Without a Trace $3,600,000 Fine

[davidmin]

Did anyone see this episode? I didn't find a thread about this "controversial" episode from the time it aired.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/15/entertainment/e142345S29.DTL

David

[bruinfan]

I'm guessing this is the scene in question... it's not specifically labeled, it's a montage of "obscene" clips from shows that were on network and basic cable tv. the scene is at 2:40-3:10.

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=3028&NEXTID=0&PREVID=3269&DISPLAYORDER=20060211165647&CAT=movies&NSFW=5&page=4&genre=0&rating=nsfw_sfw&nsfwfs=yes

this would be considered nsfw, though there is no nudity, there are sexually graphic scenes and cursing.

[marksman]

It is fascinating to me that this archaic distinguishing of the networks from all other channels exist. Most people have cable or satellite tv now, and there is no general distinction made in those homes.

I am trying to determine who the government is protecting from watching Without a Trace. it is highly unlikely some kid is going to be attracted to watch Without a Trace to begin with, so again, who are they protecting.

It is unfortunate that this protection of the American Public takes place simply because it can.

If you look at basic cable and programming, free market forces are a pretty effective moderator of content. It is silly that the networks are isolated for special protection when they enter most homes in the same way as all the other channels.

[EMoMoney]

The thread title is a little misleading. It is only a proposed 3.6 million dollar fine.

[Kamakzie]

I'm sick of the FCC playing big brother. Most parents should have their young kids to bed at 10PM for crying out loud!

[Delta13]

They were fined for showing the show during the 9pm hour in the Central and Mountain time zones. No children were harmed, apparently, in the Eastern and Pacific zones.

[newsposter]

that's almost funny. Without a trace isn't the most rauchy thing on tv by a landslide. I wonder why jerry springer never gets fined for the obscenity on his show? (maybe america likes 400lb people naked fighting on stage?)

I know the separate rules apply for FX, but as noted in the other thread, there's much worse on at 7pm in some time zones (shield) plus isn't that what the ratings are all about..warning people not to watch?

[jeff125va]

The separate rules exist because the Federal Government nationalized, i.e. assumed ownership of the airwaves on behalf of the public. By allowing the Feds to own them, we've allowed them to make the rules, the two go hand in hand. As long as the public owns the airwaves, the rules will be set by politicians, not market forces.

[Dmon4u]

I'm sure there's a connection with this to TiVo's new friend, The PTC !

[jeff125va]

I'm sure there's a connection with this to TiVo's new friend, The PTC !
In fact, someone has to register a complaint with the FCC before they can take any action (at least for indecency complaints, maybe not for obscenity, I'm not sure). And they do file a significant percentage of them.

[drew2k]

I'm sure there's a connection with this to TiVo's new friend, The PTC ! Fill me in please! I must have missed something ... What's PTC's beef with TiVo? Or are you saying TiVo is getting extra-chummy with PTC??? :confused:

[bentleyml]

I think what Dmon4u was getting at is with TiVo (and other DVRs) the PCT can more easily pause and go nearly frame by frame looking for "bad stuff".

[LoadStar]

Fill me in please! I must have missed something ... What's PTC's beef with TiVo? Or are you saying TiVo is getting extra-chummy with PTC??? :confused:

TiVo's new KidZone service uses ratings from the PTC, among others.

[drew2k]

Gotcha ... Thanks guys.

[newsposter]

I heard paul harvey talk about this. He made a comment that cable and satellite are exempt from the rules. But he really was talking about the 'non ota' broadcast stuff right?

[jeff125va]

I heard paul harvey talk about this. He made a comment that cable and satellite are exempt from the rules. But he really was talking about the 'non ota' broadcast stuff right?
Right. Getting your ABC affiliate via satellite or cable doesn't change anything. The rules are for the broadcasters, not the viewers, so as long as it's broadcast via the airwaves, it doesn't matter if some people receive it via other means. Congress has yet to pass a law assuming government/public ownership of cable or satellite means of transmission. Their justification for doing that with the airwaves was that there are a limited number of frequencies. Of course, there is a finite amount of many things - land, for example - in the U.S., so the same justification could be used for the government to take over virtually anything.

One thing I've noticed, it seems like a lot of these violations could be avoided if they would just standardize the prime-time hours within the local time zones. I guess there are some broadcasts which cross time-zone boundaries, so maybe it wouldn't be worth whatever the transition would entail. It's always seemed so antiquated to me anyway, but that would in theory at least allow them to avoid fines for indecency during the 10:00 PM shows.

[aindik]

Even if we accept the premise that the government owns the airwaves (which I don't), that doesn't give government the right to violate the First Amendment. There is no exception to the First Amendment for government property, be it real or electromagnetic.

The reason indecency bans on broadcast radio and television were found to be constitutional is because the broadcast spectrum is "pervasive" in our lives, and more unaviodable than a book or a movie in a theater. I don't agree with it, but that's the distinction. Not that "government owns the airwaves." Because the government owns the public park, too. And it can't ban speech it doesn't like there either.

[jeff125va]

Even if we accept the premise that the government owns the airwaves (which I don't), that doesn't give government the right to violate the First Amendment. There is no exception to the First Amendment for government property, be it real or electromagnetic.

The reason indecency bans on broadcast radio and television were found to be constitutional is because the broadcast spectrum is "pervasive" in our lives, and more unaviodable than a book or a movie in a theater. I don't agree with it, but that's the distinction. Not that "government owns the airwaves." Because the government owns the public park, too. And it can't ban speech it doesn't like there either.
It's not a premise, it's a historical fact. The Federal Radio Act of 1927 declared the airwaves to be public property and created the Federal Radio Commission, which later became the FCC as it brought other forms of communication under its control, including television after its invention. The government attempted to license stations and regulate content before that, but that pretty much cemented their authority to do so. So other than not liking it, I'm not sure what not "accepting" it would mean.

And while it doesn't create an "exception" to the First Amendment, public ownership of the airwaves does establish a separate legal standard. There are always multiple factors involved, such as the nature of OTA broadcasting as opposed to books, etc, as you mentioned, but public ownership of the airwaves has served as the primary basis for the government's authority. There's certainly some overlap in the criteria and your analogy - the government could certainly ban a live sex show on the National Mall, partly based on the fact that it is a public park, but it could also prohibit people from having sex in their front yard or in front of an open window in their own house. The government can certainly ban obscenity and indecency in public locales. They can't single out differing opinions in a particular category of speech, if that's what you mean by "speech it doesn't like," but it can certainly enforce the types of restrictions they do for television and radio. Satellite and cable are just as "pervasive" as OTA broadcasts, they just haven't been declared public property.

(Yet.)

[MirclMax]

I'm sure there's a connection with this to TiVo's new friend, The PTC !

Well it did make their "Worst show of the week" .. so no doubt they sent in their letters.

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2005/0102worst.asp

[jeff125va]

Well it did make their "Worst show of the week" .. so no doubt they sent in their letters.

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/bw/2005/0102worst.asp
Somewhat annoying that they acknowledge this: 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. yet still call it the "worst show of the week" and claim that the imagery was gratuitous.

[Kamakzie]

PTC is a sham! Besides that the last I heard the guy that runs the PTC doesn't even have kids.

[5thcrewman]

In fact, someone has to register a complaint with the FCC before they can take any action (at least for indecency complaints, maybe not for obscenity, I'm not sure). And they do file a significant percentage of them.

"And as everybody knows, one call equals a billion people." -Family Guy

[Thaed]

I'm guessing this is the scene in question... it's not specifically labeled, it's a montage of "obscene" clips from shows that were on network and basic cable tv. the scene is at 2:40-3:10.

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=3028&NEXTID=0&PREVID=3269&DISPLAYORDER=20060211165647&CAT=movies&NSFW=5&page=4&genre=0&rating=nsfw_sfw&nsfwfs=yes

this would be considered nsfw, though there is no nudity, there are sexually graphic scenes and cursing.

Holy cow! I watched the whole thing. I can't believe some of that was on TV. :eek: :eek: :eek: Of course, the F/X stuff (Nip/tuck) is held to a different standard than the three major channels.

[SparkleMotion]

Because the government owns the public park, too. And it can't ban speech it doesn't like there either.Sure it can. Don't you remember the "free speech zones" the size of postage stamps during the political conventions in '04? :rolleyes: "Sure you have freedom of speech. But just right here where no one can hear or see you without making a monumental effort."

Maybe not an outright "ban" on free speech, but definitely regulating it.

[aindik]

Sure it can. Don't you remember the "free speech zones" the size of postage stamps during the political conventions in '04? :rolleyes: "Sure you have freedom of speech. But just right here where no one can hear or see you without making a monumental effort."

Maybe not an outright "ban" on free speech, but definitely regulating it.

I agree with your :rolleyes: there. But, this is somewhat different. Saying "nobody can speak here" is different from saying some people can speak there and some cannot, based on what they're going to say.

[jeff125va]

I agree with your :rolleyes: there. But, this is somewhat different. Saying "nobody can speak here" is different from saying some people can speak there and some cannot, based on what they're going to say.
Correct. It's an assembly issue, not a speech issue. I share the eyeroll sentiment as well, but I also roll my eyes at those who coined the term, as it's a complete misnomer. If such things were really restrictions on speech, a group of people could claim the right to block traffic because they wanted to exercise their free speech rights in the street. Or on a stage where a presidential candidate is speaking. There are certainly gray areas like keeping opposing groups separated ostensibly to prevent riots, and sure some officials may abuse their power to keep protestors out of high-profile areas (which is where I share the :rolleyes: sentiment). But still, it's a peaceable assembly issue. I'm not saying those rights are never violated either, just that it's a different issue and a different standard. "Peacable" certainly leaves considerable room for interpretation. Prior restraint on a potential riot or a security threat to a high government official is entirely different than prior restraint on speech.