Comments pour into FCC over proposal to relax decency standards

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Arizona Rocks Phoenix, AZ
    April 28, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    If the FCC approves relaxing the ruling allowing more nudity and profanity on tv then I will cancel my cable tv including local tv programming. I am a parent and grandparent and am raising children in my home. Profanity and nudity is not my reality and the real world to me nor to the morals and values that I am teaching my family. I still have a choice. I choose to watch good, moral programs and movies that promote goodness and values.

  • IndependentUtahn Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 24, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    It's not OK, but there's a little bit of fear mongering here. They're not considering allowing nudity. They're considering eliminating fines for unscripted profanity during live broadcasts. Still not OK, but not as bad as this article makes it sound.

  • terra nova Park City, UT
    April 24, 2013 2:22 a.m.

    I wrote. If you care, you will too.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    April 23, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    if parents are so concerned about what their children view. monitor what they watch. don't leave it up to the FCC to do it for you.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 23, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    don't expect the BO misadministration to defend decency.

    there is such a thing as reasonable regulation, and I believe most conservatives support reasonable regulation. For example, if there were no rules (drive on the right side, stop at red, for example) no one could get anywhere in relative safety on our highways. Because we have reasonable rules, we can move on our highways. But when the rules become unreasonable, such as a 15 MPH speed limit on I-15, we complain.

    What we are asking for from the FCC in MAINTAINING decency standards (not imposing new ones), is that they actually fulfill their charge and keep smut and filth off prime-time broadcast TV (similar to having rules such as drive on the right stop at red, yeild to emergency vehicles, etc).

    Hope that helps

  • Salamankero Farmington, UT
    April 23, 2013 2:34 p.m.

    You don't want Big Brother to regulate your guns, but you do want him to regulate your TV... Seriouslly?

    Take responsibility for your children. The Internet isn't filtered... and any filter you try to put on it can easily be circumvented. No amount of government oversight is an acceptable solution to educating your children.

    Your kids WILL see nudity, they WILL hear profanity and they will probably see/hear much more of those things outside of "network TV". If you really think relaxing these standards will contribute to the destruction of our society, then maybe you should look inward to see the real problem.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 23, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    It's a bit bewildering. We live in a very-Republican state, where one of the recurring themes is "get rid of big government" and "get the feds out of our lives", and yet when it comes to First Amendment issues, we're very eager to see more government control and regulation over what we choose to watch and hear. Doesn't every television set come with an on/off switch and a channel selector so that we can decide for ourselves what to view and what to not view? I find a lot of programming objectionable, a lot of it inane and stupid, and a lot just plain annoying. I have an easy solution to that problem, though. I don't watch those programs. I make that decision on my own without any assistance from the government and without a government censor to watch over my shoulder.

    To keep things in perspective, it's also worth noting that the fact that 75,000 people have chosen to comment on the issue means that over 300,000,000 people aren't concerned enough to comment.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    April 23, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    When I grew up, living the sheltered life in a small town here in Utah, there was no swearing on TV or on the radio, no video games, and no video tapes or DVDs. Everybody went to church and primary or mutual every week. But kids knew all the swear words anyway.

    Not everything on TV has to be suitable for children. It's not TV's job to tend your kids. If you don't want them to watch something, don't let them watch it. If you're afraid of what they'll see or hear at their friends' houses, don't let them visit their friends. That's the way it worked when I was a kid.

    If there are things on TV you don't like, don't watch them. And if you're an adult, and "strong language" or the human body offends you, grow up.

    Apparently some people think that "freedom of expression" is a bad thing, and that censorship is "true" freedom.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    April 23, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    It isn't about 24/7 content of all forms of entertainment, it is about a particular safe window. Comparing it to a school crosswalk with a guard -- they are proposing to ignore the "occasional" "oopsie" speed/stopsign violator while kids are crossing the street.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    April 23, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    I think it is pretty pathetic that they continue to bring smut, filth and nudity to our Tv shows. It is a playground for immorality, drugs and sex. It brings about nothing but denegrated shows with no quality. What is happening to our United States of America that they will even consider such a horrible thing. We need positive, uplifting programming not programming that draws the perverted to watch. Our children and grandchildren, families aren't able to watch very few programs without profanity, exposure of breasts and violence. Thank heavens we have BYU TV.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 23, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    It's surprising how very few people realise this whole exercise only applies to broadcast tv, but they gripe instead about TV for which they are paying. Not public RF spectrum, but private paid stuff. Willing, therefore, to accept this stuff they so revile into their homes and pay for it to boot. Times are good if you're paying 75 bucks a month for something you despise. As for broadcast TV, it's mush as it is, and now the freedom loving, government hands off my everything conservatives are out in force as nanny groups howling about protecting children who don't watch broadcast tv because they're up all night blowing up stuff in a shooter video game. If turning the tv off and hiding from the world is what you need to do, do it. Either that, or put on the adult knickers, get selective about what you watch and try some parenting.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 23, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    First, your confusing the issue. The FCC has nothing to do with movies, because the only way the FCC has gotten away with subverting the 1st amendment is because they "own" the airwaves. Because they "own" the airways they are able to get away with quasi censorship(Did you know there is not a list of words and concepts not allowed on broadcast, because the supreme court ruled that having a specific list is a violation of the constitution, so instead broadcasters have to guess what the "community standards" are.). Movies, aren't owned or broadcasted by network TV stations(in their uncut movie form), so the FCC is unable to regulate them in the theater.

  • BYU Papa Cedar Hills, ut
    April 23, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    The FCC needs to tighten decency standards. I get tired of having to walk out of a movie because of Language or ludeness. Why is there such an adjenda to destroy decent entertainment. Those who follow such an adjenda wish to protect filth by passing laws against devices that remove garbadge from a movie or program we are watching. What kind of a deal is that. Shame on the FCC.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    April 23, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    Question as to relaxing TV decency standards? What standards? It's already anything goes 24/7 with no "prime time" restrictions. Children are overexposed to every sort of language and sexual deviance already, and it appears to be getting worse. The next step for indecency is to download it to computers, already being done, and therefore no decency controls whatsoever. Everything always reduces itself to the lowest common denominator, and the rotten apple does spoil the rest of the apples in the barrel.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 6:44 a.m.

    Television in general has been in the toilet for a long time. What the FCC is looking to allow, is to bring it to the sewer level.

    I gave up on cable years ago. Waste of money. Gave up on tv a long time ago also. There is plenty to do without having untalented brainless people making alot of money while I watch them do what they do. "Reality shows" are not even close to reality. The only good thing is the science, history and cooking shows along with Pawn Stars.

    Anything else, I'll just buy a movie and watch commercial free.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    April 23, 2013 5:26 a.m.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the "standards of the community" decide if something is pornographic. It is the advertisers who are at fault here. The young have lots and lots of money. They are also easily influenced with "sex and violence". TV goes into more than one community and standards would be hard to enforce without a strict interpretation by the FCC. The current administration emphasizes "freedom of expression". Organizations like the AFA and PTC are seen as discriminatory based on the clientele that they represent. The media from previous interaction will not police itself. It is up to the FCC to set standards. This time, it is "some" indecency. Next time, it will be even more.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 23, 2013 1:53 a.m.

    This won't allow nudity and f words on scripted shows, it's to deal with cases like David Ortiz's pre-game curse word.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    April 22, 2013 7:36 p.m.

    I won't lie. Tv has gotten very bad over the years, in regards to quality. But good night there's lots of choices.
    But, if the standards fall much further, I will save my 75.00 per month.