Censorship and American Television

[gpjoe]

I'm in heaven.

As a huge fan of horror movies, I love October and the marathon of my favorite scary movies on several cable channels...but here's what I don't get:

The broadcasters (on some channels) will edit out common curse words, not necessarily the one starting with "f" but even what I would consider the much "milder" expletives. You know.

On the other hand, the bullets, explosions, stabbings, mutilations, and buckets of blood are allowed to be shown in gory detail. Zombies eviscerating their victims, or werewolves (of London) ripping the throat out of Jack, shown here (TV screenshot):

Spoiler: Gore

I guess I just don't understand the rationale used in determining what exactly is offensive. In this case the word "sh*t" it edited out of the dialog but the above scene is perfectly OK.

So, who are the censors (FCC?...the broadcaster?) concerned about protecting, and from what? If they are worried about young children hearing a curse word, how is the above deemed acceptable?

It makes zero sense to me.

 

[Lockback]

I concur completely. I think the double standard is ridiculous. I can't explain the reason for it.

 

[rudygu]

I’m no expert, but as far as I know the FCC rules only apply to channels that broadcast over the air. Cable only channels that show censored content are making that decision themselves. Their definition of offensive content greatly differs from mine as well, but I’d guess they know their general audience (and advertisers) well enough to know where to draw the line for the most profit.

 

[fast shaver]

The Broadcasters are not WOKE yet.
When they get WOKE you will here every Expletive under the sun.

 

[Tirvine]

I read an interesting piece on HuffPo today about over thirty things folk in the USA think are normal but others think are weird. One was a boob won't hurt you but all the blood and gore is ok. Huh? You are clearly insightful @gpjoe (or you, too, are a HuffPo reader).

 

[Columbo]

I'm in heaven.

As a huge fan of horror movies, I love October and the marathon of my favorite scary movies on several cable channels...but here's what I don't get:

The broadcasters (on some channels) will edit out common curse words, not necessarily the one starting with "f" but even what I would consider the much "milder" expletives. You know.

On the other hand, the bullets, explosions, stabbings, mutilations, and buckets of blood are allowed to be shown in gory detail. Zombies eviscerating their victims, or werewolves (of London) ripping the throat out of Jack, shown here (TV screenshot):

Spoiler: Gore

View attachment 1733323

I guess I just don't understand the rationale used in determining what exactly is offensive. In this case the word "sh*t" it edited out of the dialog but the above scene is perfectly OK.

So, who are the censors (FCC?...the broadcaster?) concerned about protecting, and from what? If they are worried about young children hearing a curse word, how is the above deemed acceptable?

It makes zero sense to me.

The Dirty Words. You may not be a George Carlin fan.

There were and may still be seven "dirty" words (and I believe a number of others per the caselaw), that the FCC deems obscene and indecent for OTA broadcasts. The Supreme Court has upheld that general authority with some restrictions.

There are judicial safe harbors that allows merely indecent words during certain overnight broadcast hours, and for fleeting expletives.

The OTA broadcast industry continues to self-police itself for the most part on these matters. There are also independent industry and trade standards and practices in addition to the FCC declarations that the networks try to observe.

In years past, live broadcast delays and the infamous "bleep" noise would be used to cover unintended offenders.

Dedicated cable channels lacking a broadcast component are an entirely different situation, and have more leeway, however.

And the morality of television content, separate from the language used, seems to have fewer and fewer restraints generally, if you ask me.

 

[SharpieB]

Same in Canada.

I tried to watch American Pie recently on an American network and it was unwatchable due to bad words being edited. Not even really bad ones most of the time. Awful. And this was after 9pm, not in the morning or afternoon when kids may watch.

 

[Lightcs1776]

I am not sure who censors cable networks. Personally, I would be happy to have all the language censored, but that is me. I don't watch horror movies but do like action movies and find that language or nudity never add to the movie. However, it does make it awkward with my wife watching. She hasn't worked outside the home in over 30 years, so she is not as immune to the language. I hear worse at work, despite it being a "professional" setting.

 

[gpjoe]

I read an interesting piece on HuffPo today about over thirty things folk in the USA think are normal but others think are weird. One was a boob won't hurt you but all the blood and gore is ok. Huh? You are clearly insightful @gpjoe (or you, too, are a HuffPo reader).

I didn't read the article, just an observation as I was watching American Werewolf in London...a delightfully campy horror film. The following spoiler pertains to a plot point:

Spoiler

Jack is a hoot and steals the show as he gradually decays with each scene.

It just hit me as completely illogical that common curse words (and mild nudity) are objectionable, but excessive violence, killing, and gore is perfectly acceptable.

 

[gpjoe]

The Dirty Words. You may not be a George Carlin fan.

There were and may still be seven "dirty" words (and I believe a number of others per the caselaw), that the FCC deems obscene and indecent for OTA broadcasts. The Supreme Court has upheld that general authority with some restrictions.

There are judicial safe harbors that allows merely indecent words during certain overnight broadcast hours, and for fleeting expletives.

The OTA broadcast industry continues to self-police itself for the most part on these matters. There are also independent industry and trade standards and practices in addition to the FCC declarations that the networks try to observe.

In years past, live broadcast delays and the infamous "bleep" noise would be used to cover unintended offenders.

Dedicated cable channels lacking a broadcast component are an entirely different situation, and have more leeway, however.

And the morality of television content, separate from the language used, seems to have fewer and fewer restraints generally, if you ask me.

Love (and miss) George Carlin.

I guess I should have been more clear:

I generally don't watch broadcast TV and was referring to cable TV, primarily FX, FXX, Syfy, TBS, AMC, Sundance...and some others.

That is why it is so confounding to me, seeing how the standards are set for (by) channels that fall outside of FCC guidelines and self-police their broadcasts and content.

 

[gpjoe]

I am not sure who censors cable networks. Personally, I would be happy to have all the language censored, but that is me. I don't watch horror movies but do like action movies and find that language or nudity never add to the movie. However, it does make it awkward with my wife watching. She hasn't worked outside the home in over 30 years, so she is not as immune to the language. I hear worse at work, despite it being a "professional" setting.

It doesn't matter to me either way, and I respect everyone's opinion. I'm just trying to make sense of the censors' decision-making process regarding what content is unacceptable and/or offensive.

 

[Lightcs1776]

It doesn't matter to me either way, and I respect everyone's opinion. I'm just trying to make sense of the censors' decision-making process regarding what content is unacceptable and/or offensive.

I am not sure there is much of a decision process. There is no baseline that I have seen. And American Werewolf in London never counted as a horror movie to me, though I haven't seen it in decades. It was a great movie, from what I recall. I don't even recall much in it that would need to be censored, but maybe that is due to my fading memory. Grin.

Edit: I watched a pg-13 movie that had a topless scene that was allowed because it was not sexual. When are topless women ever not sexual? That just didn't make sense to me.

 

[timetofly]

And from what I have read, Europe censors violence and not nudity.

Let's combine the two, and we'll get the best of both worlds!

 

[gpjoe]

I'm sure there is no right answer, and we are all merely speculating. My problem is that I am very literal and logical and look for patterns and consistency.

Apparently none of that applies to cable TV.

Heck, I've seen these same channels blur out a female chest because her t-shirt was wet...and again, none of it bothers me either way, it just makes no logical sense to me. I'd love to hear anyone rationalize how it is ok to show a decapitation, but not a woman's nipples through her t-shirt.

 

[Lockback]

I'm sure there is no right answer, and we are all merely speculating. My problem is that I am very literal and logical and look for patterns and consistency.

Apparently none of that applies to cable TV.

Heck, I've seen these same channels blur out a female chest because her t-shirt was wet...and again, none of it bothers me either way, it just makes no logical sense to me. I'd love to hear anyone rationalize how it is ok to show a decapitation, but not a woman's nipples through her t-shirt.

There is absolutely no logic to it.
None.

 

[rudygu]

I'm sure there is no right answer, and we are all merely speculating. My problem is that I am very literal and logical and look for patterns and consistency.

Apparently none of that applies to cable TV.

Heck, I've seen these same channels blur out a female chest because her t-shirt was wet...and again, none of it bothers me either way, it just makes no logical sense to me. I'd love to hear anyone rationalize how it is ok to show a decapitation, but not a woman's nipples through her t-shirt.

There is absolutely no logic to it.
None.

There actually is logic to it from the perspective of the network- it’s just messed up. All they care about is ad revenue and the companies buying ad time during their programming would rather be associated with the gore than the nudity. They feel like their prospective customers would be more likely to boycott their products over the partial nudity than a decapitation. They’re probably right. I wouldn’t be upset over either one, personally, but I’d say it’s pretty messed up where our line as a society is drawn in this regard.

 

[Lockback]

There actually is logic to it from the perspective of the network- it’s just messed up. All they care about is ad revenue and the companies buying ad time during their programming would rather be associated with the gore than the nudity. They feel like their prospective customers would be more likely to boycott their products over the partial nudity than a decapitation. They’re probably right. I wouldn’t be upset over either one, personally, but I’d say it’s pretty messed up where our line as a society is drawn in this regard.

Good points.

 

[gpjoe]

...it’s pretty messed up where our line as a society is drawn in this regard.

Precisely my point.

 

[luvmysuper]

I'd love to hear anyone rationalize how it is ok to show a decapitation, but not a woman's nipples through her t-shirt.

As others have said - these companies are profit driven. They know what generates complaints and what doesn't.

As far as violence vs language vs nudity, perhaps it's simply a matter of viewers recognizing that the blood and the decapitation is "make-believe", but the swearing and the nudity are real.

We know the guy didn't really get his head removed, but the exposure of breasts is an actual event.
None of the broadcasters would televise an actual decapitation.

 

[Columbo]

Here's a radical thought. Let's censor all television today. For about five years. And save some young minds and souls.

Cable TV is the worst. 500 streams of mindless bilge.

When the pool water gets too dirty, sometimes you just have to drain it and start over.