Group files FCC complaint against 'Family Guy'

Parent group files FCC complaint against 'Family Guy'



I thought the episode was hilarious!

Can't get past the firewall. Is it about the episode where he runs his own tv station?

It was the new episode from this week. Here's the entire article (minnus a few embedded videos):

The Parents Television Council is filing an indecency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against Fox's "Family Guy" for a March 8 episode that included -- and this is from the press release -- "bestiality, orgies and babies eating sperm."

Since there's nothing hotter than PTC president Tim Winter talking about graphic TV content, let's get right to his quote:

"Fox treated viewers to everything from an ‘eleven-way’ gay orgy to baby Stewie eating a bowl of cereal with horse sperm instead of milk ... if that isn’t enough, the show’s leading character is also shown fanaticizing about his wife and moaning while a horse licks his bare behind. Clearly, the explicit content was not isolated to one instance in one segment of the show; it permeated the entire program."

I know. I can't believe I missed "Family Guy" last week either.

And presumably Winter meant "fantasizing" not "fanaticizing," the latter meaning "to cause to become fanatic."


The PTC is urging its purported 1.3 million members to file FCC complaints against "Family Guy" as well. The organization has a history of taking issue with the show's content and series creator Seth MacFarlane was asked about the PTC last year:

"Oh, yeah. That’s like getting hate mail from Hitler. They’re literally terrible human beings. I’ve read their newsletter, I’ve visited their website, and they’re just rotten to the core. For an organization that prides itself on Christian values — I mean, I’m an atheist, so what do I know? — they spend their entire day hating people. They can all suck my d**k as far as I’m concerned."

The organization has targeted other shows over the years with various degrees of success. The PTC has gone after notorious content offenders such as "Nip/Tuck" ... "Las Vegas" ... the Golden Globe Awards ... "That 70s Show" ... "Father of the Pride" ... "Big Brother" ... "Without a Trace" ... "Friends" ... the Billboard Music Awards ... "The Simpsons" ... "Dexter" ... the Live 8 concert ... "Today" ... "Survivor" ... "Two and a Half Men" ... Carl's Jr.'s "Spicy BBQ Six Dollar Burger" commercial ... and "Gilmore Girls." Clearly, only the worst of the worst.

I think it's up on hulu to see.
I thought it was great...fwiw.

I think it's one of the best/funniest shows on TV!

Why can't parents just not let their kids watch it, if they feel it is inappropriate?

I think the show is hysterical...

the sensible part of me is offended by TV like this, thankfully that part is a very small part

No kidding right? Turn the boobtube off then... how hard is it??

I laughed very hard watching the episode!

Just proves, put it into a cartoon and anything will fly!

maybe the time-slot is the problem. Put it on at 10 or later, and maybe there wouldn't be the same outcry. But at 8 (?) on a Sunday evening................

is that the part you sent me a picture of? If so, dont be to hard on yourself, i think its about average...

my usual response: don't like it...don't watch it

I activated the "v" chip in my TV to exclude shows that are rated "r" or have explicit sexual content. "The Family Guy" won't show on my TV - the little v chip box appears instead.

It was one of the funniest Family Guy episodes ever.

Any parent that lets thier kids watch this needs to have their head examined.

Miscuit is right-use the remote. It is easy. You don't even have to get out of the recliner....

thanks doobs, I can hold my head high again

I don't let my young one watch it, my older one thinks it's the funniest show on TV. I've never seen it, not because I may find it offensive but because I have enough to do without sitting in front of the boobtube all night...

They only warn you of the content after EVERY commercial break!

Amazingly, you make a good point, AG. They do make it clear at the beginning of the show what the rating is and why.

Family Guy is like South Park - the entire premise is to be as vulgar and offensive as possible. That's what makes them so funny!

I agree parents should just not let their kids watch it. However, I think the show is crude, stupid, moronic, and doesn't belong on public television.

It's not on public television. It is on advertiser-supported television.

Mayor Adam West: I just bought a Rottweiler, and I need a sign to warn people how dangerous it is.

Home Supply clerk (pointing to "BEWARE OF DOG" sign): Well, we have exactly what you--

Mayor Adam West: Ah, yes, here it is: "ONE WAY." So people will know if they step into my yard, there's only one way out--in a body bag from dog injuries.

"The Freakin' FCC"

I have actually never watched the show, but I know what it is all about and I would never let me kid watch it. Heck, there are shows on Cartoon network that I don't let him watch because of the cussing. Yes, on Cartoon network even.

No matter what you do, there are always going to be shows like that on TV. It just all comes down to the parents being responsible and involved in what their kids watch. You can't tell the whole world what they should and shouldn't be watching. Take care of your household and that's it!

So you are the judge and jury on what should be on TV? I think Idol is stupid.

yes...Idol can be very offensive!

to the ears in particular...

True...I haven't liked AI since...um...well...hmmm...never

::shaking head in agreement::

Everyone is right - if you don't like it - don't watch. Don't let young kids watch - BUT what about when the parents are away, kids are at someone else's house, etc?

In our market, Southpark is on after midnight. Not a whole lot of risk that a 12 year old is going to watch then. Family Guy is on at 8. To me, that's the difference. I occasionally watch the reruns at 11PM. Some I like - some I don't. My only concern would be what our children are being exposed to.

If your TV has the V-chip option - I'd say that's the way to go.

I love family guy!!!!


I like the cookie monster rehab

and the real bert and ernie

And Herbert the Pervert

of course you do

(Adam West is marrying his hand)

Priest: If anyone has any reason as to why this marriage should not take place, speak now or forever hold your peace.

(Adam West's other hand raises up)

Adam West: Shut up, you had your chance!

And the most wonderful thing about this country is that you're both free to think what you want about a program (that is r rated with good reason)...and write it on a cooler blog too. How great is that??!!

Programs are not rated like movies! There is no R rating!

They are rated TV-Y, Y-7, G, PG, 14, and MA.

Then they are 'subrated' with D, L, S, and V for content.

For some reason I don't catch Family Guy very often so AG's posts are cracking me up.

If they put it on later, I would be asleep and miss it...

DVR makes the world go 'round

put a vienna sausage in ur mouth and hush up

I think we should have porn, slasher movies, death, destruction, mayhem, and whatever else the networks want at any time of the day. We'll use Larry Flint's sensibilities as our standard. If he is offended by it, then it can't be aired. (Sorry, 700 Club and Sunday morning church services.) Parents can and should be responsible for their own little rugrats and making sure they don't see it. See, there is a reasonable solution to everything.

NO, I'm not the judge and jury of what should be on TV. But I'm allowed an opinion.

Yes you are, and we hear that opinion on nearly every single program that comes across your TV set...

Yeah, DVR "Family Guy" and the kids can get to bed by 8 PM and watch it in the morning.

I take it you are not a big fan of the show.

There's an "r" rating on my v-chip settings - I guess that's for movies. We can thank the Parents Television Council that we have these ratings as guides and as a way to screen shows that are not appropriate for certain age groups.

NO, I'm not the judge and jury of what should be on TV. But I'm allowed an opinion. [/quote]

Yes you are. God Bless America.

I don't know. How does it fit in with my trying to live my life by this?

Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever, is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.

oh i get it .... devil's advocate eh?

well let me respond:


PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLBBBBBBBBB!!!!!

oh i get it .... devil's advocate eh?

well let me respond:


PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLBBBBBBBBB!!!!!

..and there is a reasonable response to every solution.

A simple 'not so much' would have sufficed.

That wouldn't be any fun.

garbage in, garbage out..........

I've never seen this show, but I'm completely intrigued now and might consider watching it.

We started watching this show just recently. Stewie is hilarious!

........and everybody knows that the bird is the word!!!

Its irreverence is part of its charm. And no politico/celebrity is exempt from the writers' sarcasm.

I enjoy Family Guy, and it's one of my hubby's favorite shows. The writing is very clever and Stewie is my favorite.

I've been hooked since an episode way back when Peter was talking about a big a** pinata and then they showed a pinata shaped like an a**! LOL

Would I let my kids watch it? Probably not, or at least until they were old enough to see the comedy in it and not take it as "normal".

I am just impressed that there are women on this thread that watch Family Guy. My wife leaves the room when it comes on. I just thought the show was "guy humor." Predictable, gross, and bloody hilarious.

Anyone see the South Park last night? "A woman's mouth is the dirtiest place on earth." Poor Kenny... but, I sure could go for some TGI Friday's right now.

I'm more of a South Park gal myself.. Jennifer Lopez & her taco flavored kisses.

How about the south park when the cripple teacher's electric wheelchair battery died in the middle of the intersection and nobody would help her!

Really Milby, I loooove it I laugh so frickin hard! It's great. I also like arrested development.

I'm also quite a fan of the episode in which Cartman gets his period.

<----- loves Two and A Half Men




(the tv show)

I wonder if maybe shows like this influence what we see as "normal".

I wonder if a "normal," diverse, professional group of bankers would have discussed some of the subject matter on this thread 20 years ago...40 years ago...60 years ago...

Great show! (2 and a half men)

No, but 2000 years ago in Athens or Rome, probably yes.

I don't know anything about those shows.
My husband and daughter use to watch South Park on the weekend - late at night- I could never figure out what was so funny. They were always laughing.

<----- Likes 2-1/2 Men too.

Thinks Miscuit likes the actual 2-1/2 Men AND the TV show.

And I wonder if that's a good or bad thing...oh, wait, it's wrong to make those kind of judgments. (Oh, the irony.)

No way to know until we meet our maker, then it will be too late to matter to us.

My husband and I are huge family guy fans!! Every episode sends me into at least one laughing fit!

I agree that if you don't like something that is on tv, then don't watch it. If I have an issue with a particular show, I'm not going to force myself to watch it just so I can complain about it afterwards.

Is there anything that shouldn't be on broadcast TV?

Cubs baseball?

Now that's just mean - Cubs baseball isn't indecent...oh, wait...

How about Detroit Lions football?

Ok, I contributed to this, but I'd still like a serious response to my question (and Z's earlier point) - since we can always "change the channel," is there anything (apparently something "worse" than Family Guy) that shouldn't be on broadcast TV?

Heros?

Lost?

Anything on Lifetime?

So, that's one vote for "no". Thanks.

Anytime.

Great - next time I need to illustrate that an arugment really isn't, I'll call on you first.

Presidential debates?

Jokerman - I agree with you and Z - change the channel. We have a bunch of whiners out there that want to cater to the few rather than the many.

Bets these people use the TV as a babysitter and don't want to have to take the time to monitor what their kids are watching?

BTW - 40 or so years ago we probably would have been talking about the bigotry of Archie Bunker or the first TV couple to sleep in the same bed.

like Tigg was even alive 40 years ago!

I know my youthful good looks say otherwise, but I was.


I was just trying to make a point.

ouch, that is a sharp stick!

Sorry - wasn't trying to beat you.

Tigg, I will beg to differ with your comment on using the TV as a babysitter. I don't. When WE sit down to watch tv, we do it together as a family. Its just getting harder and harder to find anything that I can watch with a child that is age appropriate and if there is something on the commercials are explicit. We've had this discussion before - all I ask is that "prime time" (which is supposed to be family time) be family friendly. What happens after 9 is of no concern to me since me and mine will most likely be asleep or reading.

Nanny 911
American's Next Top Model Marathons
High School Reunion

I agree with Walden - I pretty much don't care what's on TV, if I don't want to watch, I'll turn it off. BUT - I think up until 9/10 should be family friendly - nothing worse than PG/PG-13. Yes, we monitored what our sons watched, but they're not always home, and we weren't always home either.

Also Tigg - Yes, Archie Bunker and George Jefferson had everyone talking, but it was constructive dialog.

Would you watch it if it were on at 9 PM, 10 PM, or later? I don't think anyone is saying take Family Guy off the air--just air it later. The problem though is that the networks want to push the envelope as far as the cable channels do. I saw a top network executive say that his "goal" was to allow any language and full frontal nudity on the networks. Boy, I'm sure his mother is proud that he has such lofty goals. With the contraints on network TV, they have a hard time providing fodder for the prurient interests of some viewers. Cable, on the other hand, is a lot freer to serve the viewers' prurient desires. So, what happens is that the trouble with normal is it always gets worse.

Wow! My grandparents aren't even that prude. They do have some old school way of thinking, but come on...

You must be a riot at weddings, man!

Walden, I want to agree with the comment you have made here about commercials. I can't tell you how many times I have found something acceptable for my son to watch with me, and then here comes a commercial where I am telling him "cover your eyes." It just frustrates me.

I have never watched Family Guy, but I did notice when flipping channels last night that it was on--presumably a repeat--at 7:00 pm on our local FOX affiliate.

Surely, you aren't talking about my post? There wasn't anything the least bit prudish about it.

Speaking of prude, check your history, prude did not become a pejorative until the mid 20th Century. Why do you think that is?

Because people don't like change from the old school.


Once again, step off the high horse.

I think you are mistaking logic with prudishness.

So, which part of my post did you find prudish? The part where I imply that Family Guy would still be watched by adults if it were on at 9, 10, or later. Or is it the part where I castigate a network executive for wanting full frontal nudity and all of Carlin's 7 words on network TV.

BTW: Do you have any children under 10 in your household? Are you too prudish and old school to allow them to watch Family Guy? I find it funny that the same people who disdain the "old school" want parents to exercise old school control of children when it comes to TV.

I think I don't.

yes. yes.

no. n/a. ok.

Is your real last name Flynt?

why wouldn't it be ok to have "full frontal and Carlin's 7" (as you put it) on tv...but still "parent" responsibly?

We must conform.

Why stop there? Come on...expand your mind...expand your question.

mind-expansion isn't on my "to do" list today

the perfect song comes to mind here. oh the irony.

i just don't understand what some people are so afraid of

i would much rather expose my child to the realities of the world and if they are exposed to something that goes against my personal morals/principles/beliefs/religious convictions...teach/educate them accordingly

rather than try to shelter/protect them to the extent where it does them more harm when the time comes that they must face the world on their own

norm life baby
"we're white and oh so hetero
And our sex is missionary."

Norm life baby
"we're quitters and we're sober
Our confessions will be televised."

You and i are underdosed and we're ready to fall
Raised to be stupid, taught to be nothing at all

Don't think I'm being snarky, but I think there needs to be more restraint in local and children-based television. I don't swear that much and certainly don't use that language around children (I've even worked on not saying "stupid" or equally negative words in front of children--not that I'm calling them stupid) so I don't think using foul language in prime time is appropriate. But it's permeated our society, apparently. And it's much harder to undo what has been done than to avoid it altogether. But, that bridge has already been crossed. I also don't think nudity needs to be on local networks, and I freely admit that I'm somewhat sexaphobic.

Here are a few things that I've noticed on cable:

There's a program on Disney where the children constantly back-talk their parents, who are portrayed as little more than bathed troglodytes.

Cartoon Network has episodes of various cartoons that have blatant sexual undertones. I understand the concept of making a program entertaining for the parent and the child.

And what about The Best Damn Sports Show, for parents watching sports with their children?

Ultimately, though I think the role of parenting is more complicated today and requires more attention to what children are exposed. There's no simple solution I can offer, other than DVRing programs and previewing to assure age-appropriateness, and even then it doesn't address what happens when children are in unmonitored homes.

...and you've got kids?

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

As I've always said, say what you want, but prepare to suffer the consequences.

Family Guy says what it wants, yet I don't see them hurting for advertising. Large companies in this country (the kind that advertise on national tv) have lots of money and pull.

If enough people didn't like something about the show (time slot, content, whatever), the advertisers would refuse to advertise and the show would get cancelled by the network.

Um, yeah, it's been on the air for 10 years.

Having children or not is non sequitur (omg, I finally get to use the coveted BOL word)...

If enough people in this country with children or without children got together and had enough pull to get Faimly Guy off the air moved to a later time slot by getting the advertisers to pull out, then you win.

This has yet to happen. Clearly, the show is wanted by the American people in the current time spot.

I see at least two posters that I know 100% for sure have children and have indicated that they think the show is great, which proves your non sequitur 'do you have children (because then you'd know what it's like)' theory wrong anyways.

But I did post a nice article at the beginning with a group that I'm sure is looking for new membership...

I don't think anyone said FG should be off the air, just moved to a later time spot.

I stand corrected.

I will change my statements about going off air to 'move to a later time spot.'

BB - I hear you.
Even on shows that "should be ok," there are still things that I don't want her picking up. My biggest complaint about Hannah Montana is the way the characters talk to each other, especially to their dad.
There are lots of shows on Disney like that.

There is no TV in her room, all shows that she watches are in the living room, just steps away from the kitchen...where I can listen in.

Heck, anymore unless we're watching Noggin, I am not sure that I want Natalie watching. She's 'almost 6' (in 6 months, but you tell that to her ) But I cave, and by cave I mean that yeah, I'll let her watch Hannah or Suite life...and Phineas and Ferb!

We watch lots of movies as a family, Old Yeller is her favorite - and think of the violence!?
But then again, we're also big fans of the World's Greatest Fishing show and John Gillespie's Waters & Woods...when she is around. After her bedtime is when we watch our tivo'd shows (like family guy or bones or The girls next door).

Sorry, S. Tyler, it's a parent thing, you wouldn't understand.

I win? Steven, I think you've done too much heroin; you're lost in the weeds. I didn't advocated taking it off the air. Rather, I advocated moving it to a later hour.

Yes, lots of people with children watch the show. Do these parents have a problem with FOX agreeing or the FCC requiring that it be shown at a later hour?

Back to rehab for you.

And the Girls Next Door is no more...

Hmm, quoting Marilyn Manson probably isn't the way to persuade fka -Z- to your side!!!



Seriously, I love Fox's Sunday night line up - Animation Domiation. But my kids will never watch it. (TiVo rules!) You don't have to "expose" kids to all the bad things in the world for them to understand them. Wait until they are at an age you deem appropriate and then (get this foreign concept) TALK TO THEM. You sure as he!! don't want Seth MacFarlane (sp?) teaching them about the "real world." I agree with fka -Z-; with beliefs like this, I wonder if you have kids.

yeah, that quote was for the benefit of someone else.

If there is any part of this world that you do not want your children to be aware of, then don't have children.

Quite possibly the worst advice ever given on BOL, and there's been a lot of bad advice given here.

I want my kids to be aware of prostitution, drug use, and the violence that people can do to each other. That doesn't mean that I want them to watch it happen.

At the appropriate time and on my terms, not because it was brought up on TV during what should be a safe time for families to watch TV. Heck, a family can't even watch a football game together in the middle of the day without having to explain erectile dysfunction to the children. I don't even know what it is, but I've heard of it.

Well, see, it's this sport where this team of guys have a ball and...

I've got a question....

If I have my child with me and we are standing in the room with one of you guys/gals and we are chatting and talking about something or another... would you feel comfortable cursing up a storm with every word known to man? And then lets say a few minutes later if some other man/woman came in the room would you feel ok stripping down right then and there and having sex with them in front of that child? OR

would you be respectful of me and the child and refrain from doing so? If the answer is yes to this question...why?

I would rather they watch it happen in fiction than experience it in reality. You might bring an awareness by discussing the subject in theory, but I think a lot of understanding doesn't happen until we see things for ourselves.

Kaytee, the difference is one is recorded with a broad audience in mind and what you describe is a personal interaction presumably intentionally encountered. Two very different things, IMO. But I would believe most people would censor themselves in the company of children. I certainly do.

The person who doesn't refrain from those actions doesn't care if a child is present. And the person who does refrain would still refrain if the child weren't present.

I agree! Say what you want, but prepare to suffer the consequences.

I love it when something someone says applies to that person as well.

I also love it when we agree!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

someone I would feel very safe in leaving my kids with while I was out participating in one of my lost weekends

wait, he is one of my kids!!!!!

I find it funny that people can label something as "bad advice". Who made them the determiner of "bad" vs "good" advice?

We each have our opinions...and that is all that they are....opinions. None of which are "right" or "wrong".

We live our lives according to what we believe is right for us...as individuals. Just because I don't agree with someone's opinion...I would never be so pretentious as to call it "bad advice".

Didn't someone early on in this discussion say they use the v-chip so Family Guy doesn't show up on their TV. You know, the v chip, the government requirement that all tv manufacturers put a chip in that can block programming deemed inappropriate/objectionable.

Why doesn't that work? That way, even if you are not around or not monitoring what you child is watching, you know the TV won't show those programs.

BB...I totally get where you are coming from...I really do. But I guess the angle I am trying to come from is this....

What is wrong with me as a parent being troubled or bothered by that action I spoke of earlier and the action that is happening on TV? Am I considered a "prude" or on my "moral high horse" for not liking it in a personal setting as well as a TV setting? I mean what's the difference really? Because when "I" or "my family" watches the TV...it's personal isn't it? And I do get what you mean about the ratings and for the general audience, but it seems like this has turned more into a discussion about how people feel "personally"...you know what I mean???

I totally agree with everybody on here...if you don't like it, don't watch it. There are people that like the show....so be it. There are people that don't like the show...so be it. I totally agree with everybody...TALK to your children about everything...it is very important!!! TOTALLY NEEDED..it is a must, especially today!!!! But what is wrong with me not being happy about it being there for the kids to be able to see? I mean aren't we supposed to be teaching our kids about respecting each other? Isn't that one of the things we crave most desperatley is love and respect from each other? So until my child is ready for me to explain the intimacies of life and the meaning of "issues", I would prefer that they not be exposed to it.

Which means I guess I better know where the "off" button is huh?

And please understand BB...I'm not directing that at you or anybody for that matter...just voicing a thought from heart about the subject.

So, you've never gotten advice that you thought was bad? You've never gotten an opinion that you didn't just think was wrong...it was wrong.

BTW:

There really is advice that is bad (e.g. "Hey, Mr. Bias, one little snort of coke won't hurt you!").

There really are opinions that are wrong (e.g. "Mr. Columbus, in my opinion, the world is flat!").

And no one, living outside of an Anarchy lives his/her life according to what he/she believe is right for him/her... as individuals. (e.g. "I believe it is right for me to have your flat screen TV, so I am coming over to get it!")

And, yes, we all make judgements about people, places, things, events, etc every day (e.g. "I find it funny that people can label something as "bad advice". Who made them the determiner of "bad" vs "good" advice?").

good discussion....

Thank you. Now, back to the real world. My work is done here.

I apologize if you all thought I was directing my comment at any of the BOLers. I was referring to the group filing with the FCC.

By the way - anyone remember when, as a kid, watching TV was one of the LAST things you wanted to do? I only wanted to be playing outdoors.

don't leave now!!! i have popcorn!!

Well, duh...who'd want to sit around all day and watch a bunch of shows with no cursing, no sex, and no graphic violence? In the old days, we had to play outside of the house so that we could swear, beat each other up, and hunt for the neighbors porn stash in the woods.

Hey BB LOL, did you grow up in Norwood? That sounds like my old neighborhood.

I have tried staying out of this thread, cause this is one of those subjects that no one is going to win. (Just like the Judgement thread)IMHO.

I get dizzy running around the mulberry bush.

Not making any judgements here, or accusing, or anything like that, Just making an observation - but from looking at what's been posted, most of people on here who think (basically) that we should go back to the family time on TV are those who have children.

the only place busier than the FCC with complaints about the content of what is viewable is the PM's to the admins because the mods are not doing a good job and are obviously biased...

Oh for cryin out loud. We are adults in these threads, and I think for the most part it has been very entertaining and enlightning (sp?) debate. I think some of the comments have been tongue in cheek, at least I hope so.

Would that be the real world where Family Guy airs on a non-cable channel at 7 or 8 pm?

your work is done here....and it changed nothing...carry on

It's my opinion that you're wrong. Am I wrong to hold that opinion?

take it to philosophy 101

Absolutely not! That's the beauty of it...it's an "opinion". My views may be wrong for you and how you want to run your life...just as your views may be wrong for me and how I want to run my life.

But when someone else's "views/opinions/legislation/etc." infringe on the way I want to run my life (if I'm not choosing to do anything that threatens the life or property of someone else)...then THAT'S when I have a problem.

::settling in::

It would be presumptuous of me to think otherwise. G'day!

lol...work wasn't quite "done" huh?

Oh, the work is done alright; the work is DONE.

you mean like laws? wow, you must have a lot of problems

yes...laws that infringe on my individual rights as described in that little thing we call the Constitution

that makes me have problems? hmmmm...thanks for that clarification

Accountability is so damn inconvenient.

who says we shouldn't be accountable for our actions? i don't recall saying or insinuating that

but i understand that words must be twisted in order to make someone else's point seem "less than"

that goes on quite often around here (especially when you have nothing else to contribute)

Maybe instead of legistation, others values?

possibly...but isn't some legislation based on others values?

So I imagine you will let us know when this has actually happened. We would be greatly interested in hearing about which of your rights have actually been infringed. (hint: being offended doesn't count).

you seriously don't think any of our individual rights are being infringed upon by today's legislation? or that we're heading more and more in that direction?

so i guess the founding fathers would be happy with the current state of affairs and would say that we're holding true to the Constitution that they conceived?

wow...just wow

i'm afraid i'd never be able to convince someone otherwise with that mindset

but that's ok...because i doubt i can be convinced otherwise as well

Actually I do. However I don't think 2nd amendment rights, and the right to enact legislation without the will of the people being overturned by activist judges are what you had in mind with your post.

Um, that's what legislation is.

How dare you?????

My heart is broken.....

^^^
Is this re my observation about posters with/w/o kids? If so, I said most. Didn't want to offend

No dear sorry, this was in reply to the fact that the Lions games should not be able to be on tv..... I forgot to quote you...

All:

I have not read one post in this thread, and I likely will not, so I am unaware of its complete context. But I have this to ask of all you:

Given I have never watched the show Family Guy but maybe a piece of one episode years ago, and that I have received a number of DVDs and a movie of the show for Christmas, is it worth my watching? Is the show really funny?

It can be. A lot of it is over the top.

I agree with Jimi, and it is also not something I would let my kids watch.

MB, I honestly want to hear what rights are being infringed upon.

^^Is asking himself a question^^^

Again, I'm not here to try and "convince". That will never happen.

I am merely expressing my views and opinions. I could go on and on about the (sometimes gradual and ever so subtle) infringement upon individual rights. Some are already happening now and with some, there is a movement towards them (the bogus drug war, the taxation of the fruits of our labor, gun control, national ID, nationalized healthcare, global currency, etc.). Most in the name of "protecting us".

If you feel every law and piece of legislation on the books is legitimate, it's there for a reason and should never be questioned, then you have every right to feel that way.

I, however, do not just "blindly" support every decision my government makes...and I have that right as well.

hi bugs.

So the FCC wont let me be or let me be me so let me see
they tried to shut me down on MTV but it feels so empty without me

Ms. B, I actually agree with most of what you said.

That's funny...'cuz I usually agree with what you say.

(let's not tell anyone though...people "agreeing" is usually frowned upon around here)

It's a funny show, if you have more of a dry sense of humor you will love it.

I don't think you would want to watch it with your mom and a wooden spoon in her hand.

Based on some of your other post (in other threads), I think we share some values. I would think you will laugh at some of it and be shocked by other things in it. JMHO

The episode sounds awful!!! I'm sure I woudl have laughed, though, had I actually seen it.

Not sure why the PTC is doing anything about this--the show is not rated for kids. It is an adult cartoon with adult content. Don't let your kids watch it!

Dip - if Fox put hardcore pornography in that time slot and rated it as such, would that be acceptable?

No. Hardcore pornography is a far cry from what this Family Guy episode was. I've seen clips from soap operas that I think are worse that what is shown in this cartoon...

V chip

<--- call me stewie, I think thats hot!

That's fine - but the point is, you can't just say, "well, parents should police what their children watch; society doesn't have any responsibility for what's on the airwaves," and then accept societal responsibility for what's on the airwaves (by disallowing porn).

Because, if anything doesn't go, after all, your argument is groundless. Instead of saying, "don't let your kids watch it," you need to defend the content.

Rather than him defending the content, perhaps you should explain what pornography is, how the government should decide what is pornographic, what is appropriate/inappropriate and what people should do when they disagree with the government's decision on what is and is not appropriate.

The government mandated v chips in all tv's (which no one uses) to try to assuage those who bemoan that TV exposes them and their children to images and topics they deem inappropriate.


So, the government gave everyone a tool to use if they disagree with what the government deems to be appropriate.

Rather than use that tool, we should adjust the appropriateness barometer. Unfortunately, no matter how far you move that barometer from liberal to conservative, there will always be some who deem it too liberal.

I programmed my V-Chip to disallow Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, but I think they programmed a back door.

In other words, so long as we have a v-chip, anything goes. Got it.

Yeah you got it alright, but luckily there is a cream for it.

In other words, so long as one person finds it offensive the govt should remove it. Even if there are several alternatives to that. Got it.

Your trite answers show that you have no effective solution for this, whereas I have at least shown some alternatives.

Please describe what standards you would use to avoid this "anything goes" strawman you keep throwing out.

don't you know...if a certain "group" deems something offensive, then we must all be censored from it

c'mon...this isn't about individual responsibility...that would just be ridiculous

^^^went on a few dates with Larry Flynt^^^

ewwwwww

fixed...

Double ewwwwwwwww

SOOOOOOOO, that's why he is in a wheel chair.

Ohhhh...good one.


And who's using strawmen? Who here has called for anything to be removed? Much less anything that "one person" finds offensive?


I don't think it's very hard to draw up some standards for a prime time slot on broadcast TV. Or, we could just pretend that swimming in filth has no impact on the swimmer, and that the public has no right to control the public airwaves, and that anyone who seeks to have input on that process is just a crank. Yeah, that sound like more fun.

but c'mon J...you did snicker a little at that...didn't ya?

^^^doesn't just swim, but bathes in filth^^^

Glad you liked it.


Then please do. I have only asked 3 times now. If it's not very hard, start drawing.



This is the strawman argument I am talking about. Never said any of these things. I merely pointed out some alternatives to anyone subjecting themselvs to this "filth". Short of being strapped down in a chair, Cloclwork Orange style, not sure how you or anyone who finds it objectionable would be forced to swim in the "filth".

And I guess for the fourth time, I ask fo ryour input on the process of determining what is "filth", objectionable, pornographic, etc. Not only have I not called you a crank, I have repeatedly asked for your input, only to be spurned each time with the strawman that anything goes and I am advocating for pornography. Time to put up J.

Standards - no nudity on prime time and no acts of sex; no foul language; limit these to hours in which yungunz are fast asleep.

Too vague.

ok...we need to define each: nudity, acts of sex, foul language



go!

Too vague!!

BOL considers [censored] foul language. Church does not.

Is a man without a shirt on nudity?

Acts of sex? To which president's definition do we refer?

fowl = chicken, turkey, etc.

technically, I think it would meet the definition of nudity, but it would only escalate to obscene depending on whom the man is...

I'm not going to have that debate - my only complaint is with people acting as if "turn the channel/don't let your kids watch it" is a viable answer to everything. I'm trying to illustrate that it's not. If you think it is, make that argument.

Tell you what - concede that there should be standards, then we'll talk about what they should be.

well I agree there should not be pornography so yes I agree there should be some standards. We have them now. No female nudity, 7 dirty words, etc. You have argued the current standards are ineffective, so now, please start drawing new standards.

You won't because you know as well as I do that standards like these would be extremely difficult. We have lowest common denominator now because there are options if you don't like it. Prior restraint is a very harsh remedy and therefore is only invoked under very limited circumstances.

If you think you can do better than defining obscenity as "I know it when I see it", please let us and the FCC know. They have struggled with this for decades.

Good. Thank you. As I said, I don't have any interest in debating the standards.


I will point out, though, that no one is talking about prior restraint. Asking the FCC to review a broadcast already made for compliance with decency standards is not prior restraint. Prior restraint would be asking the FCC to enjoin a broadcast from airing based on what you expect to be in it.

Nudity - private parts that a person only reveals in the privacy of their home, a locker room consisting of people of the same gender. I am not going to get more specific on a public banking site than that.

Acts of Sex should be obvious. If they are not to an adult, then that adult has issues and needs therapy or a good sound beating (or both)

Foul language - George Carlin's 7 to start, and then possibly a reiew of the Urban Dictionary

Nudity - I think I can give you that one.

Sex - how about things like groping? I wouldnt call that an act of sex. Appropriate for children to see - probably not.

I can think of at least one word on that list that I would rather have a child hear (or be more comfortable saying around a child) - 3.14(in math)ss - than a lot of words not on the list!

^^^^
Have you been snorting Miracle Grow?

You said the standards are pretty easy to come up with, but don't care to debate them. I submit the standards are not that simple to come up with and you know it. The broadcast in question doesn't violate the current standards, you know it, you don't like the current standards, but cannot formulate a better alternative.

You simply want to moralize about what a shame it is such "filth" is broadcast. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem and I submit you are part of the problem. At least we know you just want to moralize and don't actually have a solution. In the future, we can just tag your posts on this topic as moralizing and move on.

And the standards currently in place or the standards you would like to see, but aren't brave enough to submit, cause prior restraint since every broadcaster must examine content to ensure the content does not violate those standards. That is why it is difficult to come up with anything other than extremely narrowly tailored standards.

I take back the nudity one.

imo, cartoon Peter Griffin showing the top part of the crack of his bum (which has been done many times on FG) is not the same as some human actor mooning the audience...

also, as far as female nudity, how much is too much. would a pasty do the trick to keep you happy?

We had a President that needed a defintion of sex

So do (I'm guessing every, but I'll say) many jurisdictions in the US, just based on this FCC rule:

Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.


Perhaps one of the lawyers (straw?) can elaborate better...

No, I said it would be easy to come up with standards for prime time that would preclude a lot of what's included in Family Guy. People will disagree about the standards, no doubt. But that's part of democracy. Again, my only comment was in regards to the argument that since there's an off-switch, there shouldn't be any standards. You've conceded that you don't really believe that, so my interest in the discussion has ended.


No, I don't know it. I am not an expert on FCC interpretations of decency. I didn't write the FCC to complain about the show. I'm just saying people are within their rights to complain, or to advocate for different standards if they want. And I'm saying that the idea that there should be standards on the public airwaves isn't stupid.


I do think that it's a shame, regardless of whether it is or should be legal. If you want to disagree, that's fine.


LOL - Ok, straw, step away from the edge. I'm sorry for contributing to the problem. Family Guy is my fault and I'm sorry.


Good - that shouuld save me a lot of time.


Ok, again, I'm sorry. I feel bad for trying to censor the arts. Hitler would be so proud of me.

what do you think would happen if there weren't any standards?

This has been the FCC standard for some time. Enforcement ebbs and flows as different Commissioners interpret contemporary community standards differently.

The letter writing campaigns try to influence this by sending in thousands of form letters stating that they were offended by a certain broadcast.

Since some in this discussion have argued that Family Guy is offensive, I have asked what standard they violated and what standards could we put in place that would better protect our children from seeing such "filth". So far, I have received no answer.

sodom and gomorrah

Obviously your interest in the discussion has not ended, only your interest in discussing solutions.




I never said anything otherwise. Shout from the rooftops that two woman using the word "enhanced" during the Super Bowl is pornography. I think many people will ask if you would like to put on a tin foil hat, but that is certainly your right.




Way to miss the point. Family Guy is not your fault. You are at fault for complaining without offering a solution, when other solutions already exist i.e. the off button. But if you think you know what is best for me or the rest of America to watch on TV, that is your business. I just think I might know what is best for me better than you do. Forgive me for feeling this way. I am sure you know what is best for me better than I do.



Once again, you are the morally superior to me for daring to question whether you know what is best for me. Perhaps I should be sent to a reeducation camp to learn what is best for me.

NOW you're finally gettin' it!

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.


Actually, my interest has ended. I've continued discussing the issue with you to be polite, but it appears that effort is wasted. You can now post to your heart's content about how you've won. Enjoy.

By the way, it's not that I know what's best, it's that I know some things are better than others. Some people just think nothing is better than anything else.

::genuflects::

it was actually a serious question...i was just curious as to what you (or anyone else) think would be the results of "no standards" regarding television programs

Doubt it.



Forgive me for implying that you were omnipotent and morally superior. I will refrain from implying you are omnipotent and go with your self-admitted moral superiority.

Click me!

click me, I'm funnier!

::flashbacks to alice in wonderland::

drink me...

You guys are right.

Of course you are...

I find that offensive

of course you do...

Who are you?

The question is who are you?

Sos, meet Smelly Sox.

Smelly Sox, meet Sox.