FCC consider "license revocation" for CBS/VIACOM

Thanks to Janet Jackson's "boobie-gate" incident on the Super Bowl, FCC is now considering "license revocation" hearing for CBS/VIACOM.

It looks like the maximum penalty for every station in the states that carried the "live scene" is not enough.

FYI, The FCC is owned by Colin Powell's son, Michael Powell.

FCC POWELL CONSIDERED 'LICENSE REVOCATION' HEARING FOR VIACOMCBS

Meanwhile, MTV is launching "banning and moving" spree for its music videos. Videos from artist such as Britney Spears, Maroon 5, Blink 182, which included the sexual contents, will be aired during midnight hours.

Politically charged clip from groups like Incubus is also shifted to midnight hours.

MTV has officially denied it is doing censorship. It has also said nothing about the banning process

MTV Holds Raciest Videos for Last

This is absolutely pathetic. I'm not even going to say anymore. Except "gravel".

Only in America...

Funny how a blantant publicity attempt involing Britney and Madonna doing that kiss raised no public outrage and no regulator etc stopping anything happening or getting worse but to show a bit of skin and there more battle than this time last year in Iraq.

I read on Teletext that some no-one is suing Janet Jackson amongst others in probably a blantant attempt to get money from a country that sues anything to win a small fortune.

What is wrong with the yanks? They'll go too far over anything.

Could it be that on seeing how much publicity La Jackson has generated, now the TV stations want more of it themselves? No doubt this supposed 'accident' will now be talked about in the US media ad nauseum.

This is just evidence of a current trend in American society.

Sexual liberalism versus reactionary family values.

And, oddly enough, I think I tend to agree more with the reactionary side, even though I don't think I'm a mean, evil or narrow minded person.

I think the FCC's show of force is to make it clear to media outlets that there are content rules that need to be followed. Porn, which is a $2 billion + per annum industry in the USA, is still legal and appropriate when distributed through adult channels.

On the other hand, family viewing like the Superbowl and prime time television, should be protected with certain restrictions.

After all, you wouldn't allow the Ku Klux Klan to have a half hour reality show where they lynched "negroes" (and they'd probably use the other N-word), just because it would attract strong ratings. Or, analogously, you wouldn't allow the British National Party to have a half hour show on the BBC where they roughed up "Asians." Why, then, is it so hard to ask that provocative sexuality be censored from certain portions of the mass media?

And the people who own MTV are not stupid.....there are plenty of other investors who would easily replace MTV with something more socially acceptable and still highly profitable.

TV is, after all, a business in the USA. And, even though shock tactics can win big in the short term, they can also cost you dearly in the long run.

Are you honestly stupid enough to equate the KKK with Janet Jackson's body?

Christ almighty; somebody needs their head looking at.

Er, no, he is Chairman. The FCC is not "owned" by anyone. Well, not officially.

This whole saga is quite absurd - even by American standards - and makes them look even sillier to the rest of the world. I mean Judy Finnigan got her baps out on live "family" telly and all we did was have a bit of a laugh about it.

As to Justin Timberlake, well, he's gone down in my estimation for all the grovelling he's done in the last week. But I still would.

What you don't seem to get is that your personal ideas of what is acceptable are yours alone. Other people might think differently.

And, unless we've established some sort of c@t tyranny -- which we haven't -- your own ideas deserve no greater attention than anyone else's in the grand scheme of things.

This is why we have "community standards," which are somewhat vague but try to approximate everyone's opinion of what the standard should be. Otherwise we get self-righteous people, like you c@t (and John Ashcroft), who start forcing their own beliefs down other peoples' throats and pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a total idiot.

And, my original point remains valid: the people who were offended by Janet Jackson's display have a right to voice their objections and the regulatory authorities need to consider them as much as they give MTV the freedom to push the limits at times. In this case, now is one of those times when the limits need to be upheld.

My use of the KKK above was to illustrate that what some people find shocking, others may find perfectly acceptable. And, surely someone as worldly as you, c@t, should realise that different people have different preferences. And, my ultimate point is that there is no universally correct answer to this issue, if you're interested is maintaining freedom of speech, on the one hand, and allowing people some sort of security against being bombarded by messages and media that they find objectionable and would rather not watch, on the other hand. You seem to have missed this point entirely.

You can get a gun out in the US and no one flinches. Someone half-exposes a tit and the whole country **** themselves!

Right, The Ku Klux Klan is an organisation that systematically attemps to purge the population of the United States of black people, through means of fear, murder, and torture. Its members have been responsible for murders and terrorism, have faced criminal prosecutions and have suffered the death penalty as a result of their actions.

Janet Jackson showed her breast on prime-time television. She did not and will not attempt to kill anyone through her actions; she did not attempt to impose any sort of corrupting and dangerous idelogy upon the viewers of the act; she did not show viewers anything that most had, or will at some point in their lives, experience.

I am all for plurality of opinions, but not for outrageously stupid comments like yours, pillock.