04.30.07
Podcast Episode: Interview with Darrell Hamomoto, Professor of the Asian American Studies Program at UC Davis
On this week’s episode:
- Update on CBS Radio/JV & Elvis protest
- Debate with JV & Elvis supporters
- Interview with Vicki Shu Smolin, Organization of Chinese Americans - NY President
- Interview with Darrell Hamamoto, Professor of the Asian American Studies Program at the University of California, Davis
If you have any comments about anything said in this podcast, contact us at comments@falloutcentral.com. We will respond to your comments on our next podcast episode and on our message board.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Federal Communications Commission
Decision re:
WIOD(AM), Miami, FL “Penis Envy” Song 2007-04-27 01:19:56
The absence of a pandering or titillating nature, however, will
not necessarily prevent an indecency determination, as
illustrated by the following case.
WIOD(AM), Miami, FL “Penis Envy” Song
If I had a penis, … I’d stretch it and stroke it and shove
it at smarties … I’d stuff it in turkeys on Thanksgiving
day. … If I had a penis, I’d run to my mother, Comb out
the hair and compare it to brother. I’d lance her, I’d
knight her, my hands would indulge. Pants would seem
tighter and buckle and bulge. (Refrain) A penis to plunder,
a penis to push, ‘Cause one in the hand is worth one in the
bush. A penis to love me, a penis to share, To pick up and
play with when nobody’s there. … If I had a penis, …
I’d force it on females, I’d pee like a fountain. If I had
a penis, I’d still be a girl, but I’d make much more money
and conquer the world.
Indecent - NAL Issued. WIOD, Inc. (WIOD(AM)), 6 FCC Rcd
3704 (MMB 1989) (forfeiture paid). The Mass Media Bureau
found the material to be patently offensive. In response to
the licensee’s assertion that this song was not pandering or
titillating and therefore should not be considered indecent,
the Bureau stated: “We believe . . . that it is not
necessary to find that the material is pandering or
titillating in order to find that its references to sexual
activities and organs are patently offensive. (Citations
omitted.) Moreover, humor is no more an absolute defense to
indecency . . . than is music or any other one component of
communication.” 6 FCC Rcd at 3704.
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information re: FCC Indecency Policy Statement. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “FCC Indecency Policy Statement”.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Federal Communications Commission
Decision re:
KSJO(FM), San Jose, California Lamont & Tonelli Show
“…she should go up and down the shaft about five times,
licking and sucking and on the fifth swirl her tongue around
the head before going back down….”
“Show us how its done” (evidently the guest had some sort
of a prop).
“Well, if this was a real penis, it would have a ****ridge,
I would like (sic) around the ridge like this…”
[laughter, comments such as `oh yeah, baby’].
Indecent - NAL Issued. Citicasters Co., licensee of Station
KSJO(FM), San Jose, California, 15 FCC Rcd 19095 (EB 2000)
(forfeiture paid). The licensee claimed that the program
was a clinical discussion of oral sex. The Enforcement
Bureau rejected this argument on the grounds that the disc
jockeys’ comments on her material showed that the material
was offered in a pandering and titillating manner. “The
disc jockeys’ invitation to have Dr. Terry use a prop on a
radio program, and their laughter and statements (such as
“oh yeah, baby”) while she conducted that demonstration
shown that the material was intended to be pandering and
titillating as opposed to a clinical discussion of sex.”
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information re: FCC Indecency Policy Statement. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “FCC Indecency Policy Statement”.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Federal Communications Commission
Decision re:
KNON(FM), Dallas, TX ‘I Want to Be a Homosexual” Song 2007-04-27 01:18:01
KNON(FM), Dallas, TX “I Want to Be a Homosexual” Song But if you really want to give me a blowjob, I guess I’ll let you as long as you respect me in the morning. Suck it baby. Oh yeah, suck it real good. . . . Are you sure this is your first rim job?. . . Stick it up your punk rock ass. You rub your little thing, when you see phony dikes in Penthouse magazine. . . . Call me a faggot, call me a butt- loving fudge-packing queer. . . You rub your puny thing, when you see something (?) pass you on the street. Indecent - NAL Issued. Agape Broadcasting Foundation, Inc. (KNON(FM)), 9 FCC Rcd 1679 (MMB 1994), forfeiture reduced 13 FCC Rcd 9262 (MMB 1998) (forfeiture paid). Licensee claimed that “`the words and the song constitute political speech’ aired in a good faith attempt to present meaningful public affairs programming . . . to challenge those who would use such language to stigmatize . . . members of the gay community.” 13 FCC Rcd at 9263. The Mass Media Bureau responded that the licensee has “considerable discretion as to the times of the day . . . when it may broadcast indecent material. … Consequently, we find unavailing Agape’s argument that, in essence, its duty to air public affairs programming required a mid-afternoon presentation of lyrics containing repeated, explicit, and vulgar descriptions of sexual activities and organs.” Id.
[打印]
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-04-27 01:18:01 (46) 共 0 篇评论 发表评论 >>>
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information re: FCC Indecency Policy Statement. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “FCC Indecency Policy Statement”.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:13 pm
FCC decision re:
KSD-FM, St. Louis, MO “The Breakfast Club” 2007-04-27 01:11:00
Compare the following cases where licensees unsuccessfully
claimed that, because of the context of the broadcasts (i.e.,
alleged news stories), the broadcasts were not pandering.
KSD-FM, St. Louis, MO “The Breakfast Club”
I’ve got this Jessica Hahn interview here in Playboy. I
just want to read one little segment . . . the good part.
“[Jim Bakker] has managed to completely undress me and he’s
sitting on my chest. He’s really pushing himself, I mean
the guy was forcing himself. He put his penis in my mouth .
. . I’m crying, tears are coming, and he is letting go. The
guy came in my mouth. My neck hurts, my throat hurts, my
head feels like it’s going to explode, but he’s frustrated
and determined, determined enough that within minutes he’s
inside me and he’s on top and he’s holding my arms. He’s
just into this, he’s inside me now. Saying, when you help
the shepherd, you’re helping the sheep.”
(followed by air personality making sheep sounds) This was
rape. Yeah, don’t you ever come around here Jim Bakker or
we’re going to cut that thing off.
Indecent - NAL Issued. Pacific and Southern Company, Inc.
(KSD-FM), 6 FCC Rcd 3689 (MMB 1990) (forfeiture paid). The
broadcast contained excerpts from a Playboy magazine account
of the alleged rape of Jessica Hahn by the Rev. Jim Bakker.
The licensee explained the broadcast was newsworthy “banter
by two on-air personalities reflecting public concern,
criticism, and curiosity about a public figure whose
reputedly notorious behavior was a widespread media issue at
the time.” Responding to the licensee’s argument, the Mass
Media Bureau stated that “although the program . . .
arguably concerned an incident that was at the time `in the
news,’ the particular material broadcast was not only
exceptionally explicit and vulgar, it was . . . presented in
a pandering manner. In short, the rendition of the details
of the alleged rape was, in context, patently offensive.”
6 FCC Rcd at 3689.
[打印]
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-04-27 01:11:00 (49) 共 0 篇评论 发表评论 >>>
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information re: FCC Indecency Policy Statement. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “FCC Indecency Policy Statement”.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:17 pm
FCC decision re:
CBS broadcast of 2004 Super Bowl with Janet Jackson’s “Costume Reveal” - $550,000 fine imposed
II. BACKGROUND - FCC Order against CBS for broadcast of Janet Ja 2007-04-27 01:47:13
II. BACKGROUND
2. The halftime show in question was a live broadcast of music and
choreography produced by MTV Networks (”MTV”), which was then a
Viacom, Inc. subsidiary. The halftime show lasted approximately
fifteen minutes and aired over the CBS Stations and other television
stations affiliated with the CBS Television Network. The show received
considerable notoriety due to an incident at the end of its musical
finale, in which Justin Timberlake pulled off part of Janet Jackson’s
bustier, exposing one of her breasts to the television audience.
3. Following the Super Bowl broadcast and the receipt of complaints, the
Enforcement Bureau (”Bureau”) issued a letter of inquiry (”LOI”) to
CBS, seeking information about the halftime show, followed by a letter
requesting videotapes of the complete Super Bowl programming broadcast
over the CBS Television Network stations on February 1, 2004,
including the halftime show (collectively, the “Broadcast Videotape”).
In response, CBS provided a videotape of the broadcast of the halftime
show to the Bureau on February 3, 2004, an “interim response” to the
Bureau’s inquiries on February 10, 2004, the Broadcast Videotape on
February 14, 2004, and a complete response to the LOI on March 16,
2004.
4. The script and Broadcast Videotape of the halftime show provided by
CBS confirm that the show contained repeated sexual references,
particularly in its opening and closing performances. The first song,
“All For You,” performed by Janet Jackson, began with the following
lines, referring to a man at a party:
All my girls at the party
Look at that body
Shakin’ that thing
Like I never did see
Got a nice package alright
Guess I’m gonna have to ride it tonight.
These lyrics use slang terms to refer to a man’s sexual organs and sexual
intercourse and were repeated two more times during the song. Following
that performance, P. Diddy and Nelly presented a medley of songs
containing occasional references to sexual activities, emphasized by
Nelly’s crotch-grabbing gestures. Then, after a medley by performer Kid
Rock, Jackson reappeared for a performance of “Rhythm Nation” and then the
closing song, “Rock Your Body,” a duet in which she was joined by Justin
Timberlake. During the finale, Timberlake urged her to allow him to “rock
your body” and “just let me rock you `til the break of day” while
following her around the stage and, on several occasions, grabbing and
rubbing up against her in a manner simulating sexual activity. At the
close of the song, while singing the lyrics, “gonna have you naked by the
end of this song,” Timberlake pulled off the right portion of Jackson’s
bustier, exposing her breast to the television audience.
5. The Commission released its NAL on September 22, 2004, pursuant to
section 503(b) of the Act and section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
finding that CBS apparently violated the federal restrictions
regarding the broadcast of indecent material. We noted that our
indecency analysis involves two basic determinations. The first
determination is whether the material in question depicts or describes
sexual or excretory organs or activities. We found that the broadcast
material contained, inter alia, a performance by Jackson and
Timberlake that culminated in the on-camera exposure of one of
Jackson’s breasts, thereby meeting the first standard. The second
determination is whether the material is patently offensive as
measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
We observed that, in our assessment of whether broadcast material is
patently offensive, “the full context in which the material appeared
is critically important.” Three principal factors are significant to
this contextual analysis: (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 or depictions of sexual or excretory organs or
activities; and (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used
to titillate or shock. In examining these three factors, we stated
that we must weigh and balance them on a case-by-case basis to
determine whether the broadcast material is patently offensive because
“[e]ach indecency case presents its own particular mix of these, and
possibly, other factors.” We noted that, in particular cases, one or
two factors may outweigh the others, either rendering the broadcast
material patently offensive and consequently indecent or,
alternatively, removing the broadcast from the realm of indecency.
6. The Commission examined all three factors in the NAL and determined
that, in context and on balance, the halftime show is patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the
broadcast medium. The Commission determined that the broadcast of
partial nudity in this instance was explicit and graphic and appeared
to pander to, titillate and shock the viewing audience. Therefore, the
Commission determined that the material was patently offensive as
measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium,
even though the nudity was brief.
7. The Commission concluded, based upon its review of the facts and
circumstances of this case, that CBS was apparently liable for a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of $550,000, calculated by applying
the maximum forfeiture of $27,500 to each CBS Station, for
broadcasting indecent material in apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. S
1464 and section 73.3999 of the Commission’s rules. In contrast, the
Commission proposed no forfeiture against any licensee other than CBS.
It did so based on its finding that no licensee of a non-CBS-owned CBS
affiliate was involved in the selection, planning or approval of the
material for the halftime show, nor could any such licensee reasonably
have anticipated that Viacom’s production of the show would contain
indecent material. On November 5, 2004, CBS submitted its Opposition
to the NAL.
[打印]
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-04-27 01:47:13 (46)
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “CBS”, “2004″, “Super Bowl”, “Janet Jackson” and “breast”
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:18 pm
See BenBenXiong at Wenxuecity.com for additional information. Alternatively, do your own Google search using “CBS”, “2004″, “Super Bowl”, “Janet Jackson” and “breast”
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:19 pm
FCC decision re CBS, Janet Jackson, and 2004 Super Bowl
FCC Forfeiture Order against CBS for its broadcast of Janet Jack 2007-04-27 01:45:27
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Forfeiture Order (”Order”), issued pursuant to section 503(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), and section
1.80 of the Commission’s rules, we impose a monetary forfeiture in the
amount of $550,000 against CBS Corporation (”CBS”), as the licensee or
the ultimate parent company of the licensees of the television
stations listed in the Appendix (”CBS Stations”). We find that CBS
violated 18 U.S.C. S 1464 and the Commission’s rule regulating the
broadcast of indecent material in its broadcast of the halftime show
of the National Football League’s Super Bowl XXXVIII over the CBS
Stations on February 1, 2004, at approximately 8:30 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time.
[打印]
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-04-27 01:45:27 (41)
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 2 2007-04-27 01:43:40
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) COMPLAINTS AGAINST VARIOUS ) File No. EB-04-IH-0011 TELEVISION LICENSEES ) CONCERNING THEIR FEBRUARY ) NAL/Acct. No. 200432080212 1, 2004 BROADCAST OF THE SUPER ) BOWL XXXVIII HALFTIME SHOW ) FORFEITURE ORDER Adopted: February 21, 2006 Released: March 15, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps and Tate issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring and issuing a statement.
[打印]
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-04-27 01:43:40 (52)
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:26 pm
FCC decision re CBS, Janet Jackson and 2004 Super Bowl
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN,
APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART
Re: Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show
Based on a careful review of the record, I find today’s remedy totally inadequate. After all the bold talk, it’s a slap on the wrist that can be paid with just 7½ seconds of Super Bowl ad time. The $550,000 fine measures up to only about a dollar per complaint for the more than 542,000 complaints that flooded into the FCC after the broadcast.
The Commission is required by Congress to enforce federal restrictions against the broadcast of indecent material, and I agree with the indecency finding here. We were deluged with a record number of complaints about the Super Bowl halftime show, and took the unusual step of launching an investigation. But after a major announcement and months of investigation, today’s enforcement action goes out of its way to focus narrowly on the exposure of Janet Jackson’s breast on twenty CBS-owned stations.
Most troubling, this decision sets a puzzling precedent by failing to hold all licensees responsible for the material broadcast over their stations. Why announce such a thorough investigation if we just let some of the stations that broadcast this material completely off the hook? It is true that the CBS affiliates are as much the innocent victims as the families who were stunned to see such gratuitous nudity during a family viewing event. In this case CBS affiliates – like the general public – had no idea what was coming, but this is true for most live programming. This aspect of today’s action shows the lack of a coherent long-term framework that should form the basis of all our indecency enforcement efforts.
Compliance with federal broadcast decency restrictions is the responsibility of the station that chooses to air the programming, not the performers. Less than a week before the Super Bowl, the Commission fined a television station for a similar case of gratuitous brief on-camera nudity. Since the Super Bowl outcry, Viacom has acted responsibly by apologizing, by instituting measures such as time delays to keep indecency off the airwaves, and by cooperating fully with our investigation. Viacom should be commended for these steps. Nevertheless, subsequent actions cannot excuse the fact that indecent material was broadcast to 100 million viewers, including one in five American children.
While the Commission must always proceed cautiously in broadcast decency cases, this type of graphic and gratuitous nudity is not a close call. The millions of our nation’s children who were ambushed by the Super Bowl halftime show deserve better protection. A fine of 7½ seconds of ad time is scarcely any deterrent. The shockwaves are still being felt by this shameful episode. I fear that today we’re responding to a “wardrobe malfunction” with a regulatory malfunction.
BenBenXiong said,
May 2, 2007 at 10:34 pm
FCC Order re: CBS, Janet Jackson, and 2004 Super Bowl - CONCLUSI 2007-05-02 15:32:43
FCC Order re: CBS, Janet Jackson and 2004 Super Bowl
CONCLUSION imposing $550,000 fine on CBS (not Janet Jackson or CBS employees)
C. Conclusion
26. Over twenty-five years ago, in Pacifica,[1] the Supreme Court concluded that, notwithstanding the dictates of the First Amendment and the statutory prohibition imposed by section 326 of the Act on Commission censorship of broadcast content or interference with the right of free speech by means of radio communication, the Commission’s regulation of broadcast indecency is constitutional. In so holding, the Court observed that “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder.”[2] The Court also noted that “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read.” Citing the government’s interest in the “well-being of its youth” and in supporting “parents’ claim to authority in their own household,” the Court concluded that “the ease with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with concerns [as to the well-being of youth]. . .amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.”[3]
27. In subsequently upholding the Commission’s broadcast indecency definition against constitutional challenges, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also stressed the importance of the Commission’s indecency enforcement to the significant societal objective of empowering parents to control what broadcast material to which their children would be exposed. Thus, the Court concluded that “the Government’s own interest in the well-being of minors provides an independent justification for the regulation of broadcast indecency, noting that “[a] democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens.”[4] The Court cited Pacifica for the proposition that “[s]ociety may prevent the general dissemination of [indecent] speech to children, leaving to parents the decision as to what speech of this kind their children shall hear and repeat.”[5] It observed further:
[P]arents who wish to expose their children to the most graphic depictions of sexual acts will have no difficulty in doing so through the use of subscription and pay-per-view cable channels, delayed-access viewing using VCR equipment, and the rental or purchase of readily available audio and video cassettes. Thus the goal of supporting “parents’ claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children,” is fully consistent with the Government’s own interest in shielding minors from being exposed to indecent speech by persons other than a parent.[6]
The Court concluded, “[i]t is fanciful to believe that the vast majority of parents who wish to shield their children from indecent material can effectively do so without meaningful restrictions on the airing of broadcast indecency.”[7]
28. Through the federally granted authorizations, issued for its owned stations and those of its other network affiliates, with its Super Bowl broadcast, CBS obtained access to the households of, by its own “preliminary”count, over 140 million people. Throughout the country, the game started in the late afternoon or early evening, at a time when parents and their children gathered in homes across the nation to enjoy the broadcast. [8]
29. As the ultimate controlling entity of numerous television licensees, Viacom betrayed its trust, not only to the FCC arising from its obligation to operate its stations in the public interest and in a manner consistent with the Commission’s rules, but to each parent who reasonably assumed that the national network broadcast of a major sporting event on a Sunday evening would not contain offensive sexual material unsuitable for children, the very class of viewers that the Commission’s indecency rule was designed to protect. With its delivery into those homes of the Jackson/Timberlake duet, Viacom wrenched away from parents the ability to control the exposure of their children to the type of objectionable sexual material in which that performance culminated.
——————————————————————————–
[1] Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726.
[2] Id. at 748.
[3] Id. at 749-50.
[4] ACT III, 58 F.3d at 663.
[5] Id., citing Pacifica, 438 U.S. at 758 (Powell, J. concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] CBS Television Press Release, CBS Sports Coverage of Super Bowl XXXVIII Watched by 140 Million Viewers (February 2, 2004), available at http://viacom.com/press.tin?ixPressRelease=80254180.
[打印] [编辑] [删除] -=选择论坛=- 海外原创 网上谈兵 时事述评 我的中国 两岸交流 想唱就唱 移民论坛 难得一笑 脑筋急转 体育看台 大千股坛 奇闻怪谈 星相卜卦 婚姻生活 私房小菜 亲亲宝贝 宠物乐园 健康养生 流行时尚 爱是有缘 爱车一族 我爱我家 世界风情 职场生涯 几曾回首 大学春秋 闲趣谜语 文化走廊 品茶小轩 音乐快递 武侠军事 跨国婚姻 影视人生 回国发展 生于70’s 法律咨询 人在北美 人在澳新 人在欧洲 人在日本 人在狮城 人在英国 人在法国 人在德国 人在香港 人在韩国 中南美洲 实用电脑 电玩高手 摄影沙龙 子女教育 诗词欣赏 每日话题 美语世界 创业天地 投资理财 人到中年 书香世家 唯美贴贴 数码生活 科学天文 激辩广场
由BenBenXiong张贴 @ 2007-05-02 15:32:43 (0) 共 0 篇评论 发表评论 >>>
RickJ said,
May 3, 2007 at 12:11 am
Ha ha, the NY President of OCA is…Vicki Shu “Smolin?”
Give it up rice dix, even the women leading your groups believe you’re inferior! Don’t matter what side of the fence they’re on…Natasha, Vicki…they all love us White guys more! Haha, this is like the granddragon of the KKK marrying a Black woman! Give it up fellas, all your base are belong to us! I love it!
Asian Avenger said,
May 11, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Hamamoto is the man! Great professor and willing to take it to limits.
Lynn said,
May 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm
“benbenxiong,” what the hell is your problem?
rick j, what makes you think that having a non-asian last name is embracing anything? heck, i don’t even know if smolin is non-asian. you just like making assumptions all around; that’s the characteristic of you and all your little supremacist boys.
FatFish said,
May 25, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Rick J., thank you for your honest post. You are definitely correct. Asians are a laughable bunch. Sick.
rdqiydqr said,
November 15, 2007 at 6:39 am
rdqiydqr
rdqiydqr