Viacom pays FCC $3.5 Million... BULLSHIT FCC

[*Jamal*]

WASHINGTON - Viacom will pay a record $3.5 million to settle dozens of federal investigations into alleged indecency on TV and the radio, and introduce delays in more live programming to help catch troublesome material before it gets on the air.

The settlement, announced Tuesday, closes investigations dating back to 2001. One involved shock jock Howard Stern, and two focused on Opie and Anthony, who lost their Viacom-owned New York radio show after it featured a couple purporting to have sex inside St. Patrick's Cathedral.

Greg "Opie" Hughes and Anthony Cumia went silent after the 2002 show until October, when they joined with XM Satellite Radio, where Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) regulations don't apply. Stern is joining the Sirius satellite network in January 2006, when his contract with Viacom-owned Infinity Broadcasting expires.

Viacom, which also owns CBS and MTV, agreed to implement a companywide compliance plan aimed at preventing future violations of federal indecency statutes. The plan includes installation of audio delay equipment at radio stations that broadcast live programming and training broadcasters and employees about indecency laws.

"This consent decree allows us to move forward and to focus our efforts in this area by serving our viewers and listeners with techniques to safeguard live broadcasts, such as cutaways and video and audio delays," Viacom said in a statement.

Viacom said the public, not the government, should decide what it is exposed to on radio and television.

But agreeing to the settlement makes that impossible, says John Dunbar, a project manager at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan government watchdog group. Viacom had a reputation for questioning federal investigations under its former president, Mel Karmazin, who left in June, Dunbar said. Karmazin is joining his longtime associate Stern at Sirius, where he will be CEO.

Becoming more acquiescent with FCC (news - web sites) oversight may make good business sense, Dunbar said, but that means potentially losing freedom of speech.

"Regardless of what the content of the speech was, I'm not sure that it's such a great thing for there not to be a debate on it," Dunbar said.

The settlement is not related to the agency's $550,000 fine against Viacom after the exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast during the CBS Super Bowl halftime show in January. Viacom is contesting that fine.

The agreement cancels investigations into about 50 radio and television shows, said Richard Diamond, a commission spokesman. The shows were broadcast by Viacom-owned stations across the country, including some in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, California, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Massachusetts and New York.

The FCC defines indecent programming in the main as containing sexual language or material that is "patently offensive" when measured against prevailing community broadcast standards. It is forbidden on radio or broadcast television from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Material that is judged obscene is not allowed at any hour.

Viacom has five days to pay the $3.5 million fine, according to the agreement. Diamond said it was the commission's largest settlement.

Infinity Broadcasting paid fines totaling $1.7 million in 1995 to settle FCC violations by Stern.

[Jimmy Cash2120]

does any one rember O&A? best radio show ever

[Rampant]

Im am seriously sick of the FCC.  They are taking away free speech.  They've gotten to the point where you cant show Saving Private Ryan on veterans day.

[Ras Kass' Toothpick]

The FCC is complete bullshit.  You get these god freaks in Washington and they try to control what everyone can watch/listen to.

I'd like to hear someone define what "indecency" is?  How do you determine this?

[Thirteen]

i like how a small percent of the people can fuck things up for the rest of us.... like those xray scanners in the UK....98% of the people tested said they didn't mind it, then an outside group says it goes against privacy issues

[Trauma-san]

Well, people shouldn't be able to show up on t.v. nude whenever it's a public access thing.  The airwaves belong to America, and you've got Justin Timberlake simulating a rape of Janet Jackson on television with children watching.  That's bullshit, and they should have all been fined, starting with Janet and Justin.

This year, we've got Paul McCartney headlining the superbowl.  I hope it's the beginning of a long tradition of quality entertainment @ the superbowl, last year's show was a fucking JOKE. 

[Ras Kass' Toothpick]

Well, people shouldn't be able to show up on t.v. nude whenever it's a public access thing.  The airwaves belong to America, and you've got Justin Timberlake simulating a rape of Janet Jackson on television with children watching.  That's bullshit, and they should have all been fined, starting with Janet and Justin.

Who are you to say that's not something people should watch?  I personally don't find that "indecent".

[*Jamal*]

Well, people shouldn't be able to show up on t.v. nude whenever it's a public access thing.  The airwaves belong to America, and you've got Justin Timberlake simulating a rape of Janet Jackson on television with children watching.  That's bullshit, and they should have all been fined, starting with Janet and Justin.

Who are you to say that's not something people should watch?  I personally don't find that "indecent".

He believes the government should stay out of our lives, unless it's this Christian fundamentalist administration agreeing with the bible-thumpers, sibling-fucking hicks and Mormons ideals. These people think it's wrong to show "indecencies" on TV, but feel it's okay to molest their nephews and so forth. It's so hypocritical and disgusting.

[[Stoned]Jesus H. Christ[Wheat]]

don't like whats on, TURN THE FUCKING CHANNEL! Most people have hundreds anyways, so if your disgusted by what your watching find something else, turn it off and go do something.

[Trauma-san]

The problem with that argument, which your questionable intellect I guess failed to recognize, is that there's no precedent for showing Nudity during the fucking SUPERBOWL.  The last 35 years it was on, or however long, there was no nudity.  So parents had a reasonable expectation that there would be nothing that a child couldn't watch on the show.  So, here's parents sitting around with their children, and Justin Timberlake rips Janet Jackson's clothes off, and she cowers to him.  Real fucking class for a little girl to see a man rip a woman's clothes off on national television.  If you dont' see a problem with that, I hope the fuck you never have children, becuase they're gonna be a sad future for the world. 

[Ant]

oh no, breasts!  lets get all pissy becuz we saw something on TV that every living person has seen before.  Your so concerned with tits, but you apparently think homophobia, racism, and guns are good for the kiddies. 

oddly enough, whole other parts of the world regularly go topless in public.  Many of our famous sculptures are nude.  And even more amazingly, the side of religion, is also the side that is embarassed of the body god gave them.  God didn't invent clothing, but he did create breasts and a penis, and as the story goes, Adam and Eve were placed on this earth nude.           

[[Stoned]Jesus H. Christ[Wheat]]

^^ What he said. What is wrong with a bit of nudity?

[Trauma-san]

The problem is the depiction of a man ripping a woman's clothes off, and the woman cowering and covering herself from the man.  That's not an image to project to children as 'cool' on national t.v. with thousands of fans screaming. 

[_That_Cracka_J]

The problem is the depiction of a man ripping a woman's clothes off, and the woman cowering and covering herself from the man.  That's not an image to project to children as 'cool' on national t.v. with thousands of fans screaming. 

You'll never get your point across.  I understand what you're saying....you can go on and on and on and on and on and people will fail to see what's wrong with being able to show "whatever you want" on t.v. 

So nobody sees anything wrong with kids seeing shit that not's suitable for young viewers?  I mean really, you see nothing wrong with a 5 year old flipping through channels and he sees some porn?  That's freedom of speech?  I understand if an adult finds it offending, then change the fucking channel.  An adult is (should be) responsible enough, but a kid is not.  Sure I know they will probably see the same shit in one form or another, but if tv were allowed to put on ANYTHING, then there's no standards.

[Ras Kass' Toothpick]

I mean really, you see nothing wrong with a 5 year old flipping through channels and he sees some porn?

What do you think will happend to that five year old if he sees porn on television?