FCC--oops, they did it again

From: stephanie (nnine@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jun 18 2001 - 20:16:35 CEST

  • Next message: stephanie: "Re: Sarah Jones, rethinking"

    Oh, what's this?? Looky here.... a direct
    contradiction to the Sarah Jones document, in the
    FCC's own indecency statement. Apparently context IS
    "critical". Let's hope this is the best thing that
    every happened to this song. What's more enticing
    than the words "banned by the FCC?"

    B. Case Comparisons
    10. The principal factors that have proved
    significant in our decisions to date are: (1) the
    explicitness or graphic nature of the description or
    depiction of sexual or excretory organs or activities;

    (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at
    length descriptions of sexual or excretory organs or
    activities; (3) whether the material appears to pander
    or is used to titillate, or whether the material
    appears to have been presented for its shock value.
    In assessing all of the factors, and particularly the
    third factor, the overall context of the broadcast in
    which the disputed material appeared is critical.
    Each
    indecency case presents its own particular mix of
    these, and possibly other, factors, which must be
    balanced to ultimately determine whether the material
    is patently offensive and therefore indecent. No
    single factor generally provides the basis for an
    indecency finding.

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
    http://buzz.yahoo.com/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jun 18 2001 - 20:36:21 CEST