Parents Television Council

[Amnesiac]

The Parents Television Council (PTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Television_Council) is an organization of socially conservative (they say they aren't, but they are) parents who aim to "bring back responsibility and family values to the entertainment industry" by essentially spamming the Federal Communications Commission with over 9,000 complaints every time something even mildly offensive pops onto television. In short, they're a bunch of lazy parents who'd rather have the government protect their children than themselves.

Television shouldn't be censored so badly. Parents have a responsibility to stop their children from watching violent or sexual shows, no excuses. If you don't like what's on TV, DON'T WATCH IT. Stop wasting taxpayer money and the government's time with complaints about how the latest episode of Family Guy was so horribly "offensive" and just don't watch it. Parents should know what channels and times of day are appropriate for children to watch, it's not the government's job to block out every F-bomb and one-frame shot of a pair of boobs so the minds of children can remain "clean".

What are your thoughts on the actions of the PTC and television censorship in general?

[Suicune]

Like a bunch of bull.
I can understand censoring the F-bomb in some shows like in dubbed anime. But I mean cutting out words that everybody says like Crap, Damn, Bitch is silly to me.
The shotguns are now SUPER SOAKERS

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Well one must keep in mind that the law says that indecent and profane content cannot be aired during certain times of the day. I don't think what is currently aired on TV is to extreme or too difficult to keep from children. I guess as long as the broadcast decency laws are followed things can be fine. So sometimes the Parents Television Council is right but maybe not most of the time.

Plus something they say on their website is that airing inappropriate content on TV and telling parents that it is their responsibility to keep their kids fro seeing it is like a city pumping waste into the river and saying that parents are responsible for protecting their kids from it. I a not so sure that is a good analogy.

[Amnesiac]

Well one must keep in mind that the law says that indecent and profane content cannot be aired during certain times of the day. I don't think what is currently aired on TV is to extreme or too difficult to keep from children. I guess as long as the broadcast decency laws are followed things can be fine. So sometimes the Parents Television Council is right but maybe not most of the time.

Plus something they say on their website is that airing inappropriate content on TV and telling parents that it is their responsibility to keep their kids fro seeing it is like a city pumping waste into the river and saying that parents are responsible for protecting their kids from it. I a not so sure that is a good analogy.

Parents have direct control over what their children view on TV. They have no say on how polluted the water can be. It's a stupid analogy, and it's more evidence of how insanely lazy they are.

I'm not saying we should have all-out uncensored TV, it's just that, as with the Internet, not everything is child-safe. You should keep your kids on the channels that you know are appropriate, and should limit them from sitting in front of the TV for hours on end like a couch potato. Is an accidental uncensored F-bomb aired on some late night show at 1 in the morning worth the government's time and money?

Just because something is law doesn't mean it's worth wasting time on. Indecency laws are a waste of money and turn the government into our parents, watching what we see and telling us if it's "appropriate" or not.

[huginnmuninn]

its dumb its like the parents who try to ban the dictionary because it has dirty words in it (it happens). people need to stop trying to get the govt to solve every problem that they have because they are to lazy to do stuff themselves its NOT the govt job to do it. if parents want their kids to not watch something its the parents job to take care of it. i dont understand how they cant control what their kids watch but they can right a thousand letters everytime something "bad" pops up on tv. would the parents rather that the kids learn the stuff in school from other kids or would they rather be there themselves to explain things at home?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Parents have direct control over what their children view on TV. They have no say on how polluted the water can be. It's a stupid analogy, and it's more evidence of how insanely lazy they are.

I'm not saying we should have all-out uncensored TV, it's just that, as with the Internet, not everything is child-safe. You should keep your kids on the channels that you know are appropriate, and should limit them from sitting in front of the TV for hours on end like a couch potato. Is an accidental uncensored F-bomb aired on some late night show at 1 in the morning worth the government's time and money?

Just because something is law doesn't mean it's worth wasting time on. Indecency laws are a waste of money and turn the government into our parents, watching what we see and telling us if it's "appropriate" or not.

So are you saying that the FCC should be shut down?

Oh and hte decency laws say that indecent material cannot be air between 6 AM and 10 PM

[huginnmuninn]

So are you saying that the FCC should be shut down?

Oh and hte decency laws say that indecent material cannot be air between 6 AM and 10 PM

but who decides whats decent?

[Amnesiac]

So are you saying that the FCC should be shut down?

Oh and hte decency laws say that indecent material cannot be air between 6 AM and 10 PM

but who decides whats decent?

I don't think the FCC is necessary. If there were no television censorship, some channels would still run family-friendly programming to attract audiences. I mean, a children's network like Nickelodeon isn't gonna suddenly start broadcasting porn and lose all their viewers.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

but who decides whats decent?


It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material.

Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and

The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Enforcement Procedures and Filing Complaints

Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about obscene, indecent, or profane material. FCC staff will review each complaint to determine whether it contains sufficient information to suggest that there has been a violation of the obscenity, indecency, or profanity laws. If it appears that a violation may have occurred, the staff will start an investigation, which may include a letter of inquiry to the broadcast station.

If the description of the material contained in the complaint is not sufficient to determine whether a violation of the statute or FCC rules regarding obscene, indecent, and profane material may have occurred, FCC staff will send the complainant a dismissal letter explaining the deficiencies in the complaint and how to have it reinstated. In such a case, the complainant has the option of re-filing the complaint with additional information, filing either a petition for reconsideration, or, if the decision is a staff action, an application for review (appeal) to the full Commission.

If the facts and information contained in the complaint suggest that a violation of the statute or FCC rules regarding obscenity, indecency, and profanity did not occur, FCC staff will send the complainant a letter denying the complaint, or the FCC may deny the complaint by public order. In either situation, the complainant has the option of filing either a petition for reconsideration or, if the decision is a staff action, an application for review (appeal) to the full Commission.

If the FCC determines that the complained-of material was obscene, indecent, and/or profane, it may issue a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which is a preliminary finding that the law or the FCC's rules have been violated. Subsequently, this preliminary finding may be confirmed, reduced, or rescinded when the FCC issues a Forfeiture Order.

Context

In making obscenity, indecency, and profanity determinations, context is key. The FCC staff must analyze what was actually aired, the meaning of what was aired, and the context in which it was aired. Accordingly, the FCC asks complainants to provide the following information:

Information regarding the details of what was actually said or depicted during the broadcast.

The complainant may choose the format for providing the information, but it must be sufficiently detailed so that the FCC can determine the words or language used, or the images or scenes depicted during the broadcast and the context of those words, language, images, or scenes. Subject matter alone is not sufficient to determine whether material is obscene, indecent, or profane. For example, stating only that the objectionable programming “discussed sex” or had a “disgusting discussion of sex” is not sufficient. Moreover, the FCC must know the context when analyzing whether specific, isolated words or images are obscene, indecent, or profane. The FCC does not require complainants to provide tapes or transcripts in support of their complaints. Consequently, failure to provide a tape or transcript of a broadcast, in and of itself, will not lead to automatic dismissal or denial of a complaint. Nonetheless, a tape or transcript is helpful in processing a complaint and, if available, should be provided.


The date and time of the broadcast.

Under federal law, if the FCC assesses a monetary forfeiture against a broadcast station for violation of a rule, it must specify the date the violation occurred. Accordingly, it is important that complainants provide the date the material in question was broadcast. Indecent or profane speech that is broadcast between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. is not actionable. Consequently, the FCC must know the time of day that the material was broadcast.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

[huginnmuninn]

what is indecent in one generation can be completely normal in another. the only thing needed is a thing that says "this movie contains ..." and put in whatver is in it eg. nudity, violence, language etc. and thats only so that parents can decide what is appropriate

[Amnesiac]

Language is not offensive, and anyone who considers it to be needs to get over it. Words like "fuck" and "shit" don't kill people, they just emphasize a statement. The problem with the FCC is that its view on what is "indecent" doesn't represent everybody's.

[huginnmuninn]

Language is not offensive, and anyone who considers it to be needs to get over it. Words like "fuck" and "shit" don't kill people, they just emphasize a statement. The problem with the FCC is that its view on what is "indecent" doesn't represent everybody's.

i agree but the parents should have that choice i only added it as an after thought anyway

[Amnesiac]

i agree but the parents should have that choice i only added it as an after thought anyway

As I said before, there are parental controls on all set-top boxes. They have a choice, there's no need to go further.

[Dorsum Oppel]

I beleive in a magical and secret form of parenting called not hiding your child from the world.

Your child should hear curse words, and know what they are. But instead of going "Oh jimmy, those are bad words! No no!" and your child feeling like a fucking badass for slurring out profanity, you should say "Jimmy, you're going to look like a douche bag and older kids will never like you if you cuss."

Which is true. As for sex, that's just ridiculous. There's NO reason to keep them in the dark about sex. We place this magical mystique around it that makes it sound like ab uber secret thing that cool kids do. I've met little girls who have grown up around horses. Breeding is a big part of the equine education, and she knows how sex works. But contrary to popular beliefs, she's not some kind of provocative and deviant hussy 7 year old, she's actually way more mature than ANY children I know. She walks by two horses having sex, and instead of going "EWW ICKY TEEHHEEE" she picked up a whip and separated them.

Educating your children about such taboo will benefit them in the long run.

[Amnesiac]

I beleive in a magical and secret form of parenting called not hiding your child from the world.

Your child should hear curse words, and know what they are. But instead of going "Oh jimmy, those are bad words! No no!" and your child feeling like a fucking badass for slurring out profanity, you should say "Jimmy, you're going to look like a douche bag and older kids will never like you if you cuss."

Which is true. As for sex, that's just ridiculous. There's NO reason to keep them in the dark about sex. We place this magical mystique around it that makes it sound like ab uber secret thing that cool kids do. I've met little girls who have grown up around horses. Breeding is a big part of the equine education, and she knows how sex works. But contrary to popular beliefs, she's not some kind of provocative and deviant hussy 7 year old, she's actually way more mature than ANY children I know. She walks by two horses having sex, and instead of going "EWW ICKY TEEHHEEE" she picked up a whip and separated them.

Educating your children about such taboo will benefit them in the long run.

When (if) I have kids, I'm not going to shelter them from the world. As long as you know how mature your kid is and how well he can handle the real world, you should teach them about it. It's obvious that, no matter how well you shield your kid, school will turn them into a profanity-shooting hormone-raging teenager in a few years.

Not teaching teens about sex is the STUPIDEST thing you could possibly do, because they'll be socially awkward and unprepared for the future if they aren't. Face it: teenagers have sex. Nothing is going to stop that. Just tell us to use a condom and not be stupid and we'll do it, this game of fucking hide-and-seek with sex education is dangerous and idiotic. The Parents Television Council thinks they know what's best for every child in America, but the truth is that they're wasting their time worrying about things that nobody cares about. The myth that TV violence and sex actually impacts people's activities in real life is what it is: a myth. The only people who would actually reproduce things they see on TV are kids, and it's the responsibility of the parents to teach them about the real world and tell them what can destroy your life and what doesn't.

[Perseus]

Not teaching teens about sex is the STUPIDEST thing you could possibly do, because they'll be socially awkward and unprepared for the future if they aren't. Face it: teenagers have sex. Nothing is going to stop that. Just tell us to use a condom and not be stupid and we'll do it, this game of fucking hide-and-seek with sex education is dangerous and idiotic. The Parents Television Council thinks they know what's best for every child in America, but the truth is that they're wasting their time worrying about things that nobody cares about. The myth that TV violence and sex actually impacts people's activities in real life is what it is: a myth. The only people who would actually reproduce things they see on TV are kids, and it's the responsibility of the parents to teach them about the real world and tell them what can destroy your life and what doesn't.

My friend's parents actually never told him about sex. He learned about from one of his neighborhood friends and when he told me, I was like "lololololololololololololol" because he thought it'd be awkward to hear it from his parents', so he never asked. His two brothers didn't learn it from his parents' either, I think.

[Amnesiac]

My friend's parents actually never told him about sex. He learned about from one of his neighborhood friends and when he told me, I was like "lololololololololololololol" because he thought it'd be awkward to hear it from his parents', so he never asked. His two brothers didn't learn it from his parents' either, I think.

It doesn't always have to be "the talk", my parents gave me a book and told me to read it. That's how I learned. Saved me from an incredibly awkward conversation.

But if you're gonna hide your kids from sex, they'll learn about it eventually anyway. It's safer to just tell them about it before they end up "experimenting" with friends (not saying that's a bad thing, but most parents wouldn't accept it :P)

[Perseus]

It doesn't always have to be "the talk", my parents gave me a book and told me to read it. That's how I learned. Saved me from an incredibly awkward conversation.

But if you're gonna hide your kids from sex, they'll learn about it eventually anyway. It's safer to just tell them about it before they end up "experimenting" with friends (not saying that's a bad thing, but most parents wouldn't accept it :P)

You're right, but they never did tell him. :P And your second sentence is right because whether or not you go to a public or private school, you'll learn. Even if you are homeschooled you'll probably learn somehow.

[Jess]

I agree it's the parents that should control what the children watch

my parents haven't told me about sex...besides I already learned about it in Health class.

....

[ShyGuyInChicago]

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/faqs/main.asp#Shouldnt overseeing childrens television viewing choices be the responsibility of parents, not that of the Parents Television Council

What do you think of this from the PTC's FAQ? I am torn on this issue.

Aren't you violating First Amendment freedoms by censoring TV shows?

"Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, .... their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech." - From the National Coalition Against Censorship Website http://www.ncac.org/about/faq.html

The PTC does not censor. The First Amendment was instituted to guarantee precisely the type of activities pursued by the PTC: free speech and disseminating information.

Shows airing on broadcast television use the public airwaves. Because broadcast channels are available free over the air, it is presumed that children of any age can access their programming, and during prime time, it is presumed that they are doing so. According to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which still sets the guidelines for the use of this public property, programming must be in the "public interest," i.e., serve a common publicly recognized good. It has never been supposed by the Supreme Court that broadcasters have an absolute right to air whatever they wish with no responsibility to the public interest.

The First Amendment begins: Congress shall make no law… and is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government only. The Parents Television Council is not a federal entity or a legislative body. It has neither the power to forbid programming nor the desire for the government to ban legal programming. Instead, the PTC operates by providing members and advertisers with information about the content of programs. Where prime time programming contains significant amounts of material unsuitable for children in a timeslot and venue where children presumably have access to that material, the PTC asks advertisers to reconsider their sponsorship of the program.

The activities of the PTC are actually a classic case of the First Amendment at work. The PTC is an organization of over a million private citizens who have organized to exercise our right to speak out about what we view as a significant problem. We wish to raise the issue of the potential abuse of broadcasting privileges, hold advertisers accountable for the programming they sponsor, and point out the dramatic changes in television content. We address issues through providing information and educating viewers, sponsors, and networks, not through law or force, and have the right to express the opinions shared by our members. By the same token, advertisers also have the right to place their ads as they see fit, with the knowledge that they may be offending a significant number of viewers.

The NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, and other groups often attempt to manipulate or alter television portrayals of, or references to, members of their constituencies. Most people do not consider these efforts censorship. Instead, such efforts are recognized as a legitimate exercise of the right to free speech. The PTC is doing virtually the same thing by raising our concerns about programming that we and our members believe is harmful.

Shouldn't overseeing children's television viewing choices be the responsibility of parents, not that of the Parents Television Council?

The PTC agrees that the primary responsibility for a child's viewing habits rests with his parents, which is why we try to assist them by providing them with both information and a vehicle to effectively communicate their concerns to advertisers.

The fact that parents are ultimately responsible for their children's upbringing does not free the entertainment industry from taking responsibility for their product. The assertion that the sole responsibility lies with parents is a self-justifying claim usually made by people who wish to evade accountability. It is much like pumping sewage into a town's river, while maintaining that parents are responsible for protecting the health of their own children. Parental responsibility is the beginning, not the end, of the story. The next question is, to what extent do those who use public resources like the airwaves have a responsibility as well?

The default setting for broadcast television used to be family-oriented, while those desiring edgier, more explicit fare were free to seek it out. Today's prime time television programming has become almost uniformly unsuitable for families, and often directly hostile to their values, making it very difficult for parents to shield their children and seek out alternative entertainment.

If you don't like something on television, why don't you just change the channel?

Television is the most public and powerful means of mass communication. It drives changes in social customs, speech, and attitudes, especially among youth. Because of its pervasiveness and persuasiveness, opting out is an entirely inadequate response to the dramatic rise in the amount of televised graphic sex, obscene and profane language, and gratuitous violence found on television today. These depictions affect everyone, including our children's classmates and friends. Vulgar television means a more vulgar society; sex-saturated television means sexualized children stripped of their innocence; violent television results in desensitization to violence.

In addition, when the networks, which traditionally have been the primary source for family entertainment, begin producing raunchy and violent shows, parents are left with few places to turn for family viewing. By remaining silent, PTC members would be giving their consent to these changes and ceding their television sets to lowest-common- denominator programming. As the envelope continues to be pushed even further, the chances of avoiding such material become increasingly limited.

Merely changing the channel is essentially to accept what is on that channel, and admit powerlessness to change what is on one's own television. To be forced to change the channel is to accept the loss of additional stations to unhealthy content and to expect similar material to one day appear on the next channel.

"You can put your TV in the garage, avoid movies altogether, and use earplugs to spare your hearing from the sounds of hip-hop or heavy metal, but these forms of entertainment will still change your life through their influence on everyone else in society. Though you may struggle to protect your own kids from music that encourages violence or drugs or irresponsible sex, you can't possibly protect them from all the other kids in your community who have received full exposure." - Michael Medved taken from The Rock & Roll Rebellion by Mark Joseph.

Why is the PTC worried about the make-believe sex and violence on prime time, since it has no influence on real-life behavior or attitudes?

Advertisers pour billions of dollars annually into commercials, because of the proven power of 30-second ad spots to influence consumer attitudes and behavior. If the networks accept the money on that premise, it is unreasonable and hypocritical for them to then assert that the rest of the programming, which is what the public is actually viewing by choice, has no influence.

To argue this point, defenders of offensive entertainment often set up a straw man to knock down -- the image of an otherwise perfectly normal and well-adjusted person watching a program and turning into a killer. No one is suggesting that it works that way, nor does the PTC believe that people are not responsible for their own actions. That again begs the question of what responsibility the entertainment industry bears for its own product.

There are numerous instances where the media clearly does influence behavior. Another way is through desensitization. A person who regularly views positive portrayals of adultery and fornication or heroes using violence is less apt to view those behaviors as undesirable or abnormal. Finally, television can influence through its focus on extreme and dangerous behavior, both in news and entertainment. The Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, for instance, were apparently motivated, at least in part, by the prospect of being the subjects of a television movie.

Most of what appears on television is make-believe, but nevertheless has profound effects, as hundreds of studies on the influence of television have shown. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both demonstrated television's undeniable influence, especially on children. Some complaints the PTC receives from critics amply illustrate this very point. Their letters are often laced with the jargon, phrases, and attitudes of their professed television heroes, and viewers sometimes credit television characters or programs as having a profound influence on their lives.

Isn't the PTC acting as a self-appointed moral guardian by trying to make viewing decisions for adults?

The PTC does not seek to prevent those adults who wish to view "edgy" programming from doing so. Our concern relates to the time and the venue in which such programming is broadcast. A show permeated with continuous acts of savage assault with deadly weapons, explicit sexual scenes and themes, or punctuated with obscene or profane language, whether the characters are scripted or not, may be suitable for pay-per-view, but it does not have a place on prime time broadcast television, particularly during the family hour. Because broadcast television and expanded basic cable are so widely available, they are supposed to maintain standards that make them suitable for all ages.

[Sage]

Social conservatism is asinine, on the whole, no exceptions, and history shows that the ideology has been fighting an uphill battle. A battle that it always has, and always will, inevitably lose.

[Amnesiac]

Social conservatism is asinine, on the whole, no exceptions, and history shows that the ideology has been fighting an uphill battle. A battle that it always has, and always will, inevitably lose.

But sadly it survives on to the modern day, limiting the freedoms and crushing the happiness of the people.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I want to add that the PTC says that all American people own the television airwaves and therefore should have a say in what comes on television.