FCC wants to fine TV violence

[Guest Ktrek]

This article appeared today and I was wondering if the fans think this will affect the amount of violence, if any there will be on ENT and will it affect the quality of the show? Is ENT too violent according to the new FCC standards?

 

Ktrek

[Tina 0]

Only those certain scenes will be blacked out

 

But is that enough to appease the FCC?

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I'm all for censoring network TV, but this is going too far.

 

"Monkey see, monkey do. Children will mimic what they see on TV," he said, according to Television Week. "I just couldn't stand by and do nothing."

That's the stupidest part of the article!

 

Hopefully, this will not effect ENT since phasers, starships, and aliens aren't real. One could argue, "How could children mimic what doesn't exist?"

[Jim Phaserman 0]

it specifically mentioned Gratuitous violence. this means shows like "The Sheild" and "24" will be effected, because those shows are all about violence. "Enterprise", and Star Trek in general, has never really been about violence, so I think it won't affect Enterprise. the writers will, though, undoubtably be more careful.

[Nemesis 0]

I'm all for censoring network TV, but this is going too far.

 

"Monkey see, monkey do. Children will mimic what they see on TV," he said, according to Television Week. "I just couldn't stand by and do nothing."

That's the stupidest part of the article!

 

Hopefully, this will not effect ENT since phasers, starships, and aliens aren't real. One could argue, "How could children mimic what doesn't exist?"

Now they're comparing smart monkeys to children, maybe they need to be stereotypes for their discriminatory remarks.

[Jeanway 0]

'Monkey see Monkey do', doesn't apply just to children. Grown-ups mimic each other too. So you also could say ' People see, People do'.

[Jim Phaserman 0]

Children are more impressionable than adults on average. I mean, there are some really impressionable adults, but Children are easy to influence. if a child is brought up in a house where he gets no attention from mommy and daddy, and watches shows like the Sopranos, he's gonna think "Yeah, sure, it's okay to whack the guy I don't like"

[xenexian 2]

What the FCC wants and what the FCC is going to get are completely two different things. Knee jerk reactions, especially when it comes to free speech over the air waves, are never going to pass muster with all of the country. Again, inflicting moral codes simply because someone somewhere doesn't like something, is simply blatant censorship, pure and simple. Is that what are fathers and grandfather fought for? For the right for someone to censure something simply because they don't like it? I'm even surprised at CJLP's comment about being all for censoring network TV. In case you haven't noticed it, there's a little switch on your tv called the on/off switch. If you don't like what you see, simply turn it off or find another channel or better yet, read a book or two. If your worried about what children see and think, what are you going to do when they become adults and they make the choices to watch or read something that you may have forbidden when they were young? It's all about choices and as adults, we have the right to learn, read, watch or listen to anything we want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Censorship is nothing more then denying you your rights to this freedom under the guise of someone's so called morality. This is a large country and what someone doesn't like in one part of it doesn't mean that it's not accepted in another. We talk about diversity and tolerance but who really practices it? Don't look for the FCC really to do too much except maybe issue a few more hefty fines and if someone is really that concerned about the violence we see on TV then lets stop broadcasting the NFL and NHL and maybe stop broadcasting a baseball game because a pitcher throws at a batter and before you know it, there's a full scalled brawl right on you screen for all the country to see that is not play acting but real grown up men trying to hurt each other. By the standards of those wanting to ban violence from tv then these incidents would fit into that catagory. Would this happen? Not on your life. This country lately has gotten very vocal in what it says it wants to see and what it doesn't but the line they draw is so vague that even the supreme court would have a hard time coming up with a clear cut definition. Again, if you don't like what you see you can exercise your right not to watch it or your family from watching it but don't tell the rest of the country or me, for that matter, that I can't simply because you don't like it. You want examples of this kind of government control and censorship? Then look at Germany in 1933. Under the guise of cleaning up the German culture, the foundation was laid for discrimination, hatred, and eventually genocide. This fact is undeniable and we, as a country, cannot allow ourselves to follow that same path no matter what the best intentions may be.

Edited March 12, 2004 by xenexian

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I'm even surprised at CJLP's comment about being all for censoring network TV.  In case you haven't noticed it, there's a little switch on your tv called the on/off switch.  If you don't like what you see, simply turn it off or find another channel or better yet, read a book or two.

The reason why I said that is becuase I watch almost no TV these days becuase it's riddled with sexuallity and graphic violence. Now I only watch the Trek shows & SG-1.

[Gotabite 0]

I do not think that Enterprise falls under the category of graphic violence. Personally I think there is too much graphic violence on TV. But if there's going to be censuring and fines; there are other programing issues that could also be looked at; such as all of the explicit sex on TV, especially lately in some of these reality shows. Some program topics that come on before 10:00pm could also be questioned as to whether they are suitable for children.......I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's dangerous to just single out graphic violence without looking at the term suitability overall.

[xenexian 2]

I'm even surprised at CJLP's comment about being all for censoring network TV.  In case you haven't noticed it, there's a little switch on your tv called the on/off switch.  If you don't like what you see, simply turn it off or find another channel or better yet, read a book or two.

The reason why I said that is becuase I watch almost no TV these days becuase it's riddled with sexuallity and graphic violence. Now I only watch the Trek shows & SG-1.

Then you have made your choice and are already practicing your own form of censorship, which is fine since it only affects your own life and not someone elses. But I would hardly call the Disney Channel, or TBS or even the major networks as channels rife with sexuality and graphic violence. It does come down to the eye of the beholder and personal choices. There are a number of other programs and channels as well that would no doubt fit your criteria for wholesomeness. But where do you draw the line? As I mentioned, the NFL itself is a graphically violent sport and as for sexuality, well, if it wasn't for sexuality, we all wouldn't be here and like it or not, is part of the human experience. Everyone learns about it sooner or later because of our own biological need to reproduce. As long as there are no laws abridging the freedom of speech or expression, which the broadcast airwaves are part of, I have no qualms with anyone who wishes to express that they don't like what they see or hear. As I mentioned, you don't have to watch or listen but trying to impose those viewpoints on the country as a whole would lead to some pretty boring broadcasts not to mention rebellion.

Edited March 12, 2004 by xenexian

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

I think that censorship should be left to each network. If the producers feel they're beeing too censorred, they can shop for a new network that will allow them to portray what they want. This would work very well as one could say, "Oh, I don't like that (something) network, it's too violent." or, "What channel is (some show) on? Oh, it's on (something) network? Sorry, but that network has naked people in their shows, no thanks." See? You pick a network, then pick the show. Sound like a good idea?

[xenexian 2]

Absolutely. But not all shows have naked people and one show on a network that has questionable taste would not be reason enough to boycott that network entirely. One bad apple does not necessarily spoil the whole bunch.

[TSonofvulcan 0]

ENT isn't too bad with violence. Now if they were cutting down on "unnessisary content" *cough*

[Julie 0]

if there is going to be a ban on graphic violence, then I suspect it should be held to ALL television programs, INCLUDING the News. why should a TV station be forbidden to show someone getting shot twice on a show like NYPD Blue, and then show a scene from Palestine where some suicide bomber killed or injured scores of people? I think the evening news is alot more violent and gory then any TV show. and whats worse about it is, the scenes on TV are all staged. it's makeup! nobody really died when they showed some guy getting shot on Law and Order, CI. but now maybe they can't show that. but they can sure as hell show somebody running down the street in Jerusalem with a piece of metal lodged in their arm.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

it specifically mentioned Gratuitous violence. this means shows like "The Sheild" and "24" will be effected, because those shows are all about violence. "Enterprise", and Star Trek in general, has never really been about violence, so I think it won't affect Enterprise. the writers will, though, undoubtably be more careful.

Hey, I resent that! 24 is not a gratuitously violent show! I should know, I'm Jack Bauer.

 

Oh, by the way if Ryan Chappelle comes around here asking questions, tell him I shot Nina 3 times because she was reaching for her gun .

 

Ok, I'm kidding. 24 is a violent show and yeah it may be a little over the top. I mean the death tolls from the first two seasons are 59 and 113 and will likely be up this season.

However, at the same time I hope these new regulations don't change it too much. The violence is part of what gives the show its edge and is often associated with the many twists are turns of the plot which make 24 so exciting.

 

Of course, I am old enough to appreciate how destructive violence really is and would never do anything I see on 24.

 

Oh, I don't think will affect Enterprise a great deal. I mean, the most gruesome thing it the history of Star Trek was the killing of Remmick in Conspiracy and that pales in conparison to the violence on TV today.

Edited March 13, 2004 by Jack_Bauer

[stoned_vulcan 0]

this is the stupidest article ever they are woried about violence? well first of all if they are woried about violence stop cariying guns in texas.. secondly y not get rid of shows liek south park? a 5 year old watching south park would be more harmful to him/her than if he/she was watching star trek or superman or something.... its just some overberring parent who wants to do this....

[DixonHill1989 0]

I don't think ENT will suffer.