The FCC needs to fine Fox $500,000 grand for showing that just like they swore they’d do to anyone being obscene. I bet it doesn’t even get a hand slap.

We can only hope that they will be fined. That was pretty nasty.

That was pretty nasty.

Indeed. Her nipples were blurred.

LMAO!!!

OMG that was too funny!

Freut mich dass es dir gefallen hat

Lol....That was funny. Can’t believe they over looked that. Anyway, the mention of the FCC put a lovely song in my head. Anyone hear the FCC song on montypython on-line?

YES! One could get the impression that Eric Idle doesn’t much care for you-know-who.

Heh. 

Of course, there’s a bit of a difference over what’s pretty clearly a stupid-ass (er, so to speak) goof and an intentional “catastrophic wardrobe failure,” etc.

Not that I’m certain the FTC/Congressional regs on the matter take that into account.

cap:  wtf (heh)

Er ... FCC, not FTC.

cap: “service” (heh, again)

That’s exactly right.  In order to be culpable in this case, FOX had to knowingly and willfully broadcast the segment. US Communications Act PDF

The new amendment does provide a little more leeway in fining offenders that have not shown due diligence in reviewing material before broadcast. HR 3717

FOX will probably spin it in the direction of porn sites being so aggressive that their ‘top notch’ editors had trouble editing the clip.  Apologies all around and several boot-licking commentaries for those up for re-election.

captcha = ‘soviet’ These words are disturbing.

But that would be hypocripsy in action. They’d never stoop that low!

(captcha: physical)

Unfortunately, I do not think the FCC has jurisdiction ... Fox is a CABLE news channel, not a broadcast station…

Feh!

The FCC does indeed have jurisdiction.

[Quote]FCC actions do not impact cable TV directly. The FCC is authorized to regulate only broadcast television, which includes such networks as ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.[/Quote]

- Excerpt from congressional discussion on HR 3717.

Nice one elwedriddsche, Danke für das lachen. 

Fox on broadcast ... not FOXNews Cable

There is a distinction… it sucks, but it is a different channel

for example MSNBC and CNN are not covered either AFAIK because they are Cable stations.

Remember there are broadcast networks, ABC, CBC, NBC, Fox, UPN, WB, etc and then there are Cable Networks MTV, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Playboy, TNN, etc which are not broadcast over the airwaves, therefore not regulated/censored by the FCC

If anyone can show this to be incorrect, please do as I would love to have it cleared up

John - The FCC still has jurisdiction but ‘broadcast decency law’ doesn’t apply to cable networks, as you pointed out.  However, cable networks can be fined for showing ‘indecent nudity’ on an unscrambled channel.  They may also be fined for showing nudity during periods when ‘a large viewership may consist of children.’ FCC Cable Broadcast Facts

I suppose it depends on how many people gripe to the FCC and FOX News.

Since they just passed the “Drive-by Porn” bill in Tennessee does that mean you can’t watch Fox News in your car?

captcha=values!

Deadscott,

I appreciate the clarification… and I hope I didn’t come off too pissy :-D

Maybe we should start a write in campaign to complain to the FCC () and see if they go after Faux News as they do say Howard Stern or Janet Jackson ... 

Man, I wish I owned Join4Free… ain’t nothing better than free publicity.

IMO a case could be made that the “offending organ” is quite nicely obscured by the “Slut Chat” text, after all.  Really, the blur wouldn’t serve to hide the bologna as much as bring attention to it.

Anyone else think there might be a sudden employment opportunity in the Graphics department at FOX News today? 

(Oh, the irony: “head")

Faux News

Well done!

the “Cox News” channel should get a big ass fine for this, just for being stupid (or as homer would say, ‘stupid like a fox’.