Email: rachelkramerbussel at gmail.com



 

Lusty Lady

BLOG OF RACHEL KRAMER BUSSEL
Watch my first and favorite book trailer for Spanked: Red-Cheeked Erotica. Get Spanked in print and ebook

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Because we all know teenagers don't have sex

Today the New York Times looks at WB and "The Bedford Diaries" in light of the FCC forcing the network to remove certain scenes dealing with teenage sexuality. The episode will air in full online today at 3 p.m. at TheWB.com. (thanks to Miriam for the link)

I'm interested in this but also want to mention something that happened the other day. I was asked to be on SiriusOutQ radio show Derek and Romaine but was asked to read a story "not as sexy" as the one that I (along with 2 friends) read last time, called "Pants Girl." I got there and wound up reading, along with the lovely Veronika Sweet, part of "Law School and Lesbians" from my new book First-Timers: True Stories of Lesbian Awakening, and every time we got to a really sexy part, Romaine would sortof making joking noises. During the break she told us: "We're not allowed to make porn on the air."

Me: "What do you mean?"

Romaine: "We can be sexy, up to a point."

Basically, she said that we're not supposed to be arousing listeners to the point of...wait for it...pornography. Are we not back to the inanity of obscenity law? This is the station that is home to Howard Stern? I don't understand this fear of sexuality, this absolute horror over the idea that someone, somewhere, somehow, might get aroused. What do they think is going to happen?

See also: Do the FCC's rules apply to cable and satellite programming? In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.

But back to the FCC...

The pilot episode of "The Bedford Diaries," which concerns a group of college students attending a class on human sexuality, had already been accepted by WB's standards department. After the FCC decision last week to issue millions of dollars in fines against broadcast stations, the network's chairman, Garth Ancier, contacted Mr. Fontana and asked him to edit a number of specific scenes out of the show, including one that depicted two girls in a bar kissing on a dare and another of a girl unbuttoning her jeans.

"I said no," Mr. Fontana said in an interview Wednesday. "I told him I found the ruling incomprehensible. He said the censor would do the edit."


If you're looking for ways to make teenagers think adults are prudish, idiotic, sex-phobic and out to lunch, bingo, FCC! This is about more than a generation gap over technology, as the article seems to paint it. It's about values. All we hear about now is how the teenagers now think oral sex is no big deal--if we agree that that's the case, censoring any mention of sex is no way to reach a generation that can easily access extremely explicit material at the click of a button.

What I was talking about before is not just some abstract Supreme Court ruling. It is precisely how the F.C.C. is defining obscenity too. Please ask yourself why "patently offensive" is in quotes everywhere it's seen here...maybe because there IS NO FUCKING DEFINITION WE CAN ALL AGREE ON?

What makes material “indecent?” Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. The FCC has determined, with the approval of the courts, that there is a reasonable risk that children will be in the audience from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., local time. Therefore, the FCC prohibits station licensees from broadcasting indecent material during that period.

Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the material is “patently offensive.”

In our assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,” context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when analyzing broadcast material: (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic; (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory organs; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and possibly other, factors.


I am not saying I have all the answers, merely trying to point out that the idea of "contemporary community standards" is really in large part a smokescreen for political maneuverings about what individuals think is obscene. Do you really think the "17 attorneys and 16 other support personnel" employed by our government to monitor obscenity, indecency and profanity (three different things, mind you) never bring their personal biases onto the job? People can file complaints about whatever the hell they want to, and if the only real criteria has to be, boiling down the Supreme Court's oh-so-standardized definition, that it offends them, what then? We will have to cater to the most easily offended...or just throw our TVs out the window and watch this stuff online. Because teens won't be looking there. So here is but one example of how these so-called community standards really don't mean a thing. (There are plenty of other examples, right Bono? Also, did you know "The ``F-Word'' is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. Its use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image." Maybe that's why I use it so much.)

Also:

What monetary sanctions has the FCC imposed for violation of its indecency, profanity, and obscenity restrictions? The base monetary sanction for violation of the FCC's indecency, profanity, and/or obscenity restrictions is $7,000 per violation. The FCC may adjust this monetary sanction upwards, up to a current statutory maximum of $32,500 per violation, based on such factors as the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.

During 2004, the FCC imposed monetary sanctions for indecency violations up to $1,183,000, for an aggregate annual total of $3,658,000. In addition, some entities chose to settle claims against them and made voluntary payments to the U.S. Treasury, totaling $7,928,080 in 2004.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home