Why does the US still have those TV censorship laws?

[Dom]

In the land of the free, this does seem to be somewhat of a contradiction. "Profane" words get censored, even the middle finger gets censored. Broadcasters under FCC are required to pay hundreds of thousands (max $375,000) every time a profane word is aired.

This is interesting because we live in 21st century and it shouldn't be controversial that sometimes people swear in some situations. Not always - but sometimes. For example in my country, no word gets ever censored regardless of what time of the day it is aired. Even nudity is completely fine to air. So we have very liberal laws when it comes to broadcasting.

I've also noticed that many children and teenagers swear a lot in the US. More so than doesn't. This seems to indicate that these laws have very little effect nowadays. Some may say that they have the opposite effect - when children hear *beep*, they are more interested in wanting to know what it is, and use the "prohibited" word, since children are very rebellious in nature.

Has it come the time to repeal these TV censorship laws? What are your thoughts?

[AustrAlien2010]

That's only common sense, if something is being broadcasted on such a large scale. It's probably a safety concern.

When they had the War of the Worlds story broadcasted, several people also panicked, and called upon other people, thinking there was an actual alien invasion taking place.

You can never predict how people respond to certain words. They have to be mindful of what they broadcast, for it may excite a part of the populace, and that may cause a disturbance.

[Scurrybt]

A relic from the Hay’s Code.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Publicado originalmente por SnakeFist:

We have a channel here in the usa called IFC that don't censor any of the movies they show. They leave in all the swearing and all the nudity and all the gore. And they don't edit the movie for time.

Seems as though public broadcasting in the country is bound to stricter rules than certain subscription-access ones.

Publicado originalmente por kilésengati:

Exactly. Having profanity in media doesn't make little children more full of ♥♥♥♥ than they already are.

Especially when they are already exploring the internet, coming across it all and finding out things outside the television. So those rules serve no one.

It's not a subscription service it a TV channel like any other TV channel. Can even get the channel with an antenna.

[Under there]

it's funny cause meanwhile you have wet ass ♥♥♥♥♥ winning some award on while two black women simulate cunnilingus on live TV

[Ulfrinn]

Publicado originalmente por Ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍:

Uh...

What decade are you all living in?

I got TnA and swearing all up in my broadcasts. We have Blue Hours, where all that nonsense gets chucked out the window.

Do you all go to bed at 6? I heard a sports caster say ♥♥♥♥ this morning.

I tried to explain this to him, and he told me there's a specific video that set him off, yet he cannot seem to produce it. He cannot tell us what word was allegedly sensored, and gets defensive if you asked any kind of follow up questions about the situation. Which leads me to believe he's making something up in order to start a topic, believing he has some kind of "gotcha" that he can troll and belittle Americans for.

Then I explained in the FCCs own words that the only thing they really keep off broadcast television are things that are pornographic in nature and he doubled down. Which makes me believe that's what he really has a problem with. No boobies on the 10:00 news.

[↑↑↓↓←→←→BASelect]

Publicado originalmente por Ulfrinn:

Publicado originalmente por Ⓥenom Ⓢnake 🐍:

Uh...

What decade are you all living in?

I got TnA and swearing all up in my broadcasts. We have Blue Hours, where all that nonsense gets chucked out the window.

Do you all go to bed at 6? I heard a sports caster say ♥♥♥♥ this morning.

I tried to explain this to him, and he told me there's a specific video that set him off, yet he cannot seem to produce it. He cannot tell us what word was allegedly sensored, and gets defensive if you asked any kind of follow up questions about the situation. Which leads me to believe he's making something up in order to start a topic, believing he has some kind of "gotcha" that he can troll and belittle Americans for.

Then I explained in the FCCs own words that the only thing they really keep off broadcast television are things that are pornographic in nature and he doubled down. Which makes me believe that's what he really has a problem with. No boobies on the 10:00 news.

No they don't show boobs on the news till 11 pm news.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Stuff like this didn't help.

https://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/companies/nbc_er/index.htm

Post 69, alright...

[Dom]

Publicado originalmente por AustrAlien2010:

That's only common sense, if something is being broadcasted on such a large scale. It's probably a safety concern.

When they had the War of the Worlds story broadcasted, several people also panicked, and thought there was an actual alien invasion taking place.

They have to be mindful of what they broadcast, for it may excite a part of the populace, and that may cause a disturbance.

True, some people may go crazy over consuming different kinds of media. That also goes for people who read misinformation and fake news from the internet, for instance.

So, I've come to realize that there is basically one, most important skill to master and that is the ability to learn how to separate facts from fiction.

[Dom]

Publicado originalmente por cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Stuff like this didn't help.

https://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/companies/nbc_er/index.htm

Post 69, alright... :rbiggrin:

:qr:

Damn.. $27,500...?

No wonder the broadcasters are so paranoid about stuff like this...

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Publicado originalmente por cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Stuff like this didn't help.

https://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/companies/nbc_er/index.htm

Post 69, alright...

Damn.. $27,500...?

No wonder the broadcasters are so paranoid about stuff like this...

The lawmakers in office are still a bunch of older people. It's going to be a while before younger folks get to lax some of these rules.

[Dom]

Publicado originalmente por cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Damn.. $27,500...?

No wonder the broadcasters are so paranoid about stuff like this...

The lawmakers in office are still a bunch of older people. It's going to be a while before younger folks get to lax some of these rules.

:qr:

True. There are a lot of older politicians nodding head to legislation from the 70s, and being unwilling to examine it critically. I have a lot of respect for older people and politicians, with their long careers towards serving the nation but society needs proper representation from all age groups.

[Crashed]

In the US at least over the air TV is free. The UK requires an annual fee not only to put an antenna on your TV but even to sign up for cable or satellite TV, or to stream the BBC. In fact due to how enforcement is carried out the burden of proof is on non-sunscribers to prove they aren't watching or recording live TV on their screens.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Publicado originalmente por cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

The lawmakers in office are still a bunch of older people. It's going to be a while before younger folks get to lax some of these rules.

True. There are a lot of older politicians nodding head to legislation from the 70s, and being unwilling to examine it critically. I have a lot of respect for older people and politicians, with their long careers towards serving the nation but society needs proper representation from all age groups.

Don't even get me started on the Supreme Court Justices. Look how long Ruth was there and what the only reason was for why she isn't anymore.

[Crashed]

Publicado originalmente por cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Damn.. $27,500...?

No wonder the broadcasters are so paranoid about stuff like this...

The lawmakers in office are still a bunch of older people. It's going to be a while before younger folks get to lax some of these rules.

:qr:

Doubtful allowing indecent content on OTA TV is even a priority of young lawmakers, and young doesn't necessarily mean a particular leaning.

[János Újváry]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Has it come the time to repeal these TV censorship laws? What are your thoughts?

Well, you can say what you want about censorship in the US but the American nation still has more freedom than 90% of the world. The absolute freedom is impossible, dummy