern and Opie & Anthony because he realizes FCC limitations on indecency grounds can lead to censorship on political speech grounds, even though his defense of extreme radio angers some of his listener base. Stern’s argument seems to be “Those with the power make the rules” and he was the power for over 15 years at Infinity Broadcasting. He’s not against silencing people on the radio per se, he’s just angry there’s a higher power that can censor him, and it just so happens to be the FCC. That’s not a winning argument when you’re trying to persuade people to your point of view.

If Comcast refuses to carry Sopranos b/c of the language, then that is their choice - I can always opt for another service (Dish, DirecTV) or buy the DVDs. We control this via our wallets.

If the government prohibits programming like Sopranos, then I’m stuck with the whims of the state-run nanny.

I object to that and don’t think it would stand up in the courts. There is a key difference though, which is the use of the public spectrum. I’d be curious though to see a poll of how the public feels about regulating content on cable. Since most don’t know the difference between broadcast and cable, I suspect most would be in favor of it.

When I said the rest of us, I should have been more clear that I was referring to the group of people in my office that agree with my position from a political point of view, not because they’re network employees.

I’m actually a libertarian on this issue. I think the spectrum should be privatized, but as long as it continues to be owned by the people, it should be regulated by us.

Any comments on this article from the FMQB website about Howard Stern’s remarks on Sean Hannity’s radio show Tuesday?

When Stern was asked by a caller about the gag order, he confirmed it by admitting, “That’s right. I believe in censoring anyone who is my enemy.” He also added, “I believe in censorship when it benefits me.”

With all the support you’ve given Howard as being the champion of free speech on the airwaves, doesn’t this strike you as a just a little bit hypocritcial? Or is “free speech for me, but not for thee” OK when it involves Stern?

I work at one of the aforementioned networks and this is a frequent topic in our office. The thing I’ve noticed is that the Stern fans all think this is an outrage. The rest of it know it’s the price we pay for access to the spectrum.