(no subject)
I know that I'm fairly liberal when it comes to censorship issues; however, this article irks me.
The biggest proposed fine issued Wednesday by the Federal Communications Commission was for $3.6 million - a record - against dozens of CBS stations and affiliates. The FCC said an episode of the CBS crime drama "Without a Trace" that aired in December 2004 was indecent, citing the graphic depiction of "teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy."
CBS objected, saying the program "featured an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children."
It's not that I think it would be appropriate to have kids/pre-teens watch "Our Sons and Daughters" (the episode in question), but have we removed all responsibility from parents? My parents let me watch "older" shows when I was youngish, but we would watch together for the most part. (And let me tell you, sex scenes are more embarassing than sexy when you watch with your parents! I still cringe remembering watching "War of the Roses" in the theater sitting next to my father.) If you think your child is old enough to watch a pre-teen try to commit suicide ("Wannabe"), a child molester (more than one episode, but most notably in my memory, "Bogie Man"), people getting killed, etc., etc., your child should be old enough for the teen orgy scene. If they're not old enough for that scene, then maybe they shouldn't be watching the show. There's a reason it is one of the 10pm EST shows.
If the parents are that concerned, they can do what two families I nanny/babysit for do. One would only let their kids watch "Nick Jr." (and not even the shows like "Rugrats" and "Spongebob" but rather the really young kids shows such as "Dora" and "The Backyardagans"), the young Disney stuff, certain shows on The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet, and movies/shows on tape/DVD (most of the kids' stuff listed above or G rated movies) even though their kids were 9,8, and 5. The other family only has one television that they only plug in to occasionally watch movies that they rent from the library and the girl's dance recitals/plays. (She's turning 13 in a week and still cannot see any movie with higher than a PG rating.)
Would I want my child watching that episode of WaT? Not until he/she were older. I wouldn't want my child to watch any of the episodes until he/she was old enough to understand it all. Let me make the decision for my kids, though, not the government. I don't want the government to tell me what I (and any potential kids of mine) can and can't watch. Aren't there more important things for them to worry about? What about my neighbors that constantly yell at their kids (2 and like 9 or 10) to "Shut the fuck up or I'll beat your ass!" What about the child at day care who was all excited when she turned 3, because now she "can walk to the park all by [her]self." In the city. Aren't these things more important to regulate than the content of a 10pm show that is rated adult anyway?
*sigh* I'll go back to setting up the challenge post for wat_icontest now. (And avoid looking at the main page of The Source which is where I saw the article to begin with.)
ETA: I just finished watching D.A.R.Y.L, a movie from my childhood, which was rated PG. I think standards might have been looser back then. I'm watching it with some kids, and I'm cringing every time I hear the words "ass", "asshole", "pecker", "hooker", "shit" (at least twice!), "son of a bitch", and versions of "Christ" as a curse. I just don't expect that from a PG movie, as I think of PG as okay for kids above about age 7 or 8. Apparently this was not always the case. I wonder how we went from that (in 1985) to now. Twenty years ago, a PG movie was able to get away with a kid saying "shit", but a grown-up show, airing at 10pm EST, nowadays would get in trouble for it according to that article. Huh. Is this due to the outcry of a few groups, or what? Why the change?
The biggest proposed fine issued Wednesday by the Federal Communications Commission was for $3.6 million - a record - against dozens of CBS stations and affiliates. The FCC said an episode of the CBS crime drama "Without a Trace" that aired in December 2004 was indecent, citing the graphic depiction of "teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy."
CBS objected, saying the program "featured an important and socially relevant storyline warning parents to exercise greater supervision of their teenage children."
It's not that I think it would be appropriate to have kids/pre-teens watch "Our Sons and Daughters" (the episode in question), but have we removed all responsibility from parents? My parents let me watch "older" shows when I was youngish, but we would watch together for the most part. (And let me tell you, sex scenes are more embarassing than sexy when you watch with your parents! I still cringe remembering watching "War of the Roses" in the theater sitting next to my father.) If you think your child is old enough to watch a pre-teen try to commit suicide ("Wannabe"), a child molester (more than one episode, but most notably in my memory, "Bogie Man"), people getting killed, etc., etc., your child should be old enough for the teen orgy scene. If they're not old enough for that scene, then maybe they shouldn't be watching the show. There's a reason it is one of the 10pm EST shows.
If the parents are that concerned, they can do what two families I nanny/babysit for do. One would only let their kids watch "Nick Jr." (and not even the shows like "Rugrats" and "Spongebob" but rather the really young kids shows such as "Dora" and "The Backyardagans"), the young Disney stuff, certain shows on The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet, and movies/shows on tape/DVD (most of the kids' stuff listed above or G rated movies) even though their kids were 9,8, and 5. The other family only has one television that they only plug in to occasionally watch movies that they rent from the library and the girl's dance recitals/plays. (She's turning 13 in a week and still cannot see any movie with higher than a PG rating.)
Would I want my child watching that episode of WaT? Not until he/she were older. I wouldn't want my child to watch any of the episodes until he/she was old enough to understand it all. Let me make the decision for my kids, though, not the government. I don't want the government to tell me what I (and any potential kids of mine) can and can't watch. Aren't there more important things for them to worry about? What about my neighbors that constantly yell at their kids (2 and like 9 or 10) to "Shut the fuck up or I'll beat your ass!" What about the child at day care who was all excited when she turned 3, because now she "can walk to the park all by [her]self." In the city. Aren't these things more important to regulate than the content of a 10pm show that is rated adult anyway?
*sigh* I'll go back to setting up the challenge post for wat_icontest now. (And avoid looking at the main page of The Source which is where I saw the article to begin with.)
ETA: I just finished watching D.A.R.Y.L, a movie from my childhood, which was rated PG. I think standards might have been looser back then. I'm watching it with some kids, and I'm cringing every time I hear the words "ass", "asshole", "pecker", "hooker", "shit" (at least twice!), "son of a bitch", and versions of "Christ" as a curse. I just don't expect that from a PG movie, as I think of PG as okay for kids above about age 7 or 8. Apparently this was not always the case. I wonder how we went from that (in 1985) to now. Twenty years ago, a PG movie was able to get away with a kid saying "shit", but a grown-up show, airing at 10pm EST, nowadays would get in trouble for it according to that article. Huh. Is this due to the outcry of a few groups, or what? Why the change?