4 ms·

The "censored" TV shows are really just the networks not wanting to piss off their advertisers. There is little to no censorship in the sense that the governmen

The "censored" TV shows are really just the networks not wanting to piss off their advertisers. There is little to no censorship in the sense that the government actually prevents you from publishing something - especially now that almost all media is internet or cable. The last area where government actually decided content was with broadcast television, since the government got to decide how to use a limited number of frequencies.

hermitdev 7y ago
The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed). I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jackson/Just Timberlake Super Bowl half time show resulted in a fine, but pretty much all live broadcasts are now delayed 15-30 seconds or so that so a producer (or whomever) can hit the censor button if something comes up.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Right, but over air broadcast hasn't been a primary mode of media consumption for decades at this point. The "censorship" on cable broadcasts you refer to are private companies keeping their content advertiser friendly not government restrictions.
  - kenned3 7y ago
    Your response has little to do with the post. The FCC is a government agency, correct? so when it issues fines for "free speech"... "Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines totalling $2.5 million to radio licensees for airing material it deemed indecent from The Howard Stern Show, the highest amount of any American radio show. " "On April 8, 2004, Clear Channel was fined $27,500 for each of the 18 violations for a combined $495,000 NAL for airing the broadcast on its six stations that carried Stern"
    - manfredo 7y ago
      No, they issue licenses to broadcast on certain frequencies. And some of these licenses dictate what content can be shown and at white time of day (usually to the effect of restricting mature content to evening and nighttime airing). This is because of the nature of how bandwidth is publicly owned, and so the the public gets to decide how to allocate a limited resource. Fines exist to accommodate the fact that certain content can't be censored reliably (e.g. live interviews or shows where someone can go off script), while still creating a disincentive to violate the terms of the license. Any of these publishers could sell tapes or dvds of these shows and face no fines whatsoever. Similarly, they could air them on the internet or on cable television that is not subject to public control of content. There's no restrictions on the content itself, there's restriction on the use of publicly owned bandwidth.

hermitdev 7y ago

The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed). I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jackson/Just Timberlake Super Bowl half time show resulted in a fine, but pretty much all live broadcasts are now delayed 15-30 seconds or so that so a producer (or whomever) can hit the censor button if something comes up.

manfredo 7y ago
Right, but over air broadcast hasn't been a primary mode of media consumption for decades at this point. The "censorship" on cable broadcasts you refer to are private companies keeping their content advertiser friendly not government restrictions.
- kenned3 7y ago
  Your response has little to do with the post. The FCC is a government agency, correct? so when it issues fines for "free speech"... "Between 1990 and 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines totalling $2.5 million to radio licensees for airing material it deemed indecent from The Howard Stern Show, the highest amount of any American radio show. " "On April 8, 2004, Clear Channel was fined $27,500 for each of the 18 violations for a combined $495,000 NAL for airing the broadcast on its six stations that carried Stern"
  - manfredo 7y ago
    No, they issue licenses to broadcast on certain frequencies. And some of these licenses dictate what content can be shown and at white time of day (usually to the effect of restricting mature content to evening and nighttime airing). This is because of the nature of how bandwidth is publicly owned, and so the the public gets to decide how to allocate a limited resource. Fines exist to accommodate the fact that certain content can't be censored reliably (e.g. live interviews or shows where someone can go off script), while still creating a disincentive to violate the terms of the license. Any of these publishers could sell tapes or dvds of these shows and face no fines whatsoever. Similarly, they could air them on the internet or on cable television that is not subject to public control of content. There's no restrictions on the content itself, there's restriction on the use of publicly owned bandwidth.