(no subject)

[drewbear]

Apparently Fox News neglects to check their facts and advocates vigilante behavior. Otherwise, why would they publicly announce the address of a suspected terrorist? A 3 years old address which is currently inhabited by another family. A family which was subsequently harassed and threatened.

...Yeah. Who's inciting terror now, hmm?

Comments

[dedos.livejournal.com]

I think I'm going to be sick...
Shouldn't the FCC have something to say about this?

[drewbeartx.livejournal.com]

Nononononononono. VIOLENCE is okay; it's SEX we've got to keep off the airwaves!

::sigh::

Actually, I'm not sure how much jurisdiction the FCC has over Fox News. Since it's a cable-only channel, they (obviously) don't broadcast over public airwaves, which is (as I understand it) the only realm that the FCC can legally control. After all, Janet's nipple got fined, but the explicit nudity, front and back, male and female, of Rome won't be.

[dedos.livejournal.com]

Damn, I think you're right. ._.
Who regulates cable, then? What about the children?

[drewbeartx.livejournal.com]

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that the layers work like this:

Broadcast TV has to be under PG/PG-13, depending on what time of day it is.
Basic cable can be up to a soft R (you pay for it, after all)
Subscriptions channels on cable (Showtime, HBO, the Playboy channel, etc.) can be up to a hard R bordering on NC-17/X (you pay for it twice, you see)

Outright NC-17 (as defined by the clear and unobstructed presence of genitalia) is outright verbotten.

So maybe the FCC does have some control over cable after all.