Justice Department Sues Fox Over Failure To Pay Indecency Fines
from the the-definition-of-indecency dept
Remember how Fox was simply refusing to pay an indecency fine issued by the FCC? Well, it appears that the FCC isn't too happy about that and has had the Justice Department file some lawsuits against the various Fox affiliates refusing to pay (it turns out a few affiliates did pay). Before filing the lawsuits, the FCC rejected Fox's appeal without comment, but merely by saying that Fox's appeal to the FCC was 14 pages too long and the company hadn't asked permission to exceed the limit. Fox called this response "offensive," apparently resisting the more hilarious option of calling it "indecent." In the meantime, it looks like Fox will have yet another indecency case to fight in court to go along with the Supreme Court case on indecency that also involves Fox.
14 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Justices Finally Notice Naked Statues In The Supreme Court While Arguing Why Nudity Should Be Censored
- Is Verizon Wireless Violating Its Promise To Be Open By Blocking Google Wallet?
- Guy Who Uploaded Early Version Of Wolverine, Which Appears Not To Have Hurt Movie At All, Gets 1 Year In Jail
- Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
- CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Interesting ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Nope...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nope...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nope...
And those rules are fairly ambiguous, so it's not entirely clear what constitutes a violation of the rules. The definition of what is 'indecent' changes on a case by case basis, which is why the FCC is currently involved in a lawsuit over the matter.
They should try being a little less "offensive".
As soon as what constitutes "offensive material" is actually defined, they might have some idea of what they can air.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
well
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
decency
I find this completely offensive and would be horrified in my kids saw this material.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Go Fox
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: decency
Right now the FCC censorship doesn't totally extend to non-broadcast stations. Though, I believe they're trying to change that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Offensive is an opinion...
My youngest child is too young to eat steak, but you don't see me lobbying for formula-only diets for everyone. That's just as absurd as limiting my reading material or television options.
If people don't want to see it, don't want it. Nobody forced you to buy a television, or to turn it to that channel and watch it.
I would be pretty upset if my kids saw a Girls Gone Wild commercial... but at myself for not monitering thier viewing activities closely enough.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Semprini
Are we on the air?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Money Well Spent
Yes I did think if the children and I came to the conclusion I don't care. All the world needs is more scared shitless mama's boys/girls who have no mind or backbone which is exactly what we will have if we continue to shelter them from life.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment