How Kevin Martin Got Over A Million People To Look At A Woman's Naked Buttocks

from the indecent? dept

Since taking over the FCC, Kevin Martin has supposedly been against regulations — except in two areas: the cable industry and “indecency.” He’s been a strong proponent of cracking down on whatever he considers indecent programming, and much of his support for a la carte cable is based on how it might block indecent content. The latest crackdown on indecency has a number of people shaking their heads. It involves fining ABC affiliates $1.43 million for a brief clip of the TV show “NYPD Blue,” that aired in February of 2003, and included images of a naked woman from behind. Of course, if Martin really was trying to protect people from viewing such indecent content, perhaps he shouldn’t have issued this fine. After all, it was shown on TV nearly five years ago. By now, most people would have forgotten about it… unless, of course, the FCC were to bring the clip back into the news, getting someone to put it on YouTube, and driving well over a million viewers to watch the video since the fine was announced.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “How Kevin Martin Got Over A Million People To Look At A Woman's Naked Buttocks”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
AZ says:


How sad what the world is coming too. I mean they allow sluts like this on tv. People call it nothing. They are the select few and act like the majority. All they are are perverts that say its okay and its nothing to watch topless,naked or whatever people on tv in europe or wherever. How sad.
I am a Christian and I stand up for what I believe in. This is nothing but sick stuff. This was nothing but what they call “light” porn. It had no need to be in the show. The ONLY reason it was there was for sex appeal. PERIOD.

SilverWolf (user link) says:

Re: Slut

You think announcing that you are a Christian and condemning this woman for showing a little T&A is a good thing ?

Christians’ have committed more Atrocities, Murder, Torture, and genocide than any other organization in the history of the world.

A search for Christian Atrocities on google returns over 3 Million results just like the following page.

You support Murder, and Torture but you are against 10 seconds of nudity ?

Get your priorities strait.

AZ says:

Re: Re: Slut

Another person who does not seem to use his/her brain.
Lets get something straight.If someone who calls themselves a Christian and then goes against what the Bible says then I do not support what they do nor does God. Read the Bible my friend and you will see what some of these people who call themselves Christians are not doing what God says to do.

Grow Up says:

Re: Slut

If you don’t want to watch it, change the channel. But, don’t assume the rest of us share your wacked evangelical value system. What right do you have, regardless of your religious affiliation, to tell the rest of us what we can and cannot watch on TV?
Furthermore, it’s just as unfair for you to assume the woman is a slut for filming a nude scene as it for me to assume you are a fat, pious, bull-dyke simply because you’re offended by said scene.
This is the USA, Zoni. We believe in individual freedom, including the right to make up our own minds about what we watch on TV. Censor what’s on TV in your own living room. But, stay the F*CK out of mine!

AZ says:

Re: Re: Slut

How sad…..
Results to cussing and it does nothing but make him look like he failed language class.
You may not know this but cussing does not explain very well how a person feels. Its a shallow form of conversation. There are much better words to describe something.

What right do you have to make sure your kids do not put their fingers in the socket or play in the road? Its there free will remember why should you be able to take away their freedoms?

The simple answer is for your protection. This stuff is just dirty and should not be shown.

R.H. (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Slut

Yes the poster that you replied to did resort to cursing however, you didn’t actually respond to his point. Here in the United States we generally believe in individual freedoms. If you choose not to want to see something on television, change the channel or if you believe that all things on TV are bad just don’t watch. What ‘Grow Up’ meant was, no one has the right to dictate to other adults what they should or should not be able to watch.

Also the “attracting more flies with honey than vinegar” quote fits here. If you want to attract more people to Christianity then you probably want to tell the about what you believe is wrong with their lifestyle without coming across as ‘holier-than-thou’.

Anonymous Poster (profile) says:

Re: Slut

Wow. Just…wow. So, what, do you go every day without ever going naked? I mean, how do you take a shower without getting naked and becoming a slut yourself?

It’s people like you that DON’T need to be watching TV — or deciding what should or shouldn’t be on it. And judging by your comments here, if you had it your way, TV as we know it wouldn’t even exist — and neither would films, videogames, or books (outside of the Bible, of course; I mean, after all, there’s NOTHING potentially offensive about a book filled with stories that describe incest, genocide, murder, adultery, slavery, bigotry, nudity, and hatred of various different varieties…no, NOTHING AT ALL).

You want to make the world a better place? Then follow these three simple suggestions as they pertain to good moral values: Raise your kids with some, stay true to your own, and QUIT WORRYING ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE’S.

Anonymous Poster (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Slut

How was this in public? I don’t recall the show being broadcast on blimps flying over cities or being projected onto buildings by someone in the street — television viewing is (usually) a PRIVATE viewing experience, despite the fact that the programming is (usually) available to portion of the public who decides to pay for it and/or the portion of the public who pick up the signals of the major broadcast networks on their antenna (digital or analog). If you’re offended by something you see on TV, don’t go into a hissy fit and whine about it to the FCC — change the channel or turn the TV off. You’re the one who made the conscious decision to watch the program, so you have no one to blame but yourself if you get offended; no person has the RIGHT to be offended — no matter their race, creed, gender, age, marital status, sexual preference, or anything else they could think of to justify being offended.

You don’t like naked women? Fine. You don’t like naked women on TV? Fine, too. You want to deprive everyone the opportunity to see a naked woman? NO. You may think the female form is sinful and evil and all that other signs-of-being-brainwashed crap, but I happen to think the human form (male or female) is a beautiful thing that no one should be ashamed of. As far as the broadcast networks go…well, as long as the show airs after the main primetime hours (in other words, starting at 10PM EST) and they make sure to advertise that the show’s not for minors/rated TV-MA, I don’t see WHY a little nudity shouldn’t be acceptable.

By the way, um…ever hear that phrase “Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself”? Yeah, you’re judging the woman who got naked as a slut…and I would find the irony delicious is that woman was, herself, a Christian (like you claim to be, despite the very un-Christian leanings you’ve been showing off in your posts — I thought Christians were supposed to be about forgiveness, redemption, understanding, and love, not judging people to be sluts and demanding they control what everyone should be able to see, think, say, or do on television).

JoeHark (user link) says:

Re: Slut

You say you are a Christian. Would it be accurate to assume that means you follow the teachings and example of Christ?

Such as John 8:2-11 (King Jame Version)?

You, know . . . the part where Christ says, about the woman caught in adultery, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Do you understand that He was saying mind your own business, pay attention to your own sins before making a public noise about what you think are the sins of others, have compassion, forgiveness, judge not, etc. ???

kilroy says:

Re: and your point ... (was slut)

No actually it was there because the people who made the show thought it was appropriate to the content they were creating. I have not seen it and really do not care to, but I will defend their right to include it. Content in shows is generally included to entertain an audience. It secondary goal is to increase the number of viewers so that the advertisers can reach a greater number of potential customers. If you truly care do you show it with your actions, by not purchasing products which are promoted on tv stations which choose to air “light-porn” or does you morality not matter if it might cause you some inconvenience? In my experience Christians, and others who espouse religious conviction, seem to have no problem shopping on their sabbath day although the fact that they have that opportunity might mean someone else will be forced to work on that day.

But I digress … I may or may not have seen the show when it aired, but I would not have noticed someone’s butt as being exceptionally noteworthy. By levying the fine it has become newsworthy and the clip is played – out of context – ad nauseum … So ask yourself who did the devil the bigger favour?

ehrichweiss says:

Re: Slut

“How sad what the world is coming too”

Yeah, very, very sad that fundamentalist christians hellbent on censorship have any right to speak of porn at all. How about checking out that “holy” bible of yours before throwing your stones. Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible, that book you guys fear so much despite having never read it, doesn’t have 1% the sex and violence of your so-called holy book and yet you are worried about a little nudity.

Or, you’re just a clever troll. Same thing basically.

hautedawg says:

Re: Slut

I postponed writing this as long as I possibly could. I was ready to spew forth the venom of hatred and spout off about what an ignorant person AZ is/was/wants to be, but I actually thought a couple of hours and now realize what a sad, sad statement he made.

Supposedly, he is technically inclined, yet he doesn’t have the ability to think “freely”. AZ (assuming it is a he) is far too quick to condemn those who do not agree with the exact same things as he does, and doesn’t understand that nudity, sex and love are not sick, but instead a beautiful thing, even in a scientific way.

At the risk of just ruining the junk I just wrote, want to bet he screams “Oh God” at the apropriate moments?

At any rate, like most of the other “free thinking” and technically inclined here, if you don’t choose to see the nudity, change the channel, as I do when Pat Robertson’s face is on my screen. We can’t all agree on everything, and condemning me for looking at a fine piece of ass is the same as my condeming you for reading a different version of the bible. Besides, who died and made you God?

We have gone too far away from the ability to make choices for ourselves and have a society that looks to people like AZ to make choices for us. There are huge groups of people who meet in huge buildings every Sunday to have someone like AZ to tell them what is right and what is wrong. AZ, you are just one more of the sheep, and my friend, you are being lead to the slaughter.

boost says:

Re: Slut

How obsessed is this world today, that the image of the human body is thought of as ‘indescent’? I mean, there’s nothing indescent about the human form. Because you confuse it with sex, doesn’t mean that we don’t. Get a life, would you.

I’m a christian too, and I can discern between natural beauty and sex. Why can’t you?

Doug (user link) says:


The FCC’s oversight hypocrisy is excruciating. No naked buttocks – but while our kids watch TV during all hours of the day they are bombarded with sexual advertisements for erection pills… you absolutely cannot protect children from these ads, they are ubiquitous. Naturally the republican-leaning FCC sees nothing wrong with this. What is good for the pharma industry, is good for America?

dcm says:

re: slut

@AZ: Slut? Whatever happened to the “judge not lest you be judged” part of your beliefs? Maybe you shouldn’t be watching TV as it is “of this world” and not glorifying God?

Either way, enforcing your religious standards on others seems very un-American to me. If we went by the strictest religious standards, she should be wearing a burka or be stoned to death. I prefer the “change the channel if you don’t want to see it” method. Also, why hide God’s beautiful creations (unless those are fake boobs)?

qwerty says:

What’s wrong in today’s society is that when we give each other a black eye, or bruised kidney, or anything involving blood, we have this moment when we become brothers, and build each other up.

“It’s a legal thing!” she says. “We need to fight this injustice!”

When will we wake up and realize it’s all a political dance to win the hearts and minds of our “better half”?

Men, take care of your women. They need protection from this evil Hillary.

Read the history books, you’ll learn that many empires were built on vices, but I’m not saying that vices are bad, because they are. But if you take a few sociology courses from Philip Zimbardo, you’ll come to realize that man needs an outlet from woman. Blogs will soon be illegal thanks to Bull Dozer. What’s next? Will paint ball is too dangerous?

If you want a better frame of reference, consider “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”

Kevin says:

Re: Re:

I have seen many comments stating that if we don’t want our kids to see nudity we should just change the channel. What channel is left to change it to if NBC, CBS and ABC can’t be trusted?

Here’s a hint…if what’s on TV offends you so much, turn it off. There’s no legal requirement that people have to watch 20 hours of TV a week. If the choice is between taking your 8 year old to a rated R movie and not going to the movies at all, do you take your kid to the rated R movie? No. But if you’re such a screwed up parent that you couldn’t even figure that much out without someone telling you then I have no hope for your children. They’re already doomed by your stupidity.

Still, in case you haven’t noticed the entertainment market is CRAWLING with “clean, decent programming” aimed at families and children. There’s the Disney Channel, the Family Channel, Nickelodeon, any number of religious-affiliated channels that not only DON’T show nudity, but will help you brainwash your children too.

Anonymous Coward says:

This isn’t the first time NYPD Blue has shown some celebrity ass.

Anyone remember that other shower scene with the old cop and his wife? Can’t remember if you saw both their asses in that scene or not.

Anyways, thanks AZ for reminding us that the loudest Christians are hypocritical bigots. If I had to take a breath for every time I get reminded, I’d be hyperventilating.

John M says:

The first nude part lasted way too long, and it included a side view of her breast, which I felt was over the top. The first part should have been very very brief – 0.5 seconds tops, and cut off before the breast was visible.

After she moves to the shower, the problem there for me is that they panned the camera down – simply not needed at all.

The frontal shot with her covering herself is also a bit too graphic, but it might have squeezed by if the show carried one of those “the following show contains… mature audiences…” disclaimer that they issue at times.

Overall, I would have reprimanded them as well – the thing should never have made it on air in its current state.

I’m not an opponent to nudity if done tastefully or artfully. This was neither.

Disappointed says:

I am just disappointed at all the commenters on this article that simply returned fire at first one. Sure, he is out of line, and as a few have pointed out, needs to learn his religion better, but that doesn’t justify attacking it or him.

The more learned, appropriate approach would be to point out his error, and kindly remind him that his views to not reflect the teachings of Jesus, not to attack him or his character, as you know nothing of him/her. This is how heated religious debates get nowhere.

I do not condone this type of action by the FCC or by the shows creaters. I think it is just gratuitous, designed only to get views. And I think its sad becuase is shows how our culture and values have devolved.

Special Case says:

Impartial Wisdon

@Grow Up: Well put! I just want to add that nobody is forcing you to watch television in the first place. It is not like you HAVE to watch TV in order to live. Don’t like what’s on? Don’t watch. This reminds me of an episode of South Park where all the kids are worried they will get their arses kicked because they illegally acquired samurai weapons but in the end nobody cared. Why? Because Cartman showed his weiner in public. To quote: “I guess parents don’t give a crap about violence if there’s sex things to worry about.”

As Haelian mentioned earlier in this thread, sex is a natural part of life. In fact, every one of us in this discussion forum came into existence as a result of a sexual act sometime in the past (perhaps not by your parents but somewhere back in the lineage two people definitely got their groove on). All species (including human) have an innate, programmed desire to procreate. Procreation is necessary to perpetuate the species. If people stopped having sex, people would go extinct. Why then is perhaps the most natural human act considered shameful and something that must be confined to the most private and secluded portions of life?

Third, I will take on the “protect the children” argument. I have a sad but true fact about parenting to everyone out there with children and everyone considering children: you can’t be with your kid 24/7/365 ever. Period. I will repeat that in case you did not hear me the first time: you cannot be with your kid every hour of every day of every year. At some time you have to work, you have to sleep, your kid will grow up. These are facts of life. Now, because you cannot be everywhere with your kid at every time, you also cannot control everything that the kid will be exposed to. And therein lies the rub. Since you cannot be everywhere with your child at all times, and therefore cannot control everything that your child will see, how then can you make sure that you have done your job as a responsible parent and ensure that your child will grow up “properly” with “good morals”? If you answered, “well, this is where we need decency and other laws to ensure that everything on TV is appropriate for all”, you answered incorrectly since no governmental body can EVER speak for EVERY person under its jurisdiction and therefore what is labeled as “inappropriate” by the government standards body, may be deemed perfectly appropriate for the next door neighbors’ children and therefore the government has just trampled their freedom so that Billy’s mom can sleep at night knowing that Billy can’t see bare bottoms or nasty Hollywood explosions. Instead of setting hard and fast rules of “appropriateness”, parents should just try talking to their kids. The fact of the matter is that kids are eventually going to learn “the facts of life” including the “birds and the bees.” Parents should then just talk to their children about these things in an open supportive manner rather than pushing them aside and out of view. But, I forgot, that actually requires work…

Finally, I want to once and for all quash the argument that the USA is somehow now (and was founded as) a “Christian nation”. inside the two foundational documents of the United States (the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) there is not a single reference to the name Jesus Christ to explicitly to God even. The Declaration of Independence mentions a “Creator” and “Nature’s God” but one cannot infer that Creator == God in the sense of the biblical omniscient and omnipotent God by these words alone since they are used in very generic context. In fact, if one reads through the entire text of the Constitution, one will not find so much as a mention of the word “God” or anything even resembling a reference. There are two places however that seem to clearly contradict the notion of “Christian nation” within the text of the Constitution:

[Article VI, Clause 3:] “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Amendment I:] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

In closing, since America is NOT a “Christian nation” by its own creation, why then should Christian morality be forced on its citizenry and constrain our available choices? If anything, we are founded on the ideal that every person is free to make their own choices for themselves and not to be told or limited in what those choices are. Even in the case of children, parents should trust that each child will make the best decision they can rather than control the menu of choices available to them.

Ed Broth says:


This is a snare trap. So I’ll bite, but have to ask when did Techdirt turn into a religious site? Do I dare answer?

So as the story goes, we were naked until she was seduced by the snake. Then tempted man to eat from the tree of knowledge. Then we covered ourselves knowing our deeds. God asked why we covered ourselves, and he abolished us from the garden. Damn Snake! I think it’s all covered in The Book of Genesis.

TG says:

Re: Re: Trollbait Simpletons

How dare you call me a troll. Whatever that means. I just simply saw this topic and replied.

I just found this immensely amusing. It’s a textbook example of a zealous religious person jumping to conclusions about something they know absolutely nothing about 🙂

If you’re really that Christian you should know that you’re supposed to warn us mindless sheep when we’re straying off The Path, but you have no right to ban our right to stray. That’s what free will is all about.

Anonymous Poster (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’m not. Hey, if you’re offended by something, I’m all for you expressing that opinion — but when you say “NOBODY SHOULD EVER SEE THIS EVER AGAIN DSFARGEGBLARGHRL”, then I’m going to raise a stink about it because it’s an attempt to infringe not only my First Amendment right to watch whatever content I want, but the rights of the content producers to produce whatever content they wish.

If you’re for the RIAA, MPAA, or whatever, I may not like your stance, but I’ll let you get your opinion out in peace. Free Speech is built upon the idea that almost all speech (save for specific content, such as speech that incited violence) is protected and should not be oppressed/censored just because it’s a viewpoint people don’t like.

Joe Doakes says:

Uh, news for you AL

Hi AL: So you think a woman who bares her bottom to a man is a slut? Guess what: your mother exposed not only her bum, but her boobies, and, well, let’s call it her “gloryhole.”
Know what else? Your daddy put the thing he pees with in your mommy’s gloryhole. Many times. Honest. That’s what he did.
Guess your mom’s worse than a slut. And only God knows what your father is.
I know this is more than your mind can stand. You should sell your devil-spawn TV and computer and get thee to a nunnery so that you can spend the rest of your life doing pennance for the horrible sins committed by your mommy and your daddy. Google can help you find a place to go.
Best of luck.

dopey dip stink says:

News for you Al

So, his mother has a “glory hole”. That’s an odd phrase, used in my part of the world to be a place where anonymous sex is taking place on the other side of a wall that one man’s “unit” is sticking through.

So, you asked what his father was? I believe we’d call it his Uncle in Arkansas, his brother in Tennessee and he’d be his own Grandfather in Kentucky. Of course in Kansas, he’d just be created.

John (profile) says:

A few things

First, why in the world is the FCC issuing a fine FIVE years after this episode aired and how-many-years after the show has ended? This certainly sends Disney, ABC, and the other networks a message. Good job, FCC.

Second, we, as Americans need to grow up. Why is there such a big deal about nudity? Europeans have TV shows with nudity and some countries even have commercials with nudity!
My god, think of those European children who grow up seeing naked people on TV. They’ll be scarred for life!

Third, doesn’t this whole issue create a sense of “forbidden fruit”. Any TV show with the hint of nudity (or even a “this show contains mature issues” warning) becomes a top-viewed show by people hoping to catch a glimpse of “something naughty”.
We’re not talking about porn, after all- this is tasteful nudity as part of the plot… just like shows such as The Sopranos, Weeds, The Tudors, etc.

Fourth, as some posters mentioned, why is it that some people get all upset about nude buttocks, yet erectile dysfunction drugs are advertised like crazy? Where’s the outrage against these commercials?

Personally, if I was watching TV with my children, I would find it easier to explain why a woman was naked while taking a shower than to explain that Cialis is for men who want better sex. (You can argue all you want about how Cialis, Viagra, etc are drugs for ED, but based on how many times the commercials are run, ED seems like the biggest epidemic since polio.)

(As a side note: shame, shame on the Elvis Presley estate for allowing the use of “Viva Las Vegas” as the Viagra song, “Viva Viagra”.)

And, of course, as is the usual argument for TV shows: if you don’t like the show, turn it off. If enough people turn off a show, the network will see that no-one’s watching and will take it off the air themselves.
Why do people complain to the government about shows they don’t like (and why does the FCC listen)? Why do people feel the need to impose their morals on other people?

Personally, I thought The Sopranos had too much violence. Should I have complained to the FCC and gotten it off the air? Or should I have let it go so it could win numerous Emmys… just like NYPD Blue.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...