American Family Association @ MindSay 
FCC fines ABC over 'NYPD Blue'; network to appeal
LOS ANGELES, Jan 25 (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission on Friday said it plans to fine the Walt Disney Co's ABC network $1.4 million for airing an episode of "NYPD Blue" in 2003 that showed a woman's nude buttocks.
The company said it opposes the fine and plans to appeal.
In a notice filed on Friday, the agency said 52 television ABC stations in the Central and Mountain time zones had aired the scene at 9 p.m. in violation of federal restrictions against broadcasting "obscene material" between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The agency said it received "numerous complaints" about the scene, in which a young boy walks in on a nude woman about to take a shower.
See http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN2530635020080126 for the story in full.
A couple of things came to mind:
* This is a complaint for a show which aired close to five years ago? A show which aired before the whole Janet Jackson incident with the Superbowl? Nice job, FCC. Way to strike while the iron is hot...
* NYPD Blue had been known for its racy rear shots for years at this point. The reason this one was singled out, apparently, was because of the "young boy" who walked in. I didn't watch the episode, but there were no sexual connotations involving the young boy. The subplot involved the trials and tribulations of a single parent dating while trying to raise a kid. We're also not talking about an extended camera shot here -- it was over in a flash.
* If you're watching NYPD Blue (which, during 2003, used the mandatory TV ratings system -- which meant it could easily be blocked by televisions with the V-Chip installed (which was installed in all TVs for years at that point), you pretty much knew what you were getting into. If not, the disclaimer at the beginning advising viewer discretion should have helped steer potentially offended people away. But let's say that someone accidentally stumbled upon that episode of NYPD Blue by chance without the faintest idea what would appear. A buttock! Oh no! Is it really that offensive? Personally, I have two of them. I simply don't see what the big deal is.
* No. I do see precisely what the big deal is. Groups like Donald Wildmon's American Family Association instructs its members to blindly send copies of form letters to the FCC en masse to purify the airwaves of certain things they find objectionable. And the FCC caves to that pressure. And why not? It's giving some of the people what they want while gaining revenue. Who could argue with that?
Well, ABC is arguing with that. They are appealing the fine and will likely settle for a smaller amount. Not that I have any pity for ABC/Disney which is doing fine economically compared to much of the nation. But still -- this shouldn't be something the FCC should bring up five years after the fact to drum up Republican coffieurs.
Oh -- and one more thing:
* What's more offensive -- someone's bare butt before she steps into the shower, or the droves of people shot in the head by Jack Bauer or any of the other characters on "24?" Where the FUCK has the AFA and the FCC been to combat the violence that apparently has been acceptable while they've been allegedly attempting to "protect the children" from anatomy that all of them have?
Thanks, FCC. Thanks for keeping those airwaves safe.
I mean, after all -- they're the ones who took a look in the Lowe's winter catalog and saw that Lowe's was selling not Christmas trees, but "family trees." They decided to make it known to Lowe's that it is an affront to take the "Christmas" out of Christmas Trees, and Lowe's has since apologized for their mistake. It apparently wasn't caught in the proofreading process.
And you know what? Good for the American Family Association for standing up for what they believe. They're upset that Lowe's is marketing these trees in a certain way? Let them spread forth the information to the masses. No problem with that.
But I was listening to a right-wing radio show on my way into work this morning (David Burd and Jessica Doyle on WWWT (3WT) in Washington, DC), and I heard them talking about this when one of them mentioned, on air:
What kind of world are we living in where it has to be called a family tree instead of a Christmas tree?
No, you dear, dear asshats. It doesn't have to be called anything specific. It's not the "secular progressives" who are demanding boycotts of stores which only mention Christmas and aren't inclusive of other seasonal holidays. Ours are not the feelings that are hurt when Christmas trees are referred to as Christmas Trees.
What probably happened here? Lowe's probably included this language to distinguish between the small tabletop Chritsmas trees and the larger, "family-sized" trees. Perhaps they even decided it would be wider marketing if they use the word "family." I'm sure it wasn't the AFA's wet dream of a "war on Christmas."
Call it a family tree. Call it a Christmas tree. Do what you'd like. But don't blame the hysteria on the rest of society. We're not the ones having a temper tantrum, AFA. That would be you.
(And let this be a reminder: only 34 days until Asarah b'Tevet 5768. I'm expecting much sensitivity and heaps of presents yet again...)
EDIT: Our dear friend reader78th, our self-proclaimed "Christian friend who also thinks it's idiotic," showed me this greeting card which is kind of related. And which made me laugh. :)
http://store.theonion.com/holiday-card-set-jewish-kids-in-the-window-p-152.html
As many of you know Snopes.com has taken umbrage to an Action Alert from the AFA on June 14. The AFA alerted their readers and supporters that H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 are potential legislation that can be used as persecution toward Bible Believing Christian. The persecution would be labeling preaching and public expression of Biblical Christian Morality as hate speech.
Snopes.com proclaimed the AFA Alert was a gross stretch and down right false and thus in the realm of “Urban Legend.”
This was disturbing to me for I often use Snopes.com as a source to debunk scams and chain email. After careful consideration I decided to stick up for the American Family Association. This is when I posted “AFA VS Snopes.com.” I used The Real Truth article about how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals manipulated current laws to render a Leftist anti-Free Speech ruling for posting Christian material on work place bulletin boards is illegal (while the posting of homosexual information was perfectly condoned) as an example.
I am extremely delighted the AFA have has chosen an official rebuttal to Snopes.com which I will post as well. I also must point out that I still believe that Snopes.com is the debunker of Urban Legends on the Internet. I do not know the official politics of Snopes.com but going after the AFA Action Alert was more secular humanistic cultural spin than an exposé of a falsehood.
I am going to point you to another blog I use for the official AFA response to Snopes.com. I would place it here but my tech guy (my son) is a little slow in allowing unlimited html at SlantRight. If I have too much html the web spirits will not allow me to post. That is the case there is a lot of html links to back up the AFA response to Snopes.com.
I am The Plebian and the entire rebuttal is posted there: You can read now if you so wish.
I am a huge proponent of the American Family Association. Very recently they sent out an email to people on their email list pertaining to H.R. 1592 and S. 1105 in which Donald E. Wildmon makes no bones that the Congressional legislation would make it a “Hate Crime” for pastors and Christians to preach and publicly share Christian principles from Biblically morality. Frankly I have heard this from other sources as well.
When I posted the AFA “Action Alert” as a kind of spreading the word action on my part, I received a comment claiming the AFA “Action Alert” was a hoax. The comment was posted a from a “Anonymous.” I always hate that cowardice however I do allow it at my blog.
Anonymous gave me a link to Snopes.com to back up the “hoax claim. Snopes.com debunking of AFA alert is well written with the precision of a cutting knife.
I went to the AFA website and asked about this in the contact section. I asked for a refutation to the Snopes.com post. Until I receive such from the AFA I am forced to put the Snopes.com “Urban Legend” post here. If the AFA sends me a response, I will post it as well.
I would like to mention that Snopes.com is very good at reporting that which is public facts. What Snopes.com is not good at educated assumptions between the lines. For example the discharging of General Pace from the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be presented in a politically correct positive light. It is interesting that General Pace is “gone” after he made public his feelings on homosexuality.
It is true that the legislation proposed above is related to violent crime; however a Secular Humanist Left Winger (Prosecutor or Judge) may feel free to interpret the law that Christian morality may be cause to incite violence against homosexuals and thus opening the Christian or Christian minister to prosecution for breaking the law.
JRH
************************************
Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Snopes.com
Last updated: 18 June 2007
Claim: A bill before Congress would make it a "hate crime" for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2007]
A Petition To Congress In Defense Of Religious Freedom
Be one of one million Americans willing to take a stand in defense of two of our most precious freedoms — freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Here's why:· A California lawsuit which is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" a "hate speech" crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
· CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, was fired because of his publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.
· A bill now before Congress (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion.
· The court case referenced in the first item dealt with a woman who complained about anti-homosexual material posted on a bulletin board at her workplace (the Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency). After the material was removed, the persons who had posted it filed a lawsuit claiming that their free speech rights had been violated. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, noting that they "do not have a privileged First Amendment right to communicate their message to their officemates," and that the employer has an "'administrative interest' in avoiding situations that distract employees from their jobs." The lawsuit had nothing to do classifying certain words or phrases as "hate speech" or establishing their usage as a "crime."
· The Washington Post's front-page coverage of the announcement that Marine Gen. Peter Pace would be stepping down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when his term expired in September did not claim that Pace was "fired because of his publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior." The Post's 9 June 2007 article on the subject mentioned in passing, in its 18th paragraph, that some congressional staffers "said Pace's recent comments to reporters at the Chicago Tribune about the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, in which he said homosexuality was immoral, would also be a distracting issue" at his confirmation hearing. (The primary reason expressed in the article for Pace's dismissal was "concern from both parties that Pace's confirmation hearing could evoke bitter debate about Iraq war policy.")
Likewise, CNN's television coverage of the story that same day cited "the political debate about the war and the rising death rate for U.S. troops" and "progress [in Iraq that] has been too little and too slow" as the main stumbling blocks to Gen. Pace's re-confirmation, noting secondarily that other factors ("his recent statements that he believed homosexual behavior was immoral" and his writing "a letter to the judge in the 'Scooter' Libby case attesting to Libby's character") posed problems for the general "in addition to the war."
· The proposed "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1592 / S. 1105) currently before Congress would not "criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality." The bill seeks to amend Title 18, Chapter 13 of the U.S. Code by adding a section on "Hate crime acts" that specifies criminal penalties for:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person —
i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if —
(I) death results from the offense; or
(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
____________________________
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2007
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
I have to admit that the American Family Association (AFA) may go a little over the top in its agenda to make America aware of moral issues that the Mainstream Media (MSM) fails to report on. For the most part I do agree with the AFA agenda. This is one of those cases. Don Wildmond of the AFA is conducting a poll that should place in perspective the benefits (or lack thereof) of Mohammedanism offers America. When you click the link to go to the poll, the AFA position is clicked for you. If you disagree with it simple click the answer you wish to be collected.
********************************
January 2, 2006
Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.
Take our poll on Islam and America
Dear John,
Would you take a moment and take our poll on Islam and America? We would like to know American’s opinion on this matter.
Click here to take our poll. After you take the poll, please forward it to your friends and family. We will distribute the final results when the poll closes on January 15. You can find a running total of the results at afa.net.
Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association
P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!