This is surprising. Full frontal nudity (and F-bombs) on broadcast TV? It's under serious consideration by the FCC, and it may be coming real soon.

http://joemiller.us/2013/04/fcc-contemp ... adcast-tv/

This article specifies "full frontal female nudity on prime time tv", but I'm not sure it's accurate. I find it hard to believe they'd allow female frontal but keep the ban on male. That would never fly.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all


There are plenty of other articles out there on it. The FCC put out their statement in mid April (almost two months ago), but I don't know where things stand at the moment.

I think this should probably be under General Discussions. But the moderation seems to be inconsistent on this board, so I leave it up to them.

The FCC has never "forbidden" any kind of nudity on (air broadcast) TV, because it is "prior restraint" of speech. What the FCC did was fine violators after the fact.

The days when the FCC would put an agent in the studio to make sure Elvis was not shown below the waist is long over. (Although network Standards and Practices still do it, however).

This is such a paradigm-shifting topic that it's probably best left here where it would get the most exposure (pardon the pun).

_________________
The Most Comprehensive Collection of Playboy Playmate Appearances from Film & TV! 500+ Titles!

http://playmatesinthemovies.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html

I take back what I said earlier. I've read several articles that say "female frontal nudity" specifically.

I don't see how they can make the distinction between male and female frontal, unless they mean pubic hair and not genitalia (maybe the fcc has the same view many of us guys do, that hair is not a sex organ).


I've also read statements from a few networks that go something like "even if this is allowed, we have a relationship with our audiences and advertisers that we don't want to jepordize, blah, blah, blah". Like that would ever hold. As soon as one show starts having naked women and cursing and their ratings go up, everyone else will be diving right in.

I don't know if this will actually come to be. There's been a lot of opposition. If you google it you'll (unsurprisingly) find many family and religious organisations mobilising to fight it. And there's probably no orgasnised group mobilising to support it.

Here's the best run down of what's really happening according to snopes.com (the site specialises in setting rumours straight with actual facts). The field will not be entirely wide open. They are considering allowing "leeway for fleeting non-repeating moments of frontal nudity and profanity".

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/fccban.asp

I don't exactly know what that means. If you have a naked woman come on screen and then leave, that would seem to qualify as a "fleeting non-reapeating moment" (they need to define the unit of time known as a "fleet", otherwise how will people know what "fleeting" is). I also don't know what "leeway" means. I guess it means they won't automatically be fined. But of course that also means it's still a gamble, because unless it is well defined, you're leaving it up to the FCC's arbitrary discreation (and of course shows like Gray's Anatomy wouldn't be fined, while other "lower-brow" shows probably would).

It almost sounds like the FCC is keeping it purposely vague, probably so they can push their weight and authority around more and decide for themselves who's a "lawbreaker" and who isn't instead of letting the law make that determination.

As it also refers to hours when children will be known to be watching could it not primarily relate to unintentional nudity during live broadcasting?

I think the FCC is probably responding to their loss in the U.S. Supreme Court: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/21/fox-a ... eme-court/

I was wondering that too. Could they mean spontaneous and unscripted acts? Like someone flashing? But "fleeting and non-repitive" does not mean spontaneous and unscripted (they're not even close definition wise). Seemingly from their statements you could script a sit-com scene to have a fully nude woman walk into the room and show it on TV uncensored.

I watched the oral arguments by the networks in front of the Supreme Court. There was a fair exchange about "live" broadcasts which were on a delay for censorship, but it is not perfect and some things "slip" thru.

The networks felt they shouldn't be fined for these "accidents".

Well if that's what it comes down to, then that's not much of a revolutionary change. But as I said previously "spontaneous and unscripted (or accidental)" is definately not the same thing as "fleeting and non-repitive" by anyone's definition. And their statement makes no distinction at all between live and recorded broadcasts.

WTF is the FCC saying? Do they even know themselves?

That's the funny thing about law: If you are too specific, you restrict "Judicial Discretion", if you have to little specificity, it's "Unconstitutionally Vague".

That's why lawyer's make the big bucks.

Yeah but come on. This law seems to be saying "we'll allow frontal nudity or profanity when we want to, and we'll punish it when we want to". In a society based on laws, transgressions are not arbitrary and up to the whims of the authorities. The cops can't do that. Congress can't do that. The judicial branch and courts can't do that. But the FCC can?

Not being from the US I certainly don't claim to have the right answer to this but if a live broadcast has a spontaneous and unscripted fleeting and non-repetitive piece of full frontal female nudity it would make sense to me for the FCC to not take action. If that same piece of spontaneous and unscripted nudity was permitted by the broadcaster to be anything other than fleeting and non-repetitive that would make a different FCC response understandable within the legalistic confines under discussion.

As for the apparent anomaly between female and male nudity presumably there is case law about that and if not this suggests there should be or will be if/when relevant.

Seems they could get a fair idea how to structure legislation by examining the Euro laws. I don't see the FCC being as liberal but it's a starting point.

_________________
The Most Comprehensive Collection of Playboy Playmate Appearances from Film & TV! 500+ Titles!

http://playmatesinthemovies.blogspot.com/2012_01_01_archive.html

It might mean that if some curse words are overheard at a live event - say a football or basketball game - where players curse on the field, that the network would be exempt from being fined which is only fair. Similarly if someone streaks an event. It could also mean that the networks are panicking because viewers are abandoning network TV in droves and they can't compete with cable.

But I of all people can't imagine that female nudity will be allowed but not male. This country would come to a complete stop. The networks would cover the congressional hearings as if they were the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill hearings. There is zero chance of this happening. When NYPD Blue came on there was a standing order for them to show as much male as female nudity to avoid heat from feminists. And even when the FCC allowed commercials for underwear to show people in their underwear, it took years for women to be shown in bras and panties while men were shown in jockey shorts within a few weeks.

But I really believe that there should be a safe period where parents can feel safe that their children will not be exposed to anything on TV that they don't want them to be without having to spend 24 hours a day going crazy researching every show on TV to block or not block.