I had previously only seen this video in snippets until this morning, when I saw the whole thing on the cable network MTV Hits. I remember there being a lot of controversy about it and how it was banned but I was thinking that I was about to watch a "clean version" of the video. To my surprise I saw a nude pair of women's breasts for a couple of seconds.
Now, I'm not outraged or hyper-sexual about this, but I am wondering how it was allowed to be shown. I remember it being pretty controversial for the nudity and some homosexual kissing (among other themes). Are executives a little more relaxed?
Shows like "The Shield" toss around some pretty mature themes but the most I have seen as far as nudity goes is a rear end. I've also caught a Wanda Sykes special on Comedy Central where she said the f-word more times than I could count.
Does anyone know how stuff like this is allowed to be broadcast? Again, I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but I am shocked that it made it on television.
Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight JoggerI had previously only seen this video in snippets until this morning, when I saw the whole thing on the cable network MTV Hits. I remember there being a lot of controversy about it and how it was banned but I was thinking that I was about to watch a "clean version" of the video. To my surprise I saw a nude pair of women's breasts for a couple of seconds.
Now, I'm not outraged or hyper-sexual about this, but I am wondering how it was allowed to be shown. I remember it being pretty controversial for the nudity and some homosexual kissing (among other themes). Are executives a little more relaxed?
Shows like "The Shield" toss around some pretty mature themes but the most I have seen as far as nudity goes is a rear end. I've also caught a Wanda Sykes special on Comedy Central where she said the f-word more times than I could count.
Does anyone know how stuff like this is allowed to be broadcast? Again, I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but I am shocked that it made it on television.
It's cable. FCC has no real jurisdiction there (though there have been rumblings about trying to change the rules to allow them to regulate content there). The only reason things get banned there is because of internal S&P.
Ironically it made it's debut on national network, ABC. MTV was going to show it on the main channel when it was new but backed out. Nightline ended up doing a piece on it. The FCC only regulates up to 10P.M. It also allowed NBC to show Schindler's List in prime time but that was before Janet Jackson showed how deadly nipples (women's only) are.
This reminds me of an idea I had whereby a basic cable channel (or in a few years even a broadcast channel; see next paragraph) devoted entirely to airing pornography. Currently, it would lead to either the FCC taking over (Congress would quickly pass a law allowing the FCC to act), or public outcry leading every cable company to drop it from their channels. If one could somehow guarantee that every TV had a V-Chip in it (required in new TVs and cable boxes since 2001), then it seems like you might be safe.
In 2009, when we are supposed to reach analog shut-off, in order to receive an over-the-air television signal you will either need a TV with a digital tuner built in, or have a converter box that has a digital tuner. Either way, both the TV and the converter box are new enough that they have the V-Chip built in. At that point, one could argue that the responsibility for keeping inappropriate content from minors (or other delicate individuals) no longer falls on the broadcasters (as long as they give the show the proper TV-MA rating), but to the individual parents. It's not the broadcasters fault if the parent chooses not to take advantage of the devices that are available to them (in fact, one could argue that the parent could be sued for contributing to the delinquency of a minor in this case). Voila, free (ad supported) broadcast pornography.
Boffo, ad support is the exact reason a pornography channel could never exist. There are no advertisers, to my knowledge, that would or could pay the ad prices necessary to make a profit that would also advertise during pornography. The whole enterprise would go bust, maybe before it even got out of the planning stage. The revenue just isn't there. You could argue that other pornographers might pay the ad costs, but if they are successful now it would honestly be foolish for them to spend any further capital on getting their names out.
Originally posted by Tenken347Boffo, ad support is the exact reason a pornography channel could never exist. There are no advertisers, to my knowledge, that would or could pay the ad prices necessary to make a profit that would also advertise during pornography. The whole enterprise would go bust, maybe before it even got out of the planning stage. The revenue just isn't there. You could argue that other pornographers might pay the ad costs, but if they are successful now it would honestly be foolish for them to spend any further capital on getting their names out.
An upstart national beer company could make a fortune sponsoring pornography.
Originally posted by edougIronically it made it's debut on national network, ABC. MTV was going to show it on the main channel when it was new but backed out. Nightline ended up doing a piece on it. The FCC only regulates up to 10P.M. It also allowed NBC to show Schindler's List in prime time but that was before Janet Jackson showed how deadly nipples (women's only) are.
(edited by edoug on 5.3.07 2220)
Didn't ABC show 'Saving Private Ryan' uncut shortly after the JJ nipple escapade? I believe some of the locals that carry ABC were so scared of the FCC and backlash that they showed something else. Somehow we all managed to survive that.
Originally posted by edougIronically it made it's debut on national network, ABC. MTV was going to show it on the main channel when it was new but backed out. Nightline ended up doing a piece on it. The FCC only regulates up to 10P.M. It also allowed NBC to show Schindler's List in prime time but that was before Janet Jackson showed how deadly nipples (women's only) are.
(edited by edoug on 5.3.07 2220)
Didn't ABC show 'Saving Private Ryan' uncut shortly after the JJ nipple escapade? I believe some of the locals that carry ABC were so scared of the FCC and backlash that they showed something else. Somehow we all managed to survive that.
The FCC always rules in favor of Saving Private Ryan because the violence and language fall into the context of war and are therefore necessary to the story and are not "obscene."
I've always hoped someone would do something like Mr. Boffo suggested because one could argue (which would be futile) that because sex is in the context of a porno, it shouldn't be obscene.
There was a recent case about obscenity here in the county where I live. Women in a local Starbucks who were breast-feeding were order by the staff to cover-up, go to the bathroom, or leave when they breast-feed. They protested and staged a "breast-in."
The county government stepped in and ruled that as long as the bare breast is used for feeding, the bare breast is not obscene because it "is doing what the organ is designed to do."
Using that logic, public heterosexual sex should be legal since the sexual organs are doing what they are designed to do too. But I digress...
Obscenity laws always give me a headache, but that might be because I'm not smart enough to keep all the various standards, First Amendment defenses, and whatnot clear in my mind.
As far as a broadcast porno channel, I think it COULD find sufficient ad support. An upstart beer company, as someone suggested before, could do well. There are also plenty of other national entities that wouldn't mind being associated with porn. Plus I'm sure there are some big time porn sites that currently advertise only through word-of-mouth or link exchanges that could benefit from national television exposure.
Having said that, I don't think it would be that hard for Congress to enable the FCC to quickly shutdown what would essentially be an all-obscenity-all-the-time network. Even if you could guarantee that every television set contained a V-Chip, it seems like this country would prefer to have the government police things like that instead of leaving it up to each individual parent to do so. Anyway, like I said, I'm not always very clear on obscenity laws, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.
Originally posted by Tenken347Boffo, ad support is the exact reason a pornography channel could never exist. There are no advertisers, to my knowledge, that would or could pay the ad prices necessary to make a profit that would also advertise during pornography. The whole enterprise would go bust, maybe before it even got out of the planning stage. The revenue just isn't there. You could argue that other pornographers might pay the ad costs, but if they are successful now it would honestly be foolish for them to spend any further capital on getting their names out.
An upstart national beer company could make a fortune sponsoring pornography.
Ah, but could an upstart company (which would mean a new company with limited financial support from investors, rather than a more flexible, sustained income from the sale of their product) be able to afford the premium ad rates that a cable network would need to charge to stay profitable? And even if they could, how could one company buy enough ad time to keep the network solvent? You'd need dozens of companies with not only the requisite financial means to buy ad time, but also of the social standing (such as your beer company) that the sale of their products would not be negatively impacted by association with pornography.
I'm not saying you wouldn't be able to find any advertisers, after all someone will advertise during just about any kind of programming. But you'd never be able to find enough advertisers who would pay the necessary rates to make this possible.
I'm sure there is at least one nationally distributed beer brand that would take a shot at this. Look at who advertised during Howard Stern on E. Spike has ads running during their "10 seconds of a hot chick" spots.
Hell, how about Trojan, Bodog.net, "local" spots (which would be the datelines, strip clubs, escorts)
We had a show on cable in San Diego which was basically just the chicks from an escort service. This was back in 1994 or so. The whole premise was that these girls, on TV, right now - could be at your event or house. They weren't nude, though.
Public access TV has shown pornography before.
I don't think it will happen but I don't think it is because of a lack of potential sponsors. I don't think any station wants to rock the boat that hard and potentially get the unwritten rules written down, and in a manner that might be more restrictive.
As long as the unwritten rules are not written, you can push the envelope little by little. Force them to codify everything and you create additional liability for yourself.
Let me just say that this is going to be my last post in the thread, because this is turning into a one-on-one debate and I know you guys don't like that. Let me also say that I totally agree with your other points concerning codification and rocking the boat. But I just do not think that you could get the kind of high profile sponsors you'd need to run a profitable network. Escorts and phone sex, absolutely. Maybe even one or two real, actual corporate entities? Sure, I could see that happening. But enough advertisers to pay for a 24-hour network? No way. For the current analogies that you give, you have advertisers buying time in a hour or half-hour block, not for a complete broadcast day. Even the companies you list as being potentially receptive toward advertising during porn might actually be hesitant to associate themselves with pornography. Weird as it sounds, I remember back when some of the larger porn companies started using condoms, there were a few condom companies (and I don't remember which ones) that asked that their product logos not be visible in any of the shoots.
Originally posted by ZeruelI've always hoped someone would do something like Mr. Boffo suggested because one could argue (which would be futile) that because sex is in the context of a porno, it shouldn't be obscene.
With the FCC, there's the added label of indecency, which muddies the waters a bit. That's usually where the FCC fines occur.
If an ad-based porno cable network were to start, then I think the FCC would immediately take steps to regulate cable content. That's assuming any of the major cable providers would carry it to begin with.
"Oh my God! They have a shit-load of Cockapoo stuff!" -Jennifer's greatest quote... ever.
I had a media professor that claimed there was a broadcast channel out west (Oregon, I think he said) somewhere that showed porn fairly regularly. As the station was in the middle of nowhere and had a very small range, it reached few people, and none of them ever complained to the FCC, so nothing was ever done.
I don't know if it was true or not, but it was a good story.
Originally posted by ZeruelI've always hoped someone would do something like Mr. Boffo suggested because one could argue (which would be futile) that because sex is in the context of a porno, it shouldn't be obscene.
With the FCC, there's the added label of indecency, which muddies the waters a bit. That's usually where the FCC fines occur.
If an ad-based porno cable network were to start, then I think the FCC would immediately take steps to regulate cable content. That's assuming any of the major cable providers would carry it to begin with.
I don't even think in this case that indecency would be an issue, the bigger point is that you'd be asking the cable companies to place a non-pay-per-view 24 hour a day adult channel on. With the explosion of digital cable and 1000-channel lineups, there is a channel for everything under the sun, and even they still observe some sort of watershed hour for airing material that may be considered explicit in any way.
Carriage is the issue, and if Time Warner can't reach an agreement with the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, it would be incredibly easy to kill this project dead and cover any talks of collusion by pricing this channel out of existence hours after any announcement.
For reasons of creative incompetence, this space will be left blank. Advertising opportunities are avaliable though!!! Contact (Number removed due to pending litigation) for details!
Originally posted by kwikI don't even think in this case that indecency would be an issue, the bigger point is that you'd be asking the cable companies to place a non-pay-per-view 24 hour a day adult channel on. With the explosion of digital cable and 1000-channel lineups, there is a channel for everything under the sun, and even they still observe some sort of watershed hour for airing material that may be considered explicit in any way.
Carriage is the issue, and if Time Warner can't reach an agreement with the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, it would be incredibly easy to kill this project dead and cover any talks of collusion by pricing this channel out of existence hours after any announcement.
I agree with your statements on carriage. That's always an issue with cable stations. Does it make a difference if we change our scenario such that it is a normal male-oriented station during the day (like Spike TV) and then at night becomes, I don't know, "Spike Late Night", like they do on Nickelodeon, Noggin, and Cartoon Network?
I agree with your statements on carriage. That's always an issue with cable stations. Does it make a difference if we change our scenario such that it is a normal male-oriented station during the day (like Spike TV) and then at night becomes, I don't know, "Spike Late Night", like they do on Nickelodeon, Noggin, and Cartoon Network?
Well, Comedy Central already does something like this with their "Secret Stash" late-night Saturdays (really, early Sunday morning), though they still apparently censor nudity.
It would probably be an easier step to just show R-moives fully uncut, rather than a direct jump to hardcore porn
Bottom line to me is that if HBO won't even show softcore porn before 10pm, the liklihood of a basic-cable entity being all-adult, all-day is probably slim to none
For reasons of creative incompetence, this space will be left blank. Advertising opportunities are avaliable though!!! Contact (Number removed due to pending litigation) for details!
I was waiting for someone else old to do this, but...
The whole video was broadcast on ABC, Nightline I believe, not long after the video came out. Madonna was also interviewed on the program.
As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005 OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005 As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight" As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds
As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004 OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005 OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005 OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005 As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight" As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds