U.S. Appeals
Court Overrules Federal Broadcasting Ban on Foul Language
FCC Chairman warns decision means “Hollywood will be able to say
anything they want, whenever they want”
By Gudrun Schultz
NEW YORK, June 5, 2007, (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Expletives on prime time television don’t violate decency standards,
ruled a New York appeals court Monday in a decision that overturned the
U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Reuters reported June 4.
FCC regulators ruled in March 2006 that News Corp.’s Fox television
network had violated decency regulations by broadcasting clips with the
words “f**k” and “s**t” during family viewing time slots. The Commission
did not impose fines in the decision. Regardless, Fox challenged the
decision to the appeals court, arguing that the decency standard was
inconsistent and violated free speech protections.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, in a
divided decision, said the FCC was “arbitrary and capricious” in
introducing new decency standards.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he found it “hard to believe that the New
York court would tell American families that ‘s**t’ and ‘f**k’ are fine
to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most
likely to be in the audience.”
“If we can’t restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime
time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they
want,” Martin said in a statement.
Broadcasters could face fines of up to $325, 000 for violating the
decency policy.
Fox officials said they were “very pleased with the court’s decision”,
saying “government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to
chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment.”
“Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their
families, through the many parental control technologies available, what
is appropriate viewing for their home,” Fox stated.
The appeals court sent the case back to the FCC and ordered the
commission to clarify the decency policy. The FCC could now decide to
take the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Fines for Broadcast Indecency Increased Ten Times with New Legislation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06060806.html
Kids Bombarded with Sex Images Having Sex Earlier says Montreal Child
Psychologist
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111004.html
Fox Deliberately Displays the
F-Word During Prime Time Football
American Family Association
Jan. 2007
It
used to be that you could sit down and watch an evening football game with
your children without fear of them being exposed to inappropriate material.
Sadly, that's no longer the case as was proven Saturday night during the Fox
broadcast of the NFL playoff game between the New Orleans Saints and the
Philadelphia Eagles.
During a cutaway shot to the stadium spectators, the camera focused directly
on a woman wearing a t-shirt clearly inscribed with the words "F--k Da
Eagles" (without the dashes). The shot stayed focused on the woman and her
shirt for several seconds. There can be no doubt that this was an
intentional airing of patently offensive language on the public airwaves, as
the person wearing the profane t-shirt was culled by Fox Network's broadcast
crew from more than 70,000 spectators in the stadium. The camera operator
selected that particular woman and the director and/or producers of the
event made an affirmative and conscious decision to air the shot from that
particular camera, forcing the f-word into millions of homes. Furthermore,
the v-chip would not and could not have protected children and families from
the type of content evidenced here.
Full article at:
http://www.afa.net/petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=230
Portland, Oregon U-Store
Building
Clear Channel Advertising
July 2005
Erotic Billboard Images a Traffic Hazard
Study Shows
NASHVILLE, August 15, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Research by US psychologists from Vanderbilt University in Nashville,
Tennessee, and from Yale University in Connecticut, have found that the sight of
erotic images on billboard advertising can cause a brief moment of blindness
that may constitute a traffic hazard. The study shows that some personality
types are affected more than others and the moment of blindness is short, but
could constitute a hazard while driving.
Volunteers were shown a rapid-fire series
of images such as landscapes and architectural scenes, interspersed with violent
or erotic images. When the erotic images were placed close together, the
phenomenon, known as “emotion-induced blindness” was recorded more frequently.
“We observed that people failed to detect
visual images that appeared one-fifth of a second after emotional images,
whereas they can detect those images with little problem after neutral images,”
said David Zald who headed the study.
“It appears to happen involuntarily,” said
Zald. “The stimulus captures attention and once allocated to that particular
stimulus, no other stimuli can get through.” The blindness typically lasted
several tenths of a second. That brief moment could be crucial in heavy urban
traffic which invariably features multiple advertisements involving sexually
explicit images.
A spokeswoman from Brake, a UK road safety
organisation said, “We should be concerned if drivers are experiencing
split-second breaks in concentration, which could result in an accident or death
on the roads.”
Read coverage in NewScientist:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7845
********************************************
Westfield
Shoppingtown Vancouver
On November 23rd, 2004, Victoria's Secret put
pajamas on the mannequins in the windows that face
Santa. As of January 2005, they are back to their
previous sexually solicitous style.
Victoria's Secret / Mall
Pictures
******************************
From The Columbian:
Opinion - Local View:
Risque mall display mars holiday time
Thursday, November 11,
2004
By Tamera Smith Allred
"Here comes Santa
Claus, Here comes Santa Claus ... right down Santa Claus
lane."
When
Santa arrives at the Westfield Shoppingtown Vancouver on Sunday,
the lane our children will travel to Santa's lap will take them
past 12 sexually seductive manikins clad in nothing but thongs,
black stockings held up with black patent leather garters and
plunging bras. It's Victoria's Secret's latest lingerie display
and it pushes even their past limits. It is campy, vulgar and
reminds me of something one would see in the porn district of a
large city, not our local mall.
I am a
therapist who specializes in recovery from sexual abuse and
sexual addiction. I am also a parent and grandparent. I know the
harm of what some might consider innocuous. This is not the image
of "Prancer, Dancer, and Vixen" that I want my
offspring to see while visiting Santa or any other time. But
there is no escape from the scurrilous display: It can be seen
from Santa's sitting area and both the west and south entrances
to Santa land.
Assistant store manager Sarah Berryman informed me, "We are
a lingerie store. These displays will always be there. The
product is in the window to sell."
It's no
secret this company is selling seductive lingerie. They are also
mass marketing the disparaging cultural message that females are
a sexual commodity. It is a limited and diminished view of
womanhood not the message we want sent to our youth. In their
quest for the dollar, they are using a representation of nearly
naked women in sexually suggestive poses. What gross
insensitivity toward the vulnerable and innocent trying to enjoy
a time-honored and beloved Christmas tradition in a public place.
I asked
Berryman if she had any concerns that hundreds of children would
see the display as they were going to see Santa. "Tell
children they are manikins," she replied flatly.
Are a
few manikins dressed like prostitutes really a threat to
children? My answer as a therapist who deals daily with the
ravages sexual exploitation leaves in lives is a resounding
"Yes!" No computer will ever touch the complexity of a
brain. Images not even conscious to us are recorded and stored
for decades, available for instant recall with the right
triggers.
Victoria's Secret not responsive
Patrick
Carnes, a leader in sexual addiction and abuse recovery, warns
that the "arousal templates of most children are profoundly
affected" by what they see in our culture.
Undaunted in my quest for respect for our culture's most precious
resource, our children, I called the 800 number Berryman gave me
for her company. I got nowhere. Next I tried the local mall
manager. Brent Wise seemed like a reasonable guy in the middle of
a sticky problem. "We are trying to work out an amicable
solution that satisfies everybody," he said on Tuesday.
Perhaps Santa Land could be moved, but why shouldn't the prime
spot in the mall be used for holiday celebrations without
compromising families?
Why
can't Victoria's Secret put its "Pink" pajama line in
the windows for Christmas for the sake of making peace with the
community with which it does business? Peace on Earth, good will
toward men and all that. How much money would it really cost
them?
What if
no solution is found?
I'll
take my grandchildren somewhere else to see Santa. And as far as
lingerie? I won't buy from Victoria's Secret, ever. My dollars
will go to a business that still has a conscience about a
community's children.
- Posted with permission of
author.
http://www.columbian.com/11112004/clark_co/210608.html
*********************************************************************
Victoria's
Secret tones down risqué display
Thursday,
November 25, 2004
By JONATHAN NELSON, Columbian staff writer
A
40-foot gap between Victoria's Secret and Santa
Claus at Westfield Shoppingtown Vancouver gave
new meaning to Kris Kringle's usual inquiry: Have
you been naughty or nice?
Until Tuesday, parents and children waiting to
see Santa Claus stood almost face to face with
blonde and brunette mannequins dressed in sheer
lingerie, thongs, garter belts and stockings.
Visions of sugarplums were hardly the only
thoughts dancing through heads.
More
...
*********************************************************************
No
boundaries in this sexually charged culture
Sunday,
November 21, 2004
From
the Oregonian:
by
Steve Duin
At one
comfy, cluttered end of Westfield Shoppingtown in Vancouver, Santa's red velvet
chair sits approximately 60 feet from the
sex-starved mannequin in the red push-up bra at
Victoria's Secret.
And
those 60 feet -- not the 60 seconds with Terrell
Owens and Nicollette Sheridan on ABC's Monday
Night Football -- define the problem some parents
are having with boundaries in this sexually
saturated culture.
More ...
