The W
Views: 99836809
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.10.14 2344
The W - Movies & TV - Madonna video- Justify My Love
This thread has 28 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.83
Pages: 1
(3688 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Dexley's Midnight Jogger
Pepperoni
Moderator








Since: 10.10.02
From: New Hampshire

Since last post: 259 days
Last activity: 173 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.97
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.
Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by Dexley's Midnight Jogger
    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.

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.



I'm going bald to help kids with cancer! (stbaldricks.org)
edoug
Summer sausage








Since: 13.2.04
From: Maine

Since last post: 90 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.55
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.

(edited by edoug on 5.3.07 2220)


Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 448 days
Last activity: 409 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
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.




Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.65
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.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 14 min.
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
    Originally posted by Tenken347
    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.


An upstart national beer company could make a fortune sponsoring pornography.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.77
    Originally posted by edoug
    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.

    (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.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by BigDaddyLoco
      Originally posted by edoug
      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.

      (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."

Here is a PDF of the FCC ruling for the 2004 ABC airing of the movie. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-23A1.pdf

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...

(edited by Zeruel on 6.3.07 0747)


-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 15 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.14
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.

- StingArmy
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.65
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
      Originally posted by Tenken347
      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.


    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.

(edited by Tenken347 on 6.3.07 0902)

(edited by Tenken347 on 6.3.07 0904)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 14 min.
AIM:  
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Lucky Strike presents "I Love Lucy".

I'm just saying it could happen.

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.





Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.65
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.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    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.


With the FCC, there's the added label of indecency, which muddies the waters a bit. That's usually where the FCC fines occur.

FCC's Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity FAQ & the Miller Test

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.
Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2354 days
Last activity: 823 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.84
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.
kwik
Summer sausage








Since: 5.9.02
From: Norwich, NY

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 14 min.
AIM:  
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.69
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by Zeruel
      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.


    With the FCC, there's the added label of indecency, which muddies the waters a bit. That's usually where the FCC fines occur.

    FCC's Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity FAQ & the Miller Test

    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!
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 448 days
Last activity: 409 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
    Originally posted by kwik
    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.

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?




kwik
Summer sausage








Since: 5.9.02
From: Norwich, NY

Since last post: 70 days
Last activity: 14 min.
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.69
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo

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!
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 330 days
Last activity: 324 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.90

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
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 49 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    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.
You...were waiting for post #3?



I AM CRZ
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 330 days
Last activity: 324 days
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.90

I am too old to see post #3.




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
Thread rated: 5.83
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Words are like bullets... (3/7/2007)
Next thread: Troubleshooting the NBC.com videos
Previous thread: Movies coming out 3/9
(3688 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Does anyone else watch this? I knew it happened months ago, but actually watching her die from the stupid snake bite was kinda heart wrenching. It was really sad.
Related threads: Anybody wanna tape 24 hours of VH1 Classic for me? - George Lucas on Tonites BLOWIN UP on MTV - Jamie Kennedy's Blowin' Up - More...
The W - Movies & TV - Madonna video- Justify My LoveRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.338 seconds.