My kids like the show the television show “Wipeout.” You know, it’s the one where regular people bounce, jump and duck their way through an obstacle course over a pool. There’s a lot of people getting bonked, boofed, and bammed into the mud or a pool or just plain ol’ goo. Essentially it’s like all the good parts of American’s Funniest Home Videos put together in one show. So we’re watching it last night and while the show itself was fine the commercials for other shows on ABC were so offensive that I took to turning the sound off during commercials.
One commercial fooled me. They typed out the words “We slept with each other prom night, meet your son” or something like it and showed a picture of a young woman with a baby. I can’t imagine how many parents grimaced during that commercial. It’s really gotten to the point where you can’t trust tv at all during even the 8 o’clock hour. I know it’s probably been like that for a while but I’m just discovering it now because my children are now old enough to stay up past 8 o’clock.
Now, this week a ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City decided that all the rules against expletives on television should be overturned. Yup. So, technically right now network shows can say anything they want.
On July 12, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City warmly offered the TV networks exactly what they wanted: the shredding of the FCC’s lamely enforced rules against broadcast indecency. As of now, the network stars can swear at will in front of impressionable children. These judges did not rule narrowly on the focus of the case — “fleeting expletives” that networks aired unintentionally. They ruled broadly in favor of all expletives.
There’s no other way to say this. The ruling is idiocy.
Read the rest of Brent Bozell’s excellent column on this ruling. If you have a television this affects you.
July 16, 2010 at 5:09 pm
My kids L.O.V.E. that show too, especially the 4 year old boy. We send the kids out of the room during commercials and call them back when the show returns.
I agree, New York City's Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is absolutely moronic!
July 16, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Matt, how are you any different than a liberal who wants the government to do everything for him? The liberals want the government to ban smoking in bars. You want the government to ban swearing on TV. That makes you a statist.
Second, just shut off the TV. Or, DVR what you want to watch, and fast forward the commercials.
This is a stupid thing to complain about. We can't fight big government when we're asking for more regulation.
July 16, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I have to agree with Ryan. The first amendment doesn't say "The right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed unless children can hear it." I'm against profanity on network TV shows but I don't want the government censoring the airwaves.
July 16, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Guys, you forgot to add "Ron Paul for President"
I can't speak for Matt, but we are not Libertarians here.
July 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Neither am I. I'm a Constitutionalist.
July 16, 2010 at 5:58 pm
All this means is I will watch less TV. I record most shows anyway (which isn't a whole lot), and I barely watch ANY network TV nowadays. Heck, my sister and her husband cancelled their DirecTV altogether and they watch TV rarely…
July 16, 2010 at 6:26 pm
When it comes to free TV with antennas (etc), the appropriate legal protections of the public (esp. children) are sort of the same as public displays. Public displays can't be indecent (words/images). I believe that displays such as billboards are regulated by States (are displayed only in their State border) whereas TV is nationally broadcast (across State lines). The FCC has juristiction over public airways (TV radio) as States have juristiction over billboards. So, the FCC ligitimately has a say in regulating public indecent words/images.
Regarding pay to view options such as DirecTV or cable, since they're not public displays (one must pay to gain access), the FCC doesn't regulate them per 14th Amendment privacy guarantees.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (esp. on the law part). Thanks.
Gerry
July 16, 2010 at 6:41 pm
@Gerry, if you want to have a fight over rabbit ears TV regulation, fine. But this isn't 1985. Everyone who has TV has cable or a dish. The broadcast spectrum isn't even analog-accessible anymore.
@Patrick, I am not a libertarian, nor a Ron Paul supporter. Like @P. Button, I believe in a Constitutionally-limited government. I also believe in a little thing you might have heard of called the principle of subsidiarity.
July 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm
I trust I'll shock all the regular commenters by saying I'm a huge Wipeout fan.
As for Constitutionalism vs. Republicanism… it's Friday. I got nothin'
July 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I agree with Ryan. I have not owned a TV in years and all this news makes me less interested in owning one. I also don't have children, if I did I might own one to play videos on and nothing else.
The reason why these people keep making it worse is because we continue to BUY it.
July 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Netflix instant watch. No commercials, ever.
July 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm
"Guys, you forgot to add "Ron Paul for President"
I can't speak for Matt, but we are not Libertarians here."
WOOT! (Guy has no clue when it come to foreign and security policy. But watch it – he's about to have a huge impact on the next Pres. race.))
Wipeout: Awesome! My wife and I try to watch it, but the kids are asleep. We censor it anyway by muting the commercials and talking to each other in between.. I have been doing this for so long with T.V. that I always know when to turn around and unmute it – like to the second.
Christina: there is still a lot of programming on T.V. that is well worth watching. Even if it is mostly shows about wild animals.
July 16, 2010 at 8:42 pm
One can be a constitutionalist and still not think that the first amendment was written to ensure that cussing be allowed via public airwaves. That said, I think the practical result of this ruling will be minimal. I don't really see networks rushing to increase the amount of swearing on their nightly programs.
On a somewhat side note, has anybody seen the ABC "Family" Channel lately? Talk about a misleading name for a network.
July 16, 2010 at 8:51 pm
I appreciate Paul Zummo's view. I am no constitutional scholar, I just hate to see the government meddle with things.
July 16, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Jimbo, those wild animal shows almost always have the obligatory "these cute critters are almost extent now because of the virus called man".
I actually end up watching a lot of TV since people are constantly talking about the "must see show of the week". I even watched a couple episodes of lost (although I'm glad I didn't waste more time on it given the finale).
As far as this ruling, I'm more surprised the gov didn't rule in favor of restricting "offending" speech. Although I suppose they didn't because there isn't much that is not already under their quiet control.
July 16, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Christina:
You wrote, "…those wild animal shows almost always have the obligatory "these cute critters are almost extent now because of the virus called man".
Totally correct. But I just saw "Eye of the Leopard" the other day, and despite the final commentary about "man" at the end, I am glad I got to see a female leopard kill a baboon and then care for the baboon cub!
If I didn't talk to people I bump into because of their wacky views, I'd have very few people to talk to. My view is that we are in this world whether we like it or not, and while we must exercise prudence so as to not endanger ourselves, we shouldn't hide from the world but try to convert it. (Not saying you hide, but the TV thing is similar maybe?)
July 17, 2010 at 6:05 am
I'll add my $.02 to Mary Margaret's comment about Netflix Instant. LOVE. IT.
July 18, 2010 at 8:55 pm
"I know it's probably been like that for a while but I'm just discovering it now because my children are now old enough to stay up past 8 o'clock."
It's been like that since thirty years before you were born. You seem to have very little idea of what you are up against as a parent. Have you read "The Plug-in Drug" by Marie Winn, familarized yourself with the arguments of http://www.whitedot.org, read two or three issues of Variety, or read any of the professional magazines for the TV industry?
Why in the name of all that is holy would you place your children's minds at the disposal
of producers and advertisers who not only do not share your values, but who are hostile to them?
You write,
"One commercial fooled me. They typed out the words "We slept with each other prom night, meet your son" or something like it and showed a picture of a young woman with a baby. I can't imagine how many parents grimaced during that commercial."
There's a surprise, the television industry made an end run around the parent and lodged some filth in his child's mind. Are you KIDDING me??? I am 67. When I was a sophomore in high school (1959) I remember watching TV with my parents in the room and it was talking to me over their heads with double entendres and allusions that I understood and they did not. It was not the sort of stuff that lifts the mind and heart to God, either.
They've been walking down the morals of the country for over sixty years and you think maybe you can't trust them anymore?
Unfortunately I can't cite the source at this point, but about thirty years ago I delved into the industry literature, and came across one TV executive saying. "We're moving the country to the left at the rate of about 4% a year." He wasn't talking the political left, but the moral left. What a power trip it must be to be a TV executive.
To any parent, especially fathers I would say, TV in your home is going to end up making you look like a chump in the eyes of your children.
For one thing, in the face of what TV is throwing at your family, you must be the censor, often saying, "Don't watch this, don't watch that." But this will drive your children nuts, provoking resentment and rebellion.
(Throwing it out, on the other hand, is one draconian act that may provoke anger and dismay for a time, but in the end will give you the prayerful, peaceful and joyful home that you want)
On top of that, there is a steady stream of anti-father propaganda that you will not be able to explain away. It will shape your child's thinking about you to your great harm and that of your child.
What is TV going to do for you and your family? On balance, it is going to be a profoundly negative factor…without fail.
Either throw it out, or be subject to many, many unpleasant surprises in the future, and to the useless moral indignation that arises after the fact of your child's conscience being wounded, wounded in your presence.
July 19, 2010 at 4:24 pm
What's a TV?
My kids watch approved videos on the notebook computer, when we let them. They watch EWTN streamed to the desktop.
Of course, the oldest is just approaching 8, so…
July 21, 2010 at 9:19 am
Hosts make a fair amount of sexually inappropriate or at least awkward comments on Wipeout…they don't swear, but I'm not sure if I had kids if they'd be watching Wipeout, even though most of the innuendo would go over their heads.
As to the issue actually at hand, I'm nowhere near legally qualified to render a judgment.