That's fine as long as you know the nudity, profanity, or other inappropriateness is coming. Once it's shown or heard, it's a bit too late. I wouldn't allow my children to watch some shows that I KNEW often had inappropriate scenes or language, but sometimes you just aren't prepared.

I have to agree with you. When I was a kid in Europe, seeing nudity on TV was not hard. Just watch a laundry soap commercial and you will see a woman having her towel stolen from her on the beach, and a boy peeing on the street. Did it shock and offend me to the point where I am traumatized for life? Absolutely not. If you don't want your child seeing or hearing certain things then block those shows that contain them. As for live events, the best we can do is what we do now and that is have a timed delay. Besides, cartoons today are way more vulgar than anything you see in shows with real actors. Watch almost any episode of Family Guy and you will see things that make the comments of Nichole Richie seem tame.

Judy1217 - Here a warning for you. Everyday your children hear the f-bomb multiple times a day at school. Perhaps you should consider taking them out of school and shielding them from the world until they are 30. It should be safe by then for them to know what a breast looks like.

muddlerfly....if you are going to call people idiots, you might want to make sure you at least spell things correctly in your rant...

I wonder how many kids are interested in watching Nicole Richie? I bet zero! so if they were watching it's because parents were watching so who's fault is it? Just watch cartoons with your kids and wait till they go to bed to watch adult programing (and by that I don't mean that kind of adult programing just stuff that isn't for kids)

Meanwhile there are real problems going on in our country.

I am curious why the double standard of the networks over cable channels. Stuff that cable netwroks broadcast seem to fall under different rules. SYFY, TNT, TBS all seem to get a free pass. Just curious

ROFL! Skup! Very valid point!

This country is so screwed up on nudity. Nudity should be nothing to be ashamed of.

I agree with the FCC, we need tight regulation. We are a conservative Christian/Catholic country. Don't like it leave.

Gee, Skup, nice way to make nonsense out of someone's post with your hyperbole. If I didn't do it myself, it probably wouldn't hurt so much watching you do it.

What Judy127 posted was fine. I agree with the general point that there's no hiding your kid from everything, but you know what? You aren't raising her kids and unless you want that job, why don't you let her do it herself.

linking9 No i will stay.

linking9, we are a country where everybody has the right to choose which religion they believe, or even to say that religion is bogus. I believe in Christ, but we are not a Christian nation. That's even in the Constitution, as an ammendment. I don't want to live in any nation that is run by any religion. That is lunacy. Everybody has a right to decide for themselves what they believe. None of us has the right to force our beliefs system on anybody who is old enough to reason it out.

Hey, Vince--do you really think the trash on television is what the founding fathers had in mind with the First Amendment? And do you think parents can monitor everything children see? Unless you never let them out of the house, they are bound to run into filth because it is all over in many forms of media. "Englightened and open society", my foot. It's trash and we're allowing it to happen.

vince: You are making a stupid comment about changing channels to avoid bad TV, how do you yourself know some bad words are coming your way? You don't so I guess you just don't have a TV on ever to protect your kids. I bet not.

As for your comment about our founding fathers, they didn't have any idea about the future with TV and nasty people saying the f word for kids to hear. They thought everyone was nice and honest like they. Our Constitution is so outdated it doesn't even apply anymore. The 1st amendment is so abused it's pitiful. They were talking about people saying something, not some idiot expressing himself and claiming the 1st amendment.

First amendment------so in your opinion they can put whatever they want on TV whenever they want to and it is okay because of the first amendment. If that is the case why can't a minor purchase Playboy magazine off the news stand, get into a rated R movie and why can't we cuss in public?

Vince, it is good to know that you can be with your kids 24/7.

Richard, block what your kids can see????? How many times have you attempted to use parental controls on a device? There is no standard and in some cases you have to be a programmer to figure out what to do. General settings will block programming on the Cartoon Network because if it is not rated at all it is blocked. I agree with your Family Guy comment but I also disagree when they show Family Guy these days. Plus it is on over the air television where it can be picked up through an antenae. This isn't pay TV we are talking about.

The FCC's rules haven't been followed for quite a few years now on either TV or radio. Driving with my kid in the car at 7pm listening to music when a promo comes on talking about something vulgar that happened on the morning show doesn't give me much of a chance. Vulgarities being blurted out during a live show doesn't give parents a chance either.

It's an entertainment free for all and the younger generation of parents have been groomed to accept it and believe there is nothing wrong with it but then again I hear 11 year olds using lanquage I didn't dare say around adults when I was growing up.

Freedom of Speech isn't a right to be an idiot. I'm not free to write whatever I want in these comments. If it is vulgar it will get dumped and I will get banned. I guess we can pick and choose accountablity.

As for brief nudity, kids see worse at the beach or local swimming pool these days.

There are channels that advertise the fact that they have explicit content - it is the individuals (parents, etc.) obligation and responsibility to allow into their homes what they wish to see and stop what they don't wish to see. The design engineers have gone to great lengths to provide channel changing and on off switches even going so far as making them remote control. Government can not and should not control the media.

The major networks have additional technology available to them to control profanity and nudity - it has been around for 50+ years it was called "tape delay" where they record the program and delay playback for a predetermined time this allows the producer/editor to "bleep" offensive material. Today it is digital delay or some other buzzwords.

So for the FCC to even get involved is of questionable constitutional authority. It is too easily converted to an element of thought control by people in positions of power who do not like the concept of free speech.

If people are too traumatized by what is presented in their living rooms there is an ultimate solution - remove the TV, read GOOD books and communicate with your children - what a concept!

linking9 I think you're confused last time I checked we had freedom of religion, catholics were treated poorly by the protestants when they first migrated (and JFK and a real issue with his catholic religion when running for president) and we had freedom of speech so as you lack history knowledge, and are grossly uninformed perhaps it is you who should leave, although the eat it or leave argument is never been good for freedom or democracy

When I lose my temper, I swear. No one enjoys looking at a nice naked butt as much as I do.

But can you grasp how the constant swearing, vulgarity, sexual innuendo, insults directed at women ( Bitches and Hos) affects children from age 3 to puberty? This includes TV, pop radio, music videos, the magazine rack at the supermarket, the stores at the shopping mall. Nearly naked women and men are just about everywhere you look. I quite enjoy nearly naked women, but what do these images do to your 7 year old girl or boy? How does a 7 year old girl view herself? What does a 7 year old boy trained to think the function of women is. ( Hint: Women are here for his pleasure as long as he drinks the right beer or buys the right car)

I watch Dick Van Dyke reruns some evenings. Yes it is silly that Rob Petrie and Mary ( who was quite hot back in the day) slept in separate twin beds).

But in the name of "progress" , we have morphed into an anything goes culture where women are objects to be "slayed" by the man with the right car. The role of a woman is to be a sexual creature for a man to fight over.

We used to watch the Super Bowl as a family growing up. I could not watch that program today with a 9 or 10 year old child of either gender. The graphic and suggestive advertising has made what was once a family program PG-13 OR R rated.

We have become immune to the assault on our minds. Our children are not yet immune.

I don't have the answer and it is probably not the government. It has to be parents and others that just revolt at the garbage that is fed to their kids 24/7.

So before we all say "let it all hang out" stop and think about what all this garbage does to the minds of your children.

Linking9, you got that wrong. We do not need the government to regulate what we think, read or see. We are adults and should conduct ourselves as responsible adults. Looking at the shape that government is in, I don't want them deciding much of anything for me!

The court said that it did need not to address the First Amendment implications

Apparently the writers of the article felt they did need not to adress the English language.

you're absolutely right, Mark. Linking9 you need to get a serious grip. this is not a christian nation. this is a FREE nation and the likes of people who want to force their personal religious values on the rest of us is what is causing all the partisanship in this country. it is really creating schism where the right wing radicals want to trash the constitution and create a religious rule in this country while at the same time selling our souls to corporate america for 30 pieces of silver.

i will speak any way i choose and if you don't like it, leave the room. i live in a free country and i will exercise my faith the way I choose and if you don't like it, too bad. we think of ourselves as so forward thinking, but the truth is, this country is so puritan. language is only as powerful as you make it. words are just words until YOU give them power! and the human body is not something sinful. it is what God created for our souls to inhabit and it is beautiful. maybe if we didn't make it such 'forbidden fruit' we wouldn't have so many people going to the dark side of sexuality.

It's always amazed me that in the US it's ok to show dead bodies and people being beheaded, but if you show a boob you get the book thrown at you. It seems to me our morals are a bit screwed up...

This another stupid decision by the Supreme Court. Why would the FCC need to advise the networks that they had violated the decency laws before fining them.

They know the rules. This is much like a police officer having to tell a shooter that I am warning you I will shoot if you don't stop shooting at me. It is just stupid.

The networks know what is acceptable by Law. Many decent Americans think the language on TV is much beyond being decent but that is the law. I will admit I am 77 years old and have watched the language used on TV degrade to the gutter. I remember the flap about Cathy Rigby's period.

The TV networks will broadcast anything unless the American people stop them by having a Law establishing the standards. Someone will sue saying that this violates the networks first admendment rights now that Corporations are people. Everything will be legal on TV.

I know that children are exposed to all language levels at school so that is not the situation. We are talking about the Public Air Waves which must have some controlls.

We also need come controls on networks that broadcast Rush and and other right wing NUTS.Saying that satellite Radio should not be controlled by the fcc is wrong. The radio waves travel thru the air so they should be controlled by the same laws as the broadcast networks. Cable is making the need for over air transmissions obsolute.

The whole issue revolves around censorship and all of us who read history know about Kristallnacht - The Night of Broken Glass. If this is what we as a nation want then so be it. However I think a whole lot of us will become illegal aliens heading south just as fast we can!

The issue is not so simple when dealing with Over The Air (OTA) "rabbit ear" antenna recieved programs. The television frequencies used are public property. The FCC is charged with regulating the use of those frequencies. That is why you have periodic license renewal procedures in which public compliments and complaints are considered in determining if a licensee can continue to use the license granted. In this case FOX and ABC both use OTA broadcast stations to distruibute the shows they create. I agree that events covered live should not be subject to FCC fines. The directors may not react fast enough to cut away to another camera or sound source in time and automated delay equipment is sometimes is not available. But scripted shows that have weeks of editing before airing should be fined. ABC got lucky that the USA Supreme Court considers companies to be people deserving of the highest constitutional protections.

Bottom line is, the FCC sucks and should keep their unqualified and antiquated views to themselves.

As for what can be watched on TV, well folks, that should be up to you and not some organization full of old farts and holy-rollers.

If you want your children to not see adult programing (eg anything that might have a *gasp* butt or "bad" words), then don't put the TV on adult television networks when your children are around. If you think Family Guy is a children's cartoon, then you're not properly doing your research as a parent (Family Guy is mostly aimed toward about the 16-30 demographic; not the 1-14 cartoons kids).

If you can't discuss what your children see on TV when there is a mistake (like unbleeped words in a "live" broadcast), then I question your willingness to actually parent. If you're more concerned about a few seconds of butt being shown to your children in a program that otherwise deals with violent and disturbing scenarios (like most cop shows), then I think you need to think long and hard about the values you are instilling in your children.

Ultimately, if you want to shelter your children, make sure they are watching children's programing instead. There are a whole host of channels dedicated to that, watch those instead.

Boohoo:

vince: You are making a stupid comment about changing channels to avoid bad TV, how do you yourself know some bad words are coming your way? You don't so I guess you just don't have a TV on ever to protect your kids. I bet not.

That's why they have the ratings on TV shows that pop up in the left hand corner when the show starts and also usually after commercial breaks. And that's why cartoons like Family Guy and Archer (these are the two I can think of off the top of my head) have warnings before the show that they're not suitable for anyone under 14 (Family Guy) or 17 (Archer).

They even have codes on those TV ratings as to what the rating is for; S for sex, L for language, V for violence, and D for sexual dialogue. There are ample warnings when the show starts about what it could contain.

we can make it legal for two guys to tag each other in the butt but its illegal to cuss and show nudity on public tv because our children may be influenced

If parents heard what their kids hear every day in school and from friends this wouldn't even be an issue.

It's important to note that the Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Richie...It's not so f'ing simple to get cow sh** out of a Prada purse.

Kick ass! Anything that keeps the FCC on the defensive and puts us one step closer to restoring the First Amendment in mass media is a good day in my book.

Most of the problem seems to stem from children (or child like adults) watching so called adult drama or comedy. (i.e. NCIS, South Park). Put the kids to bed, they have school the next day and should be in bed by 9 pm. Now, that being said, I do know where the channel selector button on my remote is located and I tend to stay away from network tv. PBS seems to edit their programs in accordance to FCC rules also (Lennon Naked comes to mind). The nudity was part of the program yet it was deleted. Very similar to The Kings Speech being made PG-13 from its R movie rating.

Skup. Yes, vulgarities are heard every day at school, usually from the kids peers and not from the staff.

Kids select role models, and those with the most impact are not from their peers. Like it or not, TV in our society presents itself as a viable pool from which to choose.

Two points. Raise the target. Aim higher.

Just a couple of observations:

1) It appears to me that the folks calling for tighter regulations are the type that want government out of our lives. Which is it? Are you in or out?

2) The FCC rules are so arcane as to distinguish between regular network programming versus cable. I understand the whole public airways argument, but let me ask you how many people here are still messing with rabbit ears on top of your tv set?

3) Your precious child hears the "Carlin seven" hundreds of times a day - probably even from you. If you don't know what that means, look it up on youtube. Ironically I had to sign in to listen to it on youtube - how lame is it when big business gets a hold of a resource like youtube. ha.

Some of you folks don't have your facts straight. We are not a Christian/Catholic/Conservative nation, the problem is, people like you want it to be a nation centered on oppressive religions and zealotry. Thankfully we have a little thing called the constitution and supreme court rulings that guarantee your twisted , sick dreams will never become a reality. America has the most asinine attitude towards sex, it is completely detrimental and juvenile.

It looks like the Court got it right on the Fox issue since it wasn't an expected part of the show. The other is more questionable, though, since it was scripted.

If you are too lazy to monitor what your kids watch, then get rid of the TV. That is what my parents did when I was a child. No TV, no need to worry about what we "might" see.

Of course, it was a pointless gesture. Even now my parents admit that they were blind to the real world. In their effort to make sure I never heard the word "a$$" on television, they overlooked the fact that I was hearing the f-word (and worse) at school, every single day.

But I do have to laugh at the overly-religious, right-wing, prudish parents who freak out over the thought of their child seeing a naked butt on TV... meanwhile these same children are watching 2 girls and a cup on the internet when mommy and daddy are not home. I believe the appropriate "Parenting Fail" comment applies to the majority of families in this country.

BOOHOO, have you ever read anything from our founding fathers, or material from their time? I guarantee you haven't, because if you had, you would know that they all wrote and read the most perverse things you could imagine, things that would seem completely pornographic by toady's American standards, so your so called point, is moot. They absolutely had these things in mind because they were spreading worse things back then and wanted, no, demanded absolute freedom to do so. Educate yourself before you make ludicrous claims.

Vince, That is pretty hard to do don't you think?? You are sitting there with a child watching a show when the nudity comes on or the curse words are blurted out. Kind of hard to change the channel after that!!!

Your argument is stupid and I'm sorry but my rights, my child's rights matter too!!!

Leave the nudity and strong words on pay television and off of the public airways!!

And that's why cartoons like Family Guy and Archer (these are the two I can think of off the top of my head) have warnings before the show that they're not suitable for anyone under 14 (Family Guy) or 17 (Archer).

Don't forget that South Park also has a disclaimer that states it should not be viewed by ANYONE.

Of course, it is too much to expect a parent to actually be aware of... or listen to... a disclaimer before a television show. Obviously we need the government to step in and babysit for these lazy parents.

Tell folks that they can have it and nobody wants it.

Tell folks they can't have it and everybody wants it.

Isn't human nature interesting??

@Mark O and Gabby Clemons--Good replies to linking9. Unless you live in a cave somewhere and have never learned anything about the United States, one thing we hold very dear is the freedom of religion and worship (or, not worship, as the case may be). As soon as we start taking away other people's rights to worship, we all begin to lose.

I'm a Catholic Christian, and glad as &*## that I live in the USA, where I can go to the church of my choice & wear a cross around my neck if I want to, and not in a country (I won't name them all here) where Catholics & other Christian denominations are forbidden from even carrying a Bible--let alone being free to worship in peace. We Catholics have a hard enough time convincing a contingent of angry folks who still refuse to believe that all priests aren't pedophiles. I would suggest you leave that argument about being a Catholic/Christian nation alone.

TXHorseman:

Vince, That is pretty hard to do don't you think?? You are sitting there with a child watching a show when the nudity comes on or the curse words are blurted out. Kind of hard to change the channel after that!!!

Is it really so hard to do some research before you let your child watch something? There are ratings that pop up on every show that says if they are appropriate for children or not, and they even say why they have that rating (language, sex, violence, etc). Do your research, and don't let your children watch shows that might have questionable content; even if that one particular episode doesn't have something you find questionable, another episode might.

If you want to watch a show that might have questionable content, send your child out of the room. Or if your child is around, turn it off. That's what my sister does with her young children. Her husband likes to watch Family Guy, but they have an eight year old and a four year old. When the kids are around, he doesn't watch it. After they go to bed, he can watch it.

Linking and others with similar views. You are not the "authority" over who should go and who should stay in this country or any other. This country is not "as a matter of fact" conservative nor explicitly Christian. Your views expose your bias and therefore eliminate your ability to view things either objectively or responsibly.

Remove emotion from the topic and address the issue: A lot of TV programming is inappropriate for minors, yet, we have no problem leaving them for hours on their personal electronic devices capable of accessing far more indecent content. Take on the topics of texting/sexting and camera based phones and you will quickly discover just how out of control this whole topic is – worried about what goes on your TV, you are in the stone ages if this is your main concern.

GET WORRIED about what goes on in your kids IPOD/IPAD/ANDROID/MAC/PC etc…
TEACH THEM VALUES – THEY WILL BE BETTER FOR IT.
FILTER THEM and they will continue to view things without any idea why they should be concerned.

Our problem isn't one of exposure – or for that matter one of indecency. It is a matter of common sense. Morals have changed and to a larger degree so has tolerance. Screening your kids from these things at home does nothing for your credibility as a parent or as a responsible citizen. They will be exposed to them either at school as a few individuals have pointed out or in a wide variety of other locations – like maybe you didn't think they were noticing the Trash Rag "magazines" at the checkout where nearly anything goes including partial nudity or the labels on some products that you probably haven't even noticed.

If you want your kids to understand – take time to teach them – properly and with a consideration toward your values – whatever they may be - which should not be based on a bias but on reasonable facts. When you have done this – you "MIGHT" have the potential of not needing to worry if your kids will hit on a porn site on their way through the internet – surfing or searching for that topic their teacher has assigned for homework.

Just in case you think it isn't that big of a deal – consider this – searching for WhiteHouse – will get you the expected results whitehouse.gov (and if you are a conservative) it will also get you several you didn't expect whitehouse.com (porn).

Just as with any topic in this or any other society – Knowledge is power.
Understanding is wisdom and the application of both is common sense.
When you shelter – you are not teaching – you are preventing the gathering of knowledge.
When you shelter – you are not showing wisdom – you are showing bias.
WHEN YOU DON'T USE COMMON SENSE – You are just making it easier for the rest of the world to eventually observe your departure from the gene pool.

Every topic about sex and the body, vulgarity and communication ultimately become high profile when people who think they can control the actions of others discover that they really are not in control at all.

TXHorseman

That is pretty hard to do don't you think?? You are sitting there with a child watching a show when the nudity comes on or the curse words are blurted out. Kind of hard to change the channel after that!!!

Your argument is stupid and I'm sorry but my rights, my child's rights matter too!!!

Leave the nudity and strong words on pay television and off of the public airways!!

Then GET RID OF THE TV!

That is what my parents did... it is not a difficult concept. You want to be overly protective, fine. But stop pushing your big government into our lives.

I get it, you would rather have the government step in and babysit your children instead of doing the job yourself. Where I come from we call that being lazy, but perhaps that is normal for you. Regardless, there is this thing called personal responsibility... look it up.

If the FCC wants to keep children from seeing women's bare butts, maybe the should look to the clothing industry and ban G-string bikinis.

And as far as language is concern, FCC needs to be in the real world and listen to what is heard from day to day in public places.

JM

1) It appears to me that the folks calling for tighter regulations are the type that want government out of our lives. Which is it? Are you in or out?

I agree and have always found this to be the epitome of Republican hypocrisy. They shout all day and night about "smaller government"... then turn around and want BIGGER government in our homes, because they are too lazy to do the job of being a parent.

mguy,

Come back when you have children. I don't watch with my kids all the time. Even much of the time. Ever come in to the "middle" of a show??

I get it, you would rather have the government step in and babysit your children instead of doing the job yourself. Where I come from we call that being lazy, but perhaps that is normal for you. Regardless, there is this thing called personal responsibility... look it up.

Really, I'm lazy since I don't want my kids to see some of the crap that people like you call entertainment? You don't know the first thing about me or how my children are raised. I am being responsible and protecting my children from people just like you. Since I can't personally make companies like Fox be responsible then some type of enforcement agency must be in place. Just like I can't personally make you drive the speed limit so we have rules and people to enforce said rules.

The FCC should be abolished. The government should have zero right to dictate what any company can broadcast on television or radio or the internet for any reason. It is called censorship and censorship should only exist in authoritarian nations like the Chinese Empire or Iran or India. Not in the United States with a Constitution that protects the freedom of speech.

Some of you like censorship and will ask what I will tolerate. I would tolerate anything. I wouldn't watch anything but it doesn't mean that companies shouldn't have the right to broadcast it. This mentality that everything revolves around the will of a minority that can't handle freedom should be eliminated.

This isn't about whether sex, nudity, or language should or should not be on tv. This is about passing the buck, and not deciding anything of any real value. Why decide something, when you can avoid deciding something?

It really does not matter what should or should not morally happen. It is votes, alienating your base, and all the political stuff that ultimately decides things like this. If we actually wanted to find the best moral solutions, then we are going about it all wrong. We politicize everything and use calm objective evidence and debate far too little.

Funny how this story got a headline, when the more important Supreme Court ruling is not mentioned.....SCOTUS (7-2) B!tch-slapped the SEUI and all Unions for raising forced nonmember dues to fund political Activities, without giving them notice or opt-out option.........Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan dissented...

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.

The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.

The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-rules-against-seiu-in-dispute-over-union-fee-hike/?test=latestnews#ixzz1yRiiF0oQ

TXHorseman

Again... GET RID OF THE TV... problem solved.

Actually, it achieves two things. (1) It makes sure your "precious bundle of joy" does not hear a bad word. And (2) it frees them up for studying, reading, outdoor activities, etc.

Why is this such a hard concept? Is it because you can not live without your daily dose of Fox News and Hannity? I would think your children are more important than that. But I guess you have different priorities.

You children do not have the right to "not hearing curse words on television." And honestly as everyone else here has pointed out, even if your children don't hear these words on TV they will hear it at school, on the playground, from their friends, or from their parents anyway.

The real problem people have is that they don't want to actually parent their children, they just want to scream about how the whole world is trying to kill and abuse their child. When my sister first heard a curse word, my mom explained to her what it meant and why it wasn't appropriate to use. So if you want your child to be an overgrown baby when they're 25 because they never heard a curse word and don't know whats going on the real world then be my guest.

Stop being lazy and teach your children.

Also; there are more serious problems facing your children today. Everyone is concerned with the fact that their child might hear the f-word but not with the fact that their child's education is going down the drain and becoming more and more worthless by the day. (America's children aren't even in the top 20 out of all countries surveyed for children's proficiency in math/science.) Wake up and grow a pair.

Magnolia,

Call me when you have kids and know what you are talking about. I think you totally missed what I said. Why should I have to do all these things just so my kids can watch a public television show. I do see what you are saying and my kids are teens now. I have been on this since they were very young. Not my first day or thought on the subject. When you have to actually DO what you are saying you may change your mind. Or you may not and then we may just disagree on the subject. What I don't need is a parenting lecture from someone that doesn't know the first thing about me.

You know...I've never quite understood all this fake outrage over what's on TV by parents most of whom I'm willing to bet have themselves used "bad words" within earshot of their kids (or had a family member do it).

Then to pretend like hearing the f-bomb on TV is what is going to corrupt your kids - or seeing a woman's butt or breast. Give me a f*&king break. I didn't have television growing up, my parents never swore but I still heard the F-bomb daily. I still managed to see Playboy and Hustler magazines, and as far as I can tell I still turned out ok.

The parents who are really that concerned about their kids getting all this "bad" stuff don't have their kids watching any TV at all, and they home school them and keep them in little boxes - but even that won't protect them from the real world.

linking9

I agree with the FCC, we need tight regulation. We are a conservative Christian/Catholic country. Don't like it leave.

We are NOT a conservative Christian/Catholic country. We do not need the FCC or ANY religion telling us what we can and cannot watch. I believe all media outlets should take it upon themselves to provide a description of what their broadcast is about. If you don't like it, its simple don't watch it.

For parents, you should play a stronger more active role in what your children are subjected too, that's your job, not our governments job.

Emanuel

I didn't have television growing up, my parents never swore but I still heard the F-bomb daily

I am right there with you. I didn't have a TV growing up either, and still heard every bad word in the book, daily.

I don't understand why these overly-protective parents NEED a TV in the first place. If they are so concerned with broadcasting, why can't they get rid of it?

WTF is wrong with nudity and profanity. Shyt, I hear more religious people (including the pastor's wife) in my town using profanity an their kids dressing like hookers than what they have in Hollywood.

I see nothing wrong with nudity or profanity. We are all born nude, and profanity is part of our vocabulary.

Big-fukken-deal is all I have to say about it.

I don't understand why these overly-protective parents NEED a TV in the first place. If they are so concerned with broadcasting, why can't they get rid of it?

They believe in the nanny state and they don't want to take responsibility for raising their own children. It is pathetic that they want government to act as parents while stifling free speech in this nation.

Mguy.

Actually, it achieves two things. (1) It makes sure your "precious bundle of joy" does not hear a bad word. And (2) it frees them up for studying, reading, outdoor activities, etc.

Why is this such a hard concept? Is it because you can not live without your daily dose of Fox News and Hannity? I would think your children are more important than that. But I guess you have different priorities.

My precious bundles of joy are 15 and 17. 6'1" and 6'3". They play high school football. One plays select baseball and high school baseball the other is in high school rodeo. All of this requires extensive travel over the week days and weekends. They are both straight A students who recieve academic awards every year. We have horses, four of them and live on 20 acres. They both team rope. I am with them every single step of the way. Don't watch Fox news or Hannity any more than I listen to idoits like you tell me how I should raise my kids. I have an idea, you get rid of your television so you won't feel the need to see nudity or listen to garbage. So feel free to shut the hell up at any point since you obvioulsy have NO idea what you are talking about.

I wish to comment on linking9's comment out Our Country being Christian/Catholic only.

Our country was not built on one religious base, we are a "MELTING POT", where people of all religions, backgournds and beliefs can live freely, without any one or any government telling us what we can or cannot practice for our person or family.

That is the bases of our country's building stones.

TXHorseman

I have read many of your previous posts on politics and other social issues. I generally disagreed with almost everything you have said. However, on this topic, I agree with all of your comments. To me, how you raise your children is your own business and no one elses. At least you are an involved parent in your children's lives, which is more than I can say for many other Americans.

I don't have any children of my own, but I can guarantee if I did, I would be involved in their lives every step of the way and doing my best to make sure they were raised properly.

Kudos from Dallas.

TX Horseman:

Magnolia,

Call me when you have kids and know what you are talking about.

Right, the old "you don't have kids, so you have no idea" argument. You're right, I don't have kids of my own. But I have lived with both of my sisters when they had kids since I was 15 years old. I've helped them. I've watched them for weeks at a time and been responsible for them. So don't give me that "you're not a parent, so you don't know" bull. I've helped my sisters raise their children, and I can see what a good parent is, and I can see what a bad parent is. I know how much work goes into raising children, which is why I made the choice not to have children.

I think you totally missed what I said. Why should I have to do all these things just so my kids can watch a public television show.

Because your kids are your responsibility. Do you do this when they read a book? Do you just let them pick any book they want without looking into what's in it? Do you let them just go see any movie without taking a look at the rating or asking what the movie is about? Do you just let them go do things that aren't age appropriate without taking the time to intervene? It's the same thing here. Your TV is not a babysitter. You should be monitoring what your kids are watching, and if you don't have the time to do that, then don't have a TV.

I do see what you are saying and my kids are teens now. I have been on this since they were very young. Not my first day or thought on the subject. When you have to actually DO what you are saying you may change your mind. Or you may not and then we may just disagree on the subject. What I don't need is a parenting lecture from someone that doesn't know the first thing about me.

If you don't want a parenting lecture, then don't bring up protecting the poor children as an excuse for censoring TV for what you don't deem as appropriate. What you think is inappropriate might vary greatly from what I think is inappropriate. You are responsible for your children. You are responsible for what they see and what they experience, and for raising them. Not the rest of us. Don't restrict what the rest of us get to see or not see, just because you don't have the time to monitor your children. That's why they have these ratings on TV shows (which I don't object to). They're giving parents the tools to avoid exposing their children to things that aren't age appropriate. But it's up to the parents to use those tools.

I'm not questioning your parenting ability. I'm questioning your reasoning for wanting more restrictions on TV shows. Your reasoning is that you don't monitor what your children watch, which is a bogus excuse.

We are a conservative Christian/Catholic country. Don't like it leave.

We are neither of those things. I know republicans want it that way but we are far from either of those wishes. We will never be a catholic country with their pervs.

TXHorseman

Why would I get rid of my TV? I have no problem with nudity or profanity. You are the one who obviously has issues and baggage regarding these things.

But you have still not answered the question. WHY DO YOU NEED A TV? If it is such a concern, get rid of it.

Why are you avoiding the question? Too scared of the answer? Or are you just a coward, refusing to acknowledge the fact that I am right?

Come on, big man. You love to brag about your redneck, "yee-ha" children who like to play cowboy and indian. Well, man up to the role. Answer the question.

Your entire argument comes down to the fact that you are too lazy to monitor what your kids watched when they were younger. So instead of being responsible, or getting rid of the TV... you want big government babysitting for you.

On this issue for once the court was right. They drew the line on how the FCC can or cannot go after a station. A vague cooment in an annual draft is no loger good enough. All they have to do now is give them a warning. Myself I bought cable because I could hear whateer was said in the movies theatre not that garbled garbage they post now and as far as nudity goes??? How many clothes did you have on when you were born.

TXHorseman

Woops, I may have spoke to soon. You want the government to have more restrictions on what is on television? Why should my tax dollars support something like that. To me, the government only needs to set a 'standard' on what a broadcast is about, and then it's up the media outlets to use that and then a PARENT or Guardian has the final decision.

I may not be a parent, but I sure as heck do not need the government telling me what I can and cannot watch.

Guess I need to slow down and read better.

Neve thought I would ever see the olld John Birch society America love it or leave it line again but here we are

ItsAboutTime,

A appreciate your comments. I disagree with Fiesty and Sarah too, but we can usually have an active debate. I am aware that I tend toward the quote "conservative" side, but without it, we have no balance for those who want to do what they want, anytime they want with no regards for anyone else. That simply will never, ever work!

Todd - there's always been a distinction between free, over-the-air broadcast network content and "cable" content. Even though almost everyone pays a cable or satellite provider to get broadcast network channels, you don't have to, so they're regulated more heavily because they come freely into your home. With "cable", you must pay to receive those channels, therefore you're making a choice to bring those channels into your home.

but without it, we have no balance for those who want to do what they want, anytime they want with no regards for anyone else.

The battle cry for BIG GOVERNMENT controlling your life.

Ironically, he will turn around a yell for "smaller government" at rallies.

Ahhhhhh... beautiful hypocrisy

Welcome. I may have mis read some of your other comments (on this topic) but still kudos to you with your children. Debate and freedom of speech is one of the best rights we have as Americans and it's a good thing.

ItsAboutTime:

I agree with your comments on many posts as much as I do the txhorseman. However, what's right for you and what's right for him are two different things.

That's exactly my point. We can't offer more restrictions based on what someone else finds inappropriate, because you or I may find it appropriate. People need to be responsible for themselves and watch only programs that they deem appropriate.

A parent/guardian whom/whatever is watching a child or raising that child has the final descretion on what they are subjected too. WE do not need the government telling us though or a religion, or any other parent for that matter.

Exactly! A parent does have the final say about what a child does or does not see, or watch on TV. They should be making those choices for their children. And there are tools out there to help them do that, like they have ratings on all TV shows now, and most cable companies offer parental restrictions, so you can block all TV shows above a certain rating, etc. But it's up to the parents to use those tools.

Judy1217

That's fine as long as you know the nudity, profanity, or other inappropriateness is coming. Once it's shown or heard, it's a bit too late. I wouldn't allow my children to watch some shows that I KNEW often had inappropriate scenes or language, but sometimes you just aren't prepared.

Sorry but all shows have ratings clearly displayed now:

GA - MA/AO

So your argument is not valid

Why is profanity and nudity regulation expected, but you can watch someone get their head blow off on tv with no problem? Why do we need labels on music for lyrics, but we can't have labels on food for genetically modified ingredients?

The inconsistency is astonishing. I don't think its an all or nothing thing, either. They all can aid in choice, just don't say one is better than the other. People want to know what they are getiing. I think that's alright.

Why do we need labels on music for lyrics, but we can't have labels on food for genetically modified ingredients?

Great point. It is arbitrary when we should have total freedom.

Good ol' Uncle Sam, still playing the Puritan Card! Pathetic!!!

We should throw all the moral laws out and let moral anarchy reign! Then we will see why we have them....sorry, but you just can't throw out the rules because they are inconvenient to you or your lifestyle.

its a "big thing" because its not seen. If you saw naked people all the time, you wouldnt get so excited when you saw a nude person. It would become run of the mill so to speak.In other countries you see naked people all the time on t.v., no big deal. Why are we so puritanistic ( whew, never thought I would use that word in a sentance)....lol

Nudity and language issues found on tv should be an excellent teaching moment for the parent as they watch certain programs with their children. Oh, wait, tv the free baby sitter. Plop kid in front, go find something else to do. That's why these parents want the FCC to be more "in your face".

When my daughter was young I did not have cable. She pretty much watched PBS (Barney, Arthur, Bill Nye the Science Guy, etc.) or Disney DVD's. The TV was off in the evenings as we read a book as part of her bed time routine. She was in bed by 9 at which time her father and I turned on the TV or watched a rented movie. When she was a teenager I got cable and we watched shows together. I'm by no means a perfect parent, but it really wasn't that hard to control what she watched when she was little. It did require some sacrifice on my part because I couldn't really watch anything until she was in bed. She's now 19 and she turned out pretty well. I have some friends who let their kids watch just about anything on TV when they were little. They turned out pretty well too, so perhaps it doesn't really matter as much as us parents think it does. In any case, the government should not be in charge of regulating TV when it's pretty easy to do it yourself if you just use some common sense.

Why is profanity and nudity regulation expected, but you can watch someone get their head blow off on tv with no problem?

Welcome to America... where we can watch shootings, stabbings, brutal rapes, body parts flying, blood spraying, cannibalism, death, beatings, assault... on a wide variety of cop shows (CSI, Crimminal Minds, Law and Order).

But one flash of a nipple... one tiny little flash of a body part that EVERYONE has... and the right-wing, religious extremists scream about "morals" and the downfall of society.

South Park (ironically) did an excellent parody of the dichotomy. One little boy was beat and bloody, with a ninja star sticking out of his eye, while animals defecated on him... then another boy walked across a stage naked. The parents ignored the bloody boy and called a meeting over the naked one. It was a dead on interpretation of America today.

Vince-545056, well said. it all comes down to two words: personal responsibility. if you don't like the way your children are being raised, try doing it yourself instead of letting the tv do it. or at least you can pay attention to the shows' ratings (the thing in the upper left corner, not the number of viewers) and not dredge up the same argument that led to their creation in the first place 20 or so years ago.

liinking9, get off your ego trip. just because you "are a conservative Christian/Catholic" doesn't mean the whole country is. plain and simple, 1. show "crosses the line" has to pay FCC fee. 2. show has to be making money with high ratings (number of people watching this time) to pay said fees. 3. higher ratings, or more people watching means a greater percent of the population saying, guess what: they don't mind. we all know from our Thanksgiving stories that many of the earliest settlers in America were pilgrims, a sect that was being chased out of (Christian/Catholic i might add) Europe for being so conservative (i believe this has affected our stance on nudity vs. Europe's). but what the heck, if these guys were conservartive enough to renounce Christmas and even make it illegal to celebrate the holiday, this country really isn't living up to it's moral standards.

in short, 400 years later, America is grown-up enough that the adults should be allowed to turn off the channel-blocker if they want to, and our children are still exactly that, our children; our responsibility; our job to raise as we see fit. if your child isn't turning out the way you wanted; don't look for a scapegoat, examine your parenting (involvement, techniques,etc.) and remember, the kid's personality is a factor in what/how to do as well.

Mudderfly, it's worse for children to watch trash like the Kardashians, and the Real Housewives, then to hear an f-bomb or see a woman's nipple on TV. They hear F-bombs all the time in public, and if you think children over a certain age don't know what a nipple looks like, you are sorely mistaken. Besides, all shows have ratings, and you can get an FCC V-chip to block those programs. Just because you are a delusional prude, doesn't mean YOUR ideals should be pushed upon the rest of us, when you can simply do something, in your own home, to censor what your children watch.

I watch more British shows than I do American because they are not censored to where you feel like its a child's program. I dont really see what the FCC is protecting. More so their TV regulations make American TV shows unrealistic to the everyday world that goes on around us. Sex is part of the real world and so is swearing. When I was a kid I learned all the swear words from other kids. Not TV

50 years ago this junk wouldn't be on TV or Radio. Parenting in this country has let the moral standards slip. Even childrens cartoons are are based on violent behavior. FOX animation junk is being watched, otherwise it wouldn't sell.

Longing

The TV was off in the evenings as we read a book as part of her bed time routine. She was in bed by 9 at which time her father and I turned on the TV or watched a rented movie

Thank you, that is exactly how it should be. YOU, the parent, taking control. Not the government babysitting for you.

I have some friends who let their kids watch just about anything on TV when they were little. They turned out pretty well too, so perhaps it doesn't really matter as much as us parents think it does.

Most parents are disillusion... mine included (back in the day, they look back and laugh about it now). They spend so much time and effort "protecting" what kids see on TV, yet ignore the reality of what kids hear at school. My parents got rid of the TV to "protect" me from all those bad words that I might hear. Then they put me in a Christian school, foolishly believing that I would also be "protected" there. What they did not know was each day I would hear between 50 and 100 cuss words on the playground... every thing you could imagine. That is also where I learned about things like the dirty sanchez, blue waffle, alabama hot pocket, etc (DO NOT look those up... you have been warned).

The reality is that children will hear and see far worse things at school, public or private, than on TV. Throw the internet on top of that, and the FCC is completely worthless... they are by far the biggest waste of tax payer money.

To all those who say "we have no problem with killing and violence on TV but but cringe at nudity and profanity", at one time the violence was limited and some shows were canceled because of the violence. Gunsmoke was almost dropped from CBS because of violence. People like you are the reason for the violence on TV.

As parents, we can not and should not watch our children 24/7 as we have to work and do other things and they need time to play on thier own.

The people screaming about the FCC are the same ones who want the government to ban certain words and the free practice of religion which includes laws that reflect our religious or moral values.

Heres an idea for you, if you pervs find porn and vulgarity entertaining get cable and watch it on pay per view and quit trying to force it on people who do not. The use of profanity shows a lack of intelligence and a poor vocabulary for which Nicole Ritchie is the poster child. For you porn lovers, get out of your parents basement and do something else with your hands.

Please do not use Europe as an example of progressive society, as they have been in decline for decades because of thier kings and wars. I have traveled Europe and elsewhere and although there are good people there, many of their policies are straight out of the Roman empire and extremely backwards.

Milgram

As parents, we can not and should not watch our children 24/7 as we have to work and do other things and they need time to play on thier own.

Then GET RID OF THE TV.

If you are too lazy to actually be a parent, get rid of the source of your concern... the TV.

Why is this such a hard concept for people like you?

The people screaming about the FCC are the same ones who want the government to ban certain words

Show me where those against the FCC want to "ban certain words"?

laws that reflect our religious or moral values

Morality is relative to each individual person. Even religious people can not agree on morals. Keep your morals in your household, and stop trying to force intelligent people to follow the rules of your archaic fairytale.

Again, you don't like what is on TV... GET RID OF THE TV.

Television is NOT a right and it is NOT a necessity. It is a luxury. You don't like it, get rid of it. Take some god damn personal responsibility for once in your life.

In the UK they have pre-watershed and post-watershed tv schedules. Pre-watershed or PG ratings because the majority of children are watching at that time. I believe at 9 pm the post-watershed programs begin to be shown which are made for adults. If you are allowing your 7 or 8 year old to watch adult shows, that's your problem but don't tell me I can't watch a show written for an adult because you can't control your child's viewing. When I was growing up, if my parents said no to me watching a tv show that was the end of it. Year ago Roger Moore was on a talk show and had the best solution for I show you didn't like. Turn off the tv, simple solution. Most of the tv's, cable, and satellite systems have the ability to block certain channels from being viewed, use it.

@Alessa: You are a cause of a lot of problems in our society and our country. The attitude that you can do whatever you want, when you want.

"i will speak any way i choose and if you don't like it, leave the room. i live in a free country and i will exercise my faith the way I choose and if you don't like it, too bad"

Just because you have the RIGHT does not make it RIGHT. The comment you made is disrespectful. And many of the younger generations of people, those who were put in "time out" instead of spanked and those raised by "a village" instead of by strict parenting, have this same attitude and they keep passing it along until there is no respect left.

I do agree that the government is not our babysitter. However, we, as adults in a civilized society, need to do what IS RIGHT instead of what you believe you have the right to do.

The government shouldn't be making rules for us. We should be making rules for ourselves. But that's not happening. There is too much division in this country. Too many people who have the attitude that since it's their right, it's right...and that's NOT right. What's right is what society, as a majority, believes is just and moral.

We HAVE to live by a uniformed set of morals and values. If not we are doomed as a society...and we are currently headed in that direction.

"I live in a free society, therefore I have the RIGHT to say what I want, and if you don't like it, too bad." = "I live in a free society, therefore I have the RIGHT to shoot you when I see you on the street and if you don't like it, don't go out in public." Extreme? yes. But the bottom line is the same: I' have the right to do what I want, but you really don't. I have the right to say the F-word around a group of 5 years olds, but I really don't. Again, just because you have the right doesn't make it right.

Gary 1.19, Ron 1.23, Darthfrodo 1.31 (fro-daddy?), & catspaw 1.48-all excellant posts; There are probably more but I quit reading. I would like to add this:

When did George Carlin's list of "7 words you can't say on tv" become "2 words..........."?

Ron you got that right. We have some people that are so uptight that they squeak when they walk. Violence and nudity should be on the same level. If seeing tons of violence does not affect the average person then neither should nudity. Christians (read the Vatican) open admit that they want to force sex into some dirty back room closet. Sex is a natural act and natural not only in procreation terms but in recreational uses as well.

Being a country of uptight prudes gets you no where but into an endless lawsuit and argument about what is and is not acceptable. Do I think we should be showing sex shows on basic cable? No, but that does not mean I think we should be censoring everyone and everything that is considered uncouth by a few people.

Some parents would be shocked by the amount of swearing and sex talk that goes in high school these days.

Desolate

we, as adults in a civilized society, need to do what IS RIGHT instead of what you believe you have the right to do.

We should be making rules for ourselves.

So who defines what is right? You? Well I know that I am not alone when I say that you DO NOT speak for me. Just because you have baggage surrounding a word does not mean I share this same psychological issue.

But for arguments sake, let's say we go along with your idea that "we should be making the rules for ourselves."

Fair enough... let's let society, as a whole (everyone, not just you) decide. This concept supports the free market idea. Let the free market on TV, with regards to ratings and viewership, decide what is deemed "moral" for television programming.

If a show is "immoral" in your view, don't watch it. If enough people do not watch it, ratings will drop, and it will be canceled. FREE MARKET, right?

If a show is "moral" in your view, watch it. If the rest of society agrees with you, and watches it, ratings will skyrocket and the show will remain on the air. FREE MARKET, right?

That seems like a legitimate compromise. We let the free market, along with societal behavior, determine what is considered "moral" for television. If the majority of society agrees with you, the free market will show this belief in TV ratings and show cancellations.

Sound good?

As a side note: I think the Walmart $0.99 bin, full of Kirk Cameron movies, is a good indicator of what society as a whole wants... or does not want, in this case.

The FCC is a complete violation of the Constitution of the United States.

America has evolved into a sick culture where the human body is *dirty* but watching 13 camp counselors get hacked to death is good clean family fun. Violence is the real pornography.

A woman dancing in the nude or two people having sex is evil, but two men beating the @!$%# and blood out of each other for money.....is entertainment and a sport?

America is a diseased society and it started when those christians were burning witches.

It seems the FCC in its attempt to sanitize an otherwise and increasingly vulgar society according to its own standards has been thwarted, for now.

It really amazes me just how immature our society is... and by that, I don't mean that all of the swearing and nudity is immature. I'm talking about the people who are getting all bent out of shape about it. Seriously, as far as profanity is concerned, I can't think of a more socially immature and assinine concept. Ooooh Bad Words! ... Pretty much all "bad words" are just synonyms for common everyday "non-bad" words.. so if the definition of the word is in itself not unnacceptable, then why is a specific word attached to the definition unnacceptable, especially when there are other words that mean the same exact thing that are acceptable? Does it make any sense? No.. it's just a stupid, socially immature concept that a word can be "bad"...

Then there's nudity.. it's only unnacceptable because people make a big deal out of it as well. My seven year old twins have seen breasts, they know what they are, they know what they're for, and guess what? They couldn't care less about them! Wow! What a Notion!!! Don't make a big deal about something being "BAD" and "DIRTY" and simply explain something logically to your kids, and they won't have any obsessive, destructive, traumatizing or deviant thoughts growing up. Who'd a'thunk it?!!

It all boils down to the reality of what's happening in this country. Our society is trying to grow up and mature, to shed the old silly ways of thinking based on ridiculous religious notions, but there is still a large enough, and vehemently vocal faction of our society that wants nothing to do with growing up. They still would prefer that EVERYONE conform to their out-dated mode of morality. They need to figure out and accept, that with every passing generation, their antiquated way of thinking is becoming more and more obsolete and there's NOTHING that can stop the progression, nor is there anything that will regress society back to their former comfort zone.

Long story short: It's mind over matter.. If you don't mind.. it don't matter. :)

pickford:: You said that nudity is nothing to be ashamed of? I hope you enjoy seeing wrinkled prunes walking down the street in front of your house! As I have heard, "with the girls heading south". Or some guys with tiny shrunk-up "family jewels" prancing around. I wonder if you would mind seeing a couple having sex in front of your house. After all, they would be nude and that's OK with you.

The Govt, and I know Romney will try IF elected, should just create one special channel....the Puritan Channel. Your children would be shielded from words used in REAL life, and gee willikers, whatever they do, they have hide it and to deny that people actually have body parts besides the usual arms and legs. It amazes me to no end how uptight people are. I guess they think they entered the world in a snug lil name brand baby thing. Oh....and the baby was found under a cabbage leaf too. Sure....go right ahead and shield, aka, dumb down your children. When they hit "grown up" age, I'm sure they'll feel really secure in that alien world you built for 'em. I'd like to hear a Mom tryin' to explain a pair of tits to her 17 year old son after he first saw some in a magazine his friend had, or why he had hair in places for the last few years where it used to not be, but he was too embarrassed to ask anybody and always skipped gym class. Yup....good parenting goes a long way. Watch what you think appropriate for your kids, but don't try to make 'em believe that the whole world is as wholesome as WonderBread, or that you're Ozzie and Harriet, that real people don't sometimes have a slip o' the tongue, or that adult body parts don't exist. Good ol' George Carlin(may he rest in peace) woulda had a blast with this story.

I have two children. It's really not that hard to control what they watch. All you have to do is pay attention. It's simple to use the internet to find out what kind of content one can expect from a TV show or movie. Parents need to stop being lazy and stop expecting someone else to do the work of parenting.

It's not the government's job and it's not the TV networks' job to shield my kids from things they aren't ready to see. That's MY job. That's a responsibility I accepted the moment my wife and I decided to have a child.

Gary420 & TXHorseman.........you hit the nail on the head! I have two little girls. I limit their tv viewing to no more than an hour a day, if that. It's not so much the the side boob shot, behind shot or cursing that bothers me so much.......it's the context in which it's used. I try to check the program ratings, a simple push of the info button on the remote typically gives the content rating without having to wait until a commercial. If something pops up on tv that was unexpected, it's not the end of the world & I explain what you see on tv is not real, they're actors and people don't or shouldn't act like that....out in public. However, that's changing......people are acting like that in public! A friend of mine took her 6 year old to her local park & there was a group of young teenage girls there, dressed like ho's, talking very loudly about her "sore pu$$y". I understand that my children will hear more in school than anywhere else.......It's my job to teach my children how to react to it...but it's very difficult to teach my children morals & values without keeping them locked in a box when "today's social norms are basically the social norms of adolescent males, not of adult human beings".

and we have the highest rates of rape and teen pregnancy despite the puritan nature of so many of our citizens...conservatives still think they can control the sexual habits of other humans..they keep trying

Maybe some day they'll figure out prohibition doesn't work.

Why a naked human body should be offensive in the first place has always puzzled me.

So it's legal from the FCC's perspective for me too see Denis Franz's fat hairy ass, but too show a woman's is offensive? And as far as vulgar language, words are not offensive unless you are a weak minded buffoon, or Republican, as they are just about the same.

The FCC is a Government office, and you still wonder why they do things?

Trust you sound like one of those weak-minded people in Oakland protesting in FAVOR of child sex trafficking.

Punk, what evidence do you have the Government could possibly figure that out?

The FCC,what a JOKE! Why don't they do something about TV ads being blasted into my home,oh wait they did,last December and said it had to stop by this December,wow!

We aren't uncomfortable with nudity. Only the weirdo far right cultist are.

Was her rear end worth looking at. Seriously though, parents shouldn't to worry about their children hearing and seeing things they don't want them to on television broadcasts over the airways. But, most of the people I know have satelite, or cable coming into their house, which puts almost anything on their screens. I thinks it's worse for the children to see MMA fighting than to see a womans fully nude body, which isn't what happened here, or to hear words they will hear if they ever do anything besides going to church and praying. But, what the court actually decided, was that since there was no previous warnings to the two networks, the punishment wasn't warranted. I do know some people who don't even have television, because they don't want their children watching anything they have't checked out first.

AG99 - Because if a teenage boy sees a naked body on TV they will immediately be compelled to seek out a teenage girl and have sex.

So you are saying that teenage boys don't chase girls unless they see nudity on TV?!

Jeff and the far left is in FAVOR of child sex trafficking.

Also the FCC isn't a conservative agency, it is a Government agency and the left and dems want more Government so blaming the FCC on the Repubs is kind of moronic wouldn't you say?

Why a naked human body should be offensive in the first place has always puzzled me

Depends on the body............I have seen plenty that are offensive.

In America people go into raging hysterics over nudity and yet are proud about invading other countries and killing other people.

The other countries that are so vociferous in their love of murder and fear of love and tenderness are the radical Muslim regimes Americans feel so justified in destroying.

In psychology this phenomenon is called transference. Whereas you find someone else with your same traits and attempt to destroy them in hopes it somehow cleanses you of the same faults or "sins". This is the most common motivation among gay-bashers, who are frequently closet cases filled with self-loathing.

When I was in Germany in the 80's I walked into Sears and saw a tanning bed for sale...the picture on the box was a fully nude woman (frontal picture). Nobody gave it a second look and the teenage boys were not jumping on the teenage girls. In fact, nobody seemed to care at all.

tom plymouth, how do you make the mental leap from accepting nudity as normal and human to child trafficking? i don't know what to say that wouldn't be insulting to you? i just can't understand why anyone who doesn't agree with your tight anal ideas of morality is somehow evil and wants children to be exploited! i happen to be very liberal and PROUD OF IT! yeah!!!! i'm a liberal!!!!! i vote democrat! i love trees and the environment and animals! i love God! whoops. i'm not supposed to say that, right? are liberals required to be atheists in your world? i love children to be innocent as long as possible, to shield them from the evil in the world as long as possible. i would shield my children from violence before i would shield them from a naked body. but....but....i must be a commie, socialist because i would rather i child see a naked body than someone getting his brains blown out by someone with a gun! i don't own a gun...maybe i should be deported.

flynn, doing some painting with a broad brush are we?

Why is it that we are one of the only countries that are so touchy about nudity. Most of the world is much more open about it and we are and don't see it as a problem.

Simple: we got the puritans and the rest of the world got the criminals (old Aussie song). Don't believe me? Scroll up a page or two and you'll see church lady telling you how we are a christian country.

alessa - The liberal occupy protesters in Oakland protested in FAVOR of child sex trafficking, just yesterday.

I was commenting on Jeff's post "Only the weirdo far right cultist are."

He made that leap that only the weirdo's are uncomfortable with nudity, so I made an extreme leap the opposite way.

i just can't understand why anyone who doesn't agree with your liberal ideas are some how evil.

HAHA...protesting in favor of child sex trafficking....the saddest thing about this is that you probably actually believe the nonsense coming out of your fingers as you type it.

Tom - Plymouth

"Jeff and the far left is in FAVOR of child sex trafficking.

Also the FCC isn't a conservative agency, it is a Government agency and the left and dems want more Government so blaming the FCC on the Repubs is kind of moronic wouldn't you say?"

Really Tom? That's a pretty rediculous thing to say the far left is in favor of.

The FCC is a Government agency, but it's the conservatives and republicans that are asking for more government here. YOUonly want more government when you're out to control someone else or take away someone else's rights.

Child sex traffickers, that is a Republican problem, think it isn't?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n2-DgwOLBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3IsCPOADc4

Thanks Tom-Plymouth for your reply to zflynn. There is a lot of unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric here, which is only slightly on the margin of the topic of the story the posts were originally about. That said, the FCC is a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy whose unpublicized assaults on small station "mom & pop" broadcasters goes unnoticed, while they wring their hands over the community's and their ever evolving standards of permissable or punishable content on network television. We could probably keep the interest rates for student loans low if Congress would cut some of the excesses of the FCC's spending. I have no idea what to call myself as far as "political labels" go, but I do think waste is waste--whether you're conservative or liberal, whether you favor less government or more government--they could find a LOT of money by shaving off some of the excess going on in their own pet areas.

A lot of us can get wound up about subjects we hold a strong opinion/belief about--but name-calling and juvenile insults aren't supposed to be part of our argument. Our disagreements are supposed to be respectful in nature. Otherwise, we'll disintegrate into one of those countries whose congressional equivalents settle their disputes by throwing chairs at each other!

Well, obviously the liberals want to start with not being a prude about nudity but then it just turns into gay marriage and then marriage to dogs and then leprechauns marrying bigfoots! Where will this madness end you insane pedophile necrophiliacs!?

*end rampant sarcasm*

That's how socialist right wingers sound.

In other countries nudity=without clothing

In the US, nudity=bad/sexual (sexual also =bad)

Michigan, "YOUonly want more government when you're out to control someone else or take away someone else's rights."

let me make this clear I don't want anymore government anywhere so the "YOU" isn't needed.

DOE should go, EPA should go, FCC should go, Federal Marriage should go so don't say I want the Government to take anybody's right away.

When the libs align themselves with "Occupy" I do get say they are in favor of child sex trafficking.

Google this and tell me it isn't true

oakland protesters child sex trafficking

as somebody that's been around quite awhile I would like to make an observation. a lot of people on this board are saying it's no big deal, or don't we have enough real problems to deal with. little problems have a way of escalating and becoming bigger problems, someone comes along and pushes the envelope on a topic, then someone comes along and pushes it a little farther, and so on and on it goes, until somewhere down the road it evolves into something unrecognizable from where it all started. just some food for thought

@ Tom - Plymouth, No I personally don't think most sex offenders can be rehabed and think they should be shot if they even live to make it too court. But in the same breath, I don't think someone pissing in public should be charged with a sex crime.

gtouch:: I can picture somebody getting his kicks out of seeing a bunch of wrinkled prunes with their "girls" heading south (like around their stomach).

Well why should the government be the parent. I am tired of parents not taking responsibility for what their children should or shouldn't do. Maybe you shouldn't of had children if you don't have time to parent. It's not societies job to be forced to do this for you.

A teacher,

Though I understand that you don't have time for "parenting" your children while they are in front of the television. Instead of infringing upon all of us adults that have the "gall" to remove the televisions from our homes and make time for "parenting", try removing the television from your children's lives instead.

If course, if you don't have time to parent your children, why did you have them in the first place? Are you seriously expecting your television to help you do that? . . . I feel sorry for the children in your class.

I don't know why you would feel sorry for my kids. They all grasp sarcasm.

My goodness, Teacher! The sarcasm was lost on some!

A teacher -

I appreciated the sarcasm.

Yeah, Missed the Sarcasm Guy has missed the sarcasm.

@ Eric and Just wondering

I think the OP was being sarcastic...........maybe.

Just Wondering Aloud - Apparently you are not familiar with the term sarcasm.

Zing...right over their heads...LOL

Well, Excuse me the F--- out of me for missing the sarcasm. Sheesh! Let's face it, there are a LOT of people that DO think this way. Next time, try putting in a little bit of sarcasm text. A smiley face maybe?

Now see this is a prime example as to why the government needs to regulate what people see on tv.. It appears that quite a few people are of such low intelligence that they take everything they see literally..

Imagine if these people were to see nudity or hear bad words on tv, they would probably assume that is what should be done in all situations and will start runnnig around naked in public spewing obscenities.

The majority of humans are just too stupid to be left to act on their own devices, they must be constantly coached, poked and prodded along like cattle or else they will wander off and walk off a clliff or eat broken glass because it is shiny.

To "Just Wondering Aloud" and "Eric..": Duh. "Teacher" wrote the comment tongue in cheek. He/she was being sarcastic. Get a clue...

Just Wondering Aloud - Now you've done it. I'm reporting you to the FCC for dropping the F-bomb on a public site. :)

Wow some people need to lighten up! Funny comment "teacher"! To the other two my comment is NOT sarcastic!

I'll second Joe's zing. Come on just wondering are you serious, you to eric? I read this and immediately knew it was sarcasm, if not I'd at least talior my post to ask the question or something. Yeah the proper tag helps but is it that hard to pick up? You guys need to relax.

But more to the original point, yes what a scary thought, some parents might have to do just that, be a parent?!? I think there need to be some rules in place for profanity and nudity; at certain times, maybe, but at least on certain channels, and that the networks would be wise to do so but we have to remember all the other forms of exposure our kids get or can have access to. So in the end, try being a parent first, don't rely on the government to do what you should be doing, and FCC stop trying to tell us what is good and bad for us and extend your control. Scary to think that appointed, not elected, bodies like the FCC sure have a lot of control.

It is time

It seemed obvious to me that teacher was being sarcastic......

NYPD knew what they were doing. This is stupid! Man Up! You break a rule, pay the consequence. Quit cryin about it!

Tammie is right. We should always blindly follow every rule, and never question authority, its intentions, or where its loyalties lie. It (authority) always has our best interests in mind.

:) <----- that means I'm being sarcastic

Sometimes I think there should be a sarcasm font. But then I think, if you're too slow to pick up on sarcasm, you probably aren't going to contribute anything meaningful to the conversation anyway, so we should at least get the chance to point and laugh when you post something dumb in response to sarcasm.

If you can't control what your child watches by password protecting your cable/dish so they can only watch Disney channels, get a freaking babysitter.

We really need more government to regulate this nudity thing on tv and we should add that we need more government to regulate sarcasm in comments about this nudity thing too! Hope there are enough lawyers and judges because I hate waiting 8-9 years to know. Oh ... I think I broke a nail ....

Tammy: If you expect a child to be sitting while they were playing NYPD Blue, then you have a problem. You as a parent knew before hand the type of theme that show would portray, and having a child in front of the TV to watch is your responsibility as a parent. If you are expecting that type of show to behave like Sesame Street, then you are too naive. I used to live in South America, and I remember that at 10:00 pm they would put a disclaimer on TV (All channels): "This is the end of the minor's protection schedule. Minors remaining in front of the TV is entirely due to their paents discretion and responsibility." And after that, the programs will contain nudity, foul language, etc. Do it before 10 and they will fine you.

I noticed that too. Kinda depressing.

cherub: Take heart, the Amtrak train that left Philly in 1897 is due into New York any day now. Ahead of schedule too!!

Take heart, the Amtrak train that left Philly in 1897 is due into New York any day now.

Is it carrying Ron Paul?

BAM!

Ruken, I like Ron Paul and that funny.

Network TV presumably should be for general audiences. If they are showing nudity or crude language, they should issue warnings ahead of time. Especially during "Prime Time" viewing when many kids might be watching.

As for the cable channels, that's where parents need to be aware of the type of programming and what they will and will not allow their kids to watch. The FCC sets the ground rules for what can/cannot be shown. It's up to the networks to live within those guidelines.

Janine, you do realize that they broadcast a little white box in the top left hand corner of your TV screen as a program starts warning you and anyone else watching the content that will be displayed in said program, right?

But (a teacher) said has no time to be with children with remote in hand or, apparently, even teach them to defend themselves with it, either ... What a total screwball ...

Eagle,PAY attention "a teacher"was being sarcastic,get a life,settle down,and go stick your head back in the sand!

Yes - because that's the Christian way.

You can kill all of your enemies is vicious and bloody ways but don't sleep with them....that's just disgusting!

Give it a rest Steve-o....you're anti religion...good for you..... ~yawn~

Maybe someone will make a movie where they blow up a naked butt... would that offend less people? ...

2Wylde4U - if religion is there to help, why is there no question and answer period during church? Why are they so afraid of thinkers?

Why is the bible full of violent ways to take revenge or dispatch your enemies but so lacking in how to make friends?

Why is it that Christians always quote the Old Testament when Jesus said to forget about those ways and to love thy neighbor?

Steve-2570999-Why is it that Christians always quote the Old Testament when Jesus said to forget about those ways and to love thy neighbor?

Steve- real Christians do focus on Jesus' teachings- we just don't go around screaming it in people's faces so we're not quite as obvious as the nuts :)

btw- many churches have some sort of bible study- that's where they hide the Q n A sessions

Many people are dropping cable and going to over the air tv to save money.

Must have something to do with cable entertainment not being worth what they are charging ... do you think?

The alternative might be there are not enough perverts to support reruns on cable adult entertainment ... LOL ...

Nah, there are plenty of perverts. Porn is a $12B industry in the US. And guess which states consume the most. Yep, red states - and some of them are right at the buckle of the bible belt. 1 to 10 below:

Utah
Florida
Alaska
Mississippi
Hawaii
West Virginia
Arkansas
Oklahoma
North Dakota
Maine

* people.hbs.edu/bedelman/papers/redlightstates.pdf

What? My state didn't make the list? I guess I'm going to have to try harder, I must not be keeping up my end. :)

I've been cable-free for years. Missed a few channels for a while, but nothing worth the price they were charging.

I get over the air TV - that being said, I could care less what's on it. If it's a good show, I watch it, if it's not I don't. If it offends me, I change the channel or watch something else.

I don't know why you would feel sorry for my kids. They all grasp sarcasm.

-

--

@ Just, I believe Teacher was being sarcastic...just a thought :)

...does FOX even HAVE any shows that could be considered "Appropriate" for younger viewers?!?

LoneStarKC: Of course... FOX Sports...

free to those who can afford it

America has never been a free country. It is a country made up of laws. Some good laws some bad each person can decide on that. And if you follow those laws you are allowed certain "freedoms". A totally free country in anarchy.

@ rich - That's about it. I wonder if any of these guys have ever noticed that the restrictions proposed and sometimes enacted by the GOPiggies never affect the wealthy.

Pretty sure the FCC cannot jail you, just fine you or take away broadcasting rights.

yeah, but it makes a nice rhyme.

No ... We only end up paying for the mess you let grow up without respect for others by supporting them in jail for half their lives because most of you "parents" were not careful enough with you relatioship skills in the beginning of your wasted lives ... There are two full generations out there right now without a clue ... Thank you for your malcontent offspring ...

@ eaglet - What do you know about Eric or his kids? So let me ask: how old are you? What went so incredibly wrong with your generation that it produced someone as brain-dead-stupid and bigoted as you?

God get's blamed for everything. Even Adam blamed God for his apple eating. "It was the woman who YOU gave to me. She offered me the fruit and I did eat." Adam was just a victem of circumstances.

"So. Adam. What's with the fig leaf?"

"God, I'm naked, I can't appear naked in public."

"You had some apple, didn't you..you and your little girl friend."

"Maybe..."

"Well. I made humans complete with curiosity, free will and intelligence (some, anyway) and as a result of using your gifts, you are banned from Eden. Heh. How's THEM apples?"

Yeah it's to bad the couple made the wrong choice. We wouldn't be living in this hell whole we call earth! The whole story of the Garden was to create humans so that they would have a free will. Obey God who obviuosly knows what is best for all mankind or be as gods knowing good and evil (Free Masons, New Age, Agnostics). Look around you. See what the "Do what feels good" philosophy has created!!!!

Wow. I was indulging in what I thought was comic dialogue. I find it amazing that god, who is omniscient and therefore should have forseen this, framed Eve and punished his creation and their descendants forever because they were curious. And really, there was no such, thing, this is a bible story, not an historical fact. And honey, I look around me and life is good. So sorry that you consider earth hell...not very complimentary of your deity and his hard work, now, is it...

Why blame it on the apple? Don't the book said that he could eat from the forbidden fruit? For that matter it could have been a watermelon, hence all the mess we're into because of that.

No one knows where the whole "apple" theory came from - it was never named. If you happen to find a better translation of the Big Idiotic Book of Lies for Everyone you will find this "fruit" properly named as "The fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil".

As far as I know, neither fossil record nor genetic research has ever turned up such a plant on this planet.

They did that once on "Family Guy" see what happen to the dad Peter...LOL!

Are we sure they are not a "for profit" organization ? ...

because a woman's behind is sooooooo offensive....

and at a live music award show anything can happen and we all know that. if you don't like it, change the channel.

My good man, you have missed the point. Their rights are in the 6% of the constitution that they understand and are therefore inviolable. Your rights are in the 90+% that they do not understand and therefore do not exist.

Boy are you stupid, Obama care is at least something. I guess you would love to get sick and then find out your insurance company owns you. Perhaps canciling your policy altogether so the health care system can bankrupt you. Maybe you better do some research before you condemn America to bad, or no health care.

Beangrinder, you should be called axgrinder. Can't you leave this alone for a New York minute? Geez, this article has nothing to do with Obamacare, unless you get the crap beaten out of you by someone sick and tired of your endless political rants.

Yeah Beangrinder, since the US health care system is only ranked 37th in the world after Costa Rica, we should work on making it even worse.

Maybe if Romney gets elected he can get us down there below the Sudan, at number 134. I think that would work fine for the Family Values Republicans.

I think that would work fine for the Family Values Republicans.

The only a republican values is cash.

How did so many Americans become so stupid? 50% of the republikkkan party is voting themselves into permanent poor health care and sub-par incomes. I've noticed that a lot of them, like beanguy, have these super-masculine-menial type icons for their screen names, but that may not have anything to do with it. I'm beginning to think it has to do with mental disease, specifically, of the sort Freud referred to as hysteria. In their case, it's religious hysteria, racial hysteria, pee-pee replacement gun-nut hysteria, and it seems in Romney's latest speeches about being super-masculine-menial tough on the Chinese, a sort of generalized xenophobic hysteria.

The first three are confirmed, irrefutable truths. That last is not yet confirmed.