subrosa stole my legal thunder, so i'll just comment that we are way too hung up about nudity in this country. maybe i'm just an amoral LA hedonist or maybe i've just worked for the naked ladeeez too long, but i think our national habit of freaking the fuck out over nip slips and such really can't be psychologically healthy. boobs not bombs. yeah.
Yet they don't mention the episode where avid Caruso's bare butt was flaunted across the screen, and that was a huge deal because it was supposedly 'the first bare butt on national tv'
Ekka said:
Yet they don't mention the episode where avid Caruso's bare butt was flaunted across the screen, and that was a huge deal because it was supposedly 'the first bare butt on national tv'
Wasn't there an episode of M*A*S*H towards the end of the series where you could see Radar's butt?
Even though it appears that this article is nearly two years old, I have to say it is absolutely absurd for the FCC to fine 1.4 million. I do wonder how a fine is configured.
Aside from the fines, from viewing the pictures, I can see how the FCC could fine the company. Sure it's a female buttock, but there is also a bit more shown; no genitalia, but the point is there are set rules to follow. They were broken, therefore the company will be fined.
I would have to say though the reason for the "disgust" that some viewers may have expressed is due to the fact that the view may depict arousal in certain people and there are those individuals who are appalled at such the sight, as well as anyone else who may have been watching it.
Another thing to mention, don't they broadcast viewer discretion messages indicating certain things may not be suitable for persons under a certain age?
In addition, let me highlight something that I find particularly ridiculous about this story: The episode aired in 2003. By charging the network such a high fine and bringing national (and international) coverage to the story, many more people are going to view the guilty body parts. I know I wouldn't have seen the t'n'a without hearing of the story. Then, let me ask the perpetual (and probably rhetorical) question, "Is this about money or principles?" Does the FCC really care about protecting the viewers (from the allegedly potential harms of viewing such flesh), or are the fines predominantly created for the purpose of generating revenue?
Not that I agree with the FCC's stance, but this is pretty standard lag time for administrative hearings of this scope. The Bono "fucking excellent" fleeting expletive case from 2002 just got resolved last year, for example.
Interesting. I'm not "hip" on the general trajectory of such things, but...if this is standard...that seems a fucked up standard. Bureaucratic nonsense?
Also, resolution differs from bringing up the fines in the first place, no?
Why would you write a news article without doing research about the topic?
And I don't understand your hook in the first couple of paragraphs - the FCC is saying the buttocks ARE a sexual organ; it's ABC who is saying the buttocks are non-sexual.
RileyStClair
Los Angeles, CA
September 2006
JAN 30, 2008 11:16 PM