Bush/Cheney to FOX: Don't say we never taught you anything

The effects of seven years of the Bush-Cheney junta giving the finger to the rule of law have rubbed off on their private sector buddies:

Fox Refuses To Pay FCC Indecency Fine

By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 25, 2008; D01

In an unusually aggressive step, Fox Broadcasting yesterday refused to pay a $91,000 indecency fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission for an episode of a long-canceled reality television show, even as the network fights two other indecency fines in the Supreme Court.

That's a neat move, eh? Just like their favoritest preznit evah, the Republicans' own TeeVee nutwork now exercises the "F.U. Option" with federal regulators.

You all joked every time the "administration" simply blew off subpoenas, saying you'd like to do the same next time you got a speeding ticket, or were asked to pay your taxes. Well, here it is, now being practiced by the soft porn arm of the Republican propaganda machine. And I'll be darned... no consequences! Golly gee! Who could have foreseen it?

Who can blame them for adopting the tactics of their patrons?

But, oh! What ever shall we tell the children?

•  Nice.

  Can this lead to the end of Fox News?

  by bhagamu on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Screw indecency laws

    As much as I would like to see the end of Fox "news", I would rather see the end of FCC indecency fines.

    Regardless of who defends the 1st Amendment, I applaud anyone taking the fines to court. I may not agree with what Fox has to say, but I am glad they are defending their right to say it.

    by TakeBackTheHouse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:12:44 PM PDT

    •  Fuck the FCC. They are a stain on free speech.

      by Intercaust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:17 PM PDT

      •  The FCC does an invaluble service.

        in regulating the airwaves.  They need to stick to deciding who gets what frequency and how many watts that frequency can run at and leave content to the "Free Market" that the republicans are so fond of.

        by God loves goats on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM PDT

    •  Disagree

      If Fox wants the freedom to broadcast whatever they want, let them give up their licenses and put it on cable.  If you accept the license, you accept the rules.

      by mspicata on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM PDT

      •  Point well taken.

        If they want to change the law, they have had enough Republicans in their pockets over the year to get started on that.  The fact that Fox failed to do so when the Republicans controlled Congress is just too bad.

        If the FCC has balls, they should threaten to revoke the license of Fox-owned stations, like WFLD here in Chicago.  the ppossible loss of even one license would be worth hundreds of times more than that fine.

        by Randall Sherman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:28:52 PM PDT

    •  agreed

      I cheered when I read that FOX said "FU" to the FCC. Stupid laws and stupid regulations don't need to be obeyed.

      by DavidHW on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM PDT

      •  Fuck the FCC

        I'm 100% percent behind Fox on this one.
        The indecency police can all just go fuck themselves. I've viewed the "indecent" video in question and I really don't see a problem with it. This wasn't some huge wave of complaints to the FCC from individuals. It was a form letter from the PTC website that a few hundred people added their names to. Apparently, there were only a total of 3 letters with different content that caused the FCC to investigate in the first place. I'm sorry (no I'm not), but 3 puritanical busy-bodies shouldn't get to determine what is indecent for a country of 300 million people.
        Seeing a woman's butt briefly on TV is not going to do any damage to children what-so-ever. The problem is not nudity or indecency on TV-- the problem is America's backwards and repressive culture regarding such things. We have this puritanical streak in our culture that has convinced large numbers of the population that these things are "indecent" and the people that feel that way get the vapors over such things because that's the way they're programmed. Makes about as much sense as getting one's knickers in a twist over seeing a woman's ankle on TV.
        Stupid moralizing assholes.
        /gets off soapbox

        by cybersaur on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM PDT

        •  Its a media problem

          I agree with much of what you say except I'd never stand behind Fox---just on GP. they may be right about this tho.
          but what I really think is that this lipsmacking blue nose attitude comes mostly from the media, Including most of all Fox! not so much from the people themselves,---because the media uses sex to sell most everything. its their best advertising tool.

          If peekaboo type sex isn't kept titillating, it cancels their best advertising tool. If people were used to seeing nakedness outside of sexual context, they wouldn't get so worked up about it when they see it.

          I think thats why you see its so prevalent--its not so much coming from the people, its all a big marketing ploy they flog the American people to death with.

          by exlrrp on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:08:17 AM PDT

    •  I agree wholeheartedly

      While I understand the need for FOX to pony up and pay their fines, I'm kinda hoping they don't pay the fines and fight this one tooth and nail.  If I were the owner of FOX I'd be half tempted to take one 30 second block each commercial break and show nothing but a giant penis just to piss off the people at the FCC even more.

      by Lipo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:15:44 PM PDT

•  Heather Wilson is weeping...

  ...for us all in the name of all that is good and decent.

  by AmericanFactotum on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM PDT

•  PA polls

  Does anyone know if the new register voters in PA have been polled?

  I think that would make a difference since not too many Republicans switched party to mess things up like in TX

  by Nath 4 BO on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM PDT

•  I never really liked bills..

  I don't think i'm going to pay those either.

  [/office space]

  by Craziel on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM PDT

•  Straight from Cheney . . .

  Fox says "go f*** yourself" to the FCC.

  Actually, on the subject of indecency fines, pretty much everyone should tell the FCC to f*** itself.  Weird to find myself on the side of Faux for once.

  by beagledad on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM PDT

  •  Cheney's response, "So?"

    by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM PDT

    •  Definitely a man who can make words count. nt

      by beagledad on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM PDT

•  Fox != FNC

  I'm pretty sure that Murdoch et al have no hand in it.

  by VelvetElvis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:19 PM PDT

•  Any lawyers out there?

  I'm a real estate lawyer, so I don't know what the legal consequence of this is under federal law.

  There must be penalties, interest, and, one can only hope...withdrawal of there FCC licensing?

  One can dream...

  by Dissentinator on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM PDT

  •  I believe this falls into the category of

    "So what? It's just a stinkin' piece of paper."  That approach can be surprisingly effective, though it has its risks.

    by beagledad on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:59:58 PM PDT

  •  I'm one.

    Do mostly patents now, but did regulatory work with the FCC in amateur radio, and the forfeiture procedures are the same.

    Anybody can refuse to pay an FCC fine and make the FCC sue for collection in U.S. District Court.  In such a lawsuit, the allegations are reviewed de novo--the agency is entitled to no deference.

    Frankly, with the indecency standard as unsettled as it is, this is a smart move.  It's only unusually aggressive because it's going to cost Fox more than $71,000 to litigate this.  But to establish favorable precedent, it's probably worth the cost.

    by BTP on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:38 PM PDT

    •  OIC...

      Evil genius then...

      by Dissentinator on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:10:47 PM PDT

•  I'm Sure the FCC Will Turn This Over

  To the DOJ for prosecution.  And we can fully expect the DOJ to vigorously pursue justice in this instance.  Right after the complete the investigation into the firing 7 U.S. Attorneys.

  by feebog on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM PDT

  •  Yup

    And right after Don Siegelman gets a new trial.

    by Kestrel on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM PDT

    •  No, Bush will issue Fox a pardon.

      by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:39 PM PDT

      •  Hilarious, but...

        Do you think a sitting president can actually do that?  Wouldn't that be weird.

        This seems like a question for AdamB!!

        by WSComn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:47 PM PDT

        •  No, he CAN do it.

          He's already pardoned Scooter Libby.

          by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:22:42 PM PDT

          •  commuted sentence

            Libby's conviction stands, for what little bit that's worth.

            by Simplify on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM PDT

          •  Fines are not

            Really subject to DOJ revue, and since there is no direct imprisonment of an individual, a corporation as a whole cannot be "pardoned".  

            by tmservo433 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM PDT

  •  That's assuming...

    There isn't a Democrat scapegoat working at Fox they can throw under the bus.

    by catnap1972 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM PDT

•  I'm surprised that the FCC fined FOX in the 1st

  place.

  Besides, isn't everything on FOX indecent?

  by Cheney on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM PDT

•  The FCC indecency fines are a joke

  and if I were a network I'd too refuse to pay them. Remember the $500,000+ the FCC demanded for Janet Jackson's nip-slip? Give me a break.

  by Shane Hensinger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM PDT

  •  That's not the point.

    It's the law, however absurd it may be. Should they get away with it? I don't think so. The law's legitimate, so, lex dura, sed lex.

    by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:53 PM PDT

    •  Not when the Supreme Court is

      hearing the issue in the next 1-2 months it's not. The FCC's definition of indecency is up for dispute. There are also avenues of appeal.

      I hate the FCC and consider their decency standard to be an affront to freedom of speech and expression. Anything that can be done to undermine the authority of the FCC is something I'm all in favor of.

      by Shane Hensinger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM PDT

      •  They haven't heard it yet.

        Will it be overturned? Possibly. But a law doesn't cease to be valid simply because it will be reviewed. For now, it applies.

        Yes, the decency standards are absurd. Yes, I dislike them. But that's not the issue here! You cannot simply cherry-pick the laws you agree with and toss the rest - that leads to Bush's methods! If you break a law because you disagree with it, fine - but don't whine about the consequences. How can we keep the rule of law otherwise?

        by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM PDT

        •  No one is arguing with the rule of law here

          least of all me who will be going to law school soon. But Fox is under no obligation to pay any fine from the FCC until they've exhausted all avenues of appeal - if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court.

          by Shane Hensinger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM PDT

          •  True.

            But only if procedure allows for postponement - i.e. if the verdict does not become binding in the meantime (extraordinary avenues of appeal don't postpone the execution of a sentence* in most legal systems, but you get a refund).

            Unless, of course, the country has death penalty. It would be a bit absurd not to postpone that.

            And, as a fellow law student (although in a different country) I can only say: Welcome. Leave your soul in the cloakroom, please.

            by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM PDT

•  The One Thing Different About Wingers

  They feel zero shame. Not only that, they are actually proud of their behavior, looking at it as a sign of manly-manliness. Racism? Manly men make racist comments and then tell you to F-off when confronted. Sexism? Same thing. Crimes? Ditto. Immoral behavior? Manly men play footsie all the time and, by the way, F-off.

  by Splicer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

•  Softporn arm?

  [quote]Well, here it is, now being practiced by the soft porn arm of the Republican propaganda machine.[/quote]

  Do we have somekind of softporn arm to counter them? I don't think we can win in november if we dont have a softporn arm of our own.

  by DarkOmnius on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

  •  All we've got

    is a softporn foot. And it's usually in our mouth when it should be against a Rethuglican backside.

    by Kestrel on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:59:26 PM PDT

  •  Maybe a "the women of the DNC" nudie calender?

    for a fundraiser?

    It's wrong and exploitative, but watching the religious right hyperventilate would be worth it.

    by VelvetElvis on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:01 PM PDT

    •  Maybe we should consider Vegan Strippers

      like in the New York Times article this morning.

      by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:30 PM PDT

•  Honestly I think

  that the "indecency" shit is pretty stupid over all. It's prudish at best, puritanical at worst. I hear about more sex, drugs and violence on the nightly news than I do in most of the tripe on TV. To me if you don't like something then change the channel. On the other hand da rules are da rules until someone changes them.

  by Dreggas on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM PDT

  •  Yes, it's stupid.

    But, why should FOX be allowed a pass when others aren't and when the law is still valid?

    by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM PDT

•  Bad Business Decision

  What will Fox's accountants and sponsors say when they see Fox spend millions of dollars on lawyers to save hundreds of thousands of dollars?

  Fox should pay the fines without admitting guilt.

  by aTypicalProgressive on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:18 PM PDT

  •  They can't.

    It's that ''you may do whatever you want but you can't humiliate me by having me admit I'm wrong, oh, and you can pry that dollar from my cold, dead hands'' type of Republican pride.

    by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM PDT

    •  In that case

      Fox might as well waste their money.

      It's that Republican pride that placed and keeps our country in the global mess.

      The next president better be a Democrat and better be ready to work hard.

      by aTypicalProgressive on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM PDT

•  You just can't make this stuff up

  Bush/Cheney has so dismantled the rule of law that I don't believe we will ever see it again in the form any of us have recognized in the past. They have simply sold this country and its Constitution down the river to the highest bidder.

  by Kestrel on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM PDT

  •  The highest bidder?

    The first bidder is more like it. They can't manage worth a damn, can they?

    by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM PDT

•  I am SO not surprised!

  January 20th 2009 feels like a life time away....

  Melissa
  oh yes we can!

  by mwjeepster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:45 PM PDT

  •  ONLY 299 DAYS AWAY.

    Yep.  We just crossed a threshold.

    by BA BarackUS on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM PDT

•  There should be a standard

  warning issued:  Don't try this at home.

  by nupstateny on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM PDT

•  I liked it better when clinton

  taught our nations youth how to get blowjobs at work.  This ignoring the law thing could get messy.

  by Dr Colossus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM PDT

  •  Messier than...

    Oh, I am so not going there.

    by Blue Intrigue on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM PDT

•  There will be blood...

  I don't see how this all is going to end nicely, do you?

  by gdwtch52 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM PDT

•  ASDF

  What ever shall we tell the children?

  That is actually a very good question.  How can we expect the citizens of this nation to abide by the rules of society when the example being presented by our leadership is that one should lie,cheat and steal to get ahead and you won't get caught if you have powerful friends?  It isn't surpising that we have so many corrupt people running large corporations when the message has been sent that this is acceptable behavior.

  This mindset begins to pervade the entire culture after a while.  Then we get adults in positions of authority lying on their resumes which we see time and time again, and kids who feel it's OK to cheat as long as it helps them get into a good school.

  To quote the excellent movie Cat on a Hot Tin Roof--'That's right Big Daddy, Mendacity is the system which we live in.'

  by cometman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM PDT

  •  Tell them...

    ...that the main way to get an unfair law (regulation, in this case) overturned in this country is to break it and get taken to court where you can fight its unfairness (if you can find a way to afford the fight).

    by varney on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:27:08 PM PDT

•  Hah,

  in any sensible country this would lead to thin, serious men with suits, horn-rimmed glasses, and clipboards coming along and, together with some rather burly men in uniform, well, impound enough items to cover the fine.

  Or you can simply order to have it transferred from FOX's accounts. I really don't see that as a complicated point.

  However, with these chaps I'm not getting my hopes up. Why should they pay? They're nearly the vox regis anyway, so why not call it a day and declare them to be the National Mouthpiece?

  by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM PDT

•  I'll only be pissed off if they

  cancel the next Joss Whedon show and Sarah Connor Chronicles.

  FAUX and FAUX News are dif'rnt aminals.

  These fines are a frakin' joke.

  by angrytoyrobot on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM PDT

•  Bravo for Fox!

  That's what I'll tell the children! And f*** the FCC!

  Waiting for the deadlocked Democratic convention to turn to...Kucinich!

  by elishastephens on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM PDT

•  Rule of Law?

  "Rules are for the little people."- Leona Helmsley

  by ek hornbeck on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM PDT

•  I Hate To Say It.....

  .....But I'm actually with Fox on this one, and agree with them telling the FCC to fuck off (at least until this issue is fully litigated).

  The FCCs basis for judging something obscene is both convoluted & subjective.

  by Rimjob on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:08:30 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but they're not with you.

    You try it, and their "news" nutwork will tell everyone you're a smelly hippie.

    by Kagro X on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:42:00 PM PDT

•  So now, if we HR someone, and they don't like it

  Someone like, say...JeffLieber!!!!! can just say:  Fuck You!!! (which is something Jeff would say, right?) and the HR comes off?
  Who's going to control all this now??
  Are we going to outsource TU status to Google?
  The WPo?  The NYT??  How about the *&%$$& SFCron!!!!
  Is the time stamp on diaries and comments going to change to GMT +8??
  You call this justice???
  You call this right???
  You call this, dare I say it... FoxThink!!??!!
  Oh God...my whimper is giving out.

  by WSComn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:19 PM PDT

•  I'm curious what the incident was

  any ideas?

  FCC censorship is wtupid.  I think it's hillarious that you can't utter the words "Cleveland Steamer" on network TV at 10 pm, but you can just flip over to HBO and see the ugly butt naked private parts of some idiot on Real Sex.

  by fizziks on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:11:29 PM PDT

  •  Cleveland Steamer? n/t

    by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM PDT

    •  Ahhh, find your Wiki reply below

      To quote Wikipedia:

      The Cleveland steamer is a form of coprophilia, where a man or a woman defecates on a partner's chest.

      Sorry about that, but you seemed to want to know, and I'm a researching kinda foole.

      by WSComn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM PDT

      •  That's a... blech. Thanks. n/t

        by Dauphin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM PDT

  •  and the reason is - Wild Bachelor Party!

    and the reason is - Wild Bachelor Party!

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/...

    WASHINGTON - Fox Broadcasting Co. said Monday it will not pay fines totalling $91,000 for airing a reality show episode that included graphic sex scenes at a bachelor party.

    Fox is also asking the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to reconsider the fines on the 13-owned and affiliated stations that aired the "Married by America" episode.

    Sinclair Broadcast Group and Mountain Licenses LP will also not pay fines for its stations.

    "Fox believes that the FCC's decision in this case was arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with precedent and patently unconstitutional," Scott Grogin, the company's senior vice-president of corporate communications said in a statement.

    The FCC fined the Fox stations $7,000 each for the hour-long episode of "Married by America" that included strippers and other scenes from bachelor and bachelorette parties. The agency had initially proposed a $1.2-million fine against 169 affiliates of Fox, a division of News Corp., that aired the since-cancelled reality show. But under a relatively recent policy, the agency said it would only fine stations in markets where viewers complained.

    by PoconoPCDoctor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:24:28 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      by fizziks on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM PDT

•  Not Sarcasm, Facetiousness or Snark

  Good for Fox.

  Really, fuck the FCC--these fines are absurd. Under the 1st Amendement, they should be tossed, heaved, overboarded, you name it--I am sick of this censorship lunacy.

  Take it from someone that fears the FCC more than Al Qaeda--this is actually a good thing.

  by Johnny Wendell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:17:58 PM PDT

  •  Oh c'mon-

    I fear the lollipop kids more than Al Quaeda.

    And I feel that marijuana possession laws are absurd-

    Does that mean I don't have to pay any fines?

    by Remembering Jello on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:04:56 PM PDT

    •  Um yes?

      by szilard on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM PDT

•  Kudos to Fox

  I hate those bastards, but as someone in the broadcasting business, I'm happy to let them fight this out for the rest of us.  The FCC is out of control with these fines, and it's about damned time someone told them to stuff it.  

  So you see, it's a win-win situation here.  Either Fox wins and the FCC has their powers to levy fines reduced or eliminated.  Or, the FCC wins and Fox gets pwned.  I almost don't know who to root for, to be honest.  ;-)

  by funkydrummer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM PDT

  •  Cool point... n/t

    by WSComn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM PDT

  •  where you work?

    by Johnny Wendell on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM PDT

    •  public radio

      I'm an engineer at one of the larger NPR affiliates.

      by funkydrummer on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:19:20 PM PDT

•  Government censorship is always wrong

  As much as I hate Fox, I'm glad to see Murdoch's money fighting the good fight for once. I only wish the rest of the broadcast media had the balls to tell the FCC to fark off.

  by willie horton on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:19 PM PDT

•  Ah, family values

  If you're the Manson family, I guess...

  by frsbdg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM PDT

•  Wouldn't that make every FOX employee

  a felon?

  Subject to Citizen Arrest?

  by owlbear1 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM PDT

•  The FCC....

  The FCC is a joke anyway. It should be ended. It ruined old fashioned radio and it got in a uproar over a saggy breast.
  I have had it! This proves justice is for the few, not the many. End the FCC.
  People don't need the government to regulate TV - PARENTS NEED TO REGULATE TV.

  I don't watch Fox for personal and political reasons,seriously. I'll listen to the Super Bowl on satellite radio and be just as happy.

  But I am tired of parents using the TV to raise their child then when adults want to be entertained we have to pay extra. Why couldn't the Soprano's be aired on ABC at 1900 on Sundays? Because some parents don't want to participate in parenting?
  Yes, this is turning into a lecture. They don't need friends, they need parents-and if they don't learn to hear no early it will hurt that much more later.

  You can't be good at a job and as a parent-you may believe you are good at both-HERE IS AN OBJECTIVE AND HONEST OPINION-YOU ARE GOOD AT NEITHER !!!!!!
  You can't work overtime because you have to pick up your kids and you can't pick up your kids because your to tired from work. My heart bleeds. Hey, move down an income bracket, buy a smaller house and watch a smaller TV.

  Which brings me back to the point-the government should have no part in monitoring broadcasts so "parents" can ignore their kids.

  Abolish the FCC and lets start spending that money on something worthwhile, like parenting courses.

  by rmfcjr on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

•  F the FCC

  I hate fox, but good for them.

  by rukkyg on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:47:34 PM PDT

•  The whole of Fox News network is indecent! n/t

  by pakaal on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM PDT

•  Somebody remind me...

  ...while my sympathies lie with those who don't like the FCC, this recent outbreak of shameless outright lawbreaking on the Right is rather disturbing.  Why, exactly again, should I consider it unthinkable that they'd do a thing like cancelling the elections and staging a coup, when Bush is in no way acting anything like his term might ever end?

  by localroger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:20:06 PM PDT

•  FCC response should be swift and blunt

  Pull their license.  Schedule a review of the act one week from the pull date.

  by ogre on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM PDT

  •  Under the new rules

    This really isn't a possibility, not without several hearings.  The new rules aren't that new (going back to the 90s), and since Fox is contesting these fines in court, if they win, this fines go away; so it's extremely doubtful they would pull a major broadcaster's license.. (and that would just be transmission over open air, and would not effect in any way Fox's cable offerings or satellite, etc.)

    by tmservo433 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:39:37 PM PDT

•  Love or Hate Fox, this is the right move.

  Forget the politics of FoxNews, as a multinational, they are loyal to the $ not really a political cause as much... they make $$ being a conservative news source, so they do it.  If they would make more money shilling for Moonies, tomorrow, they'd have a station up.

  But that aside, this is the right thing.  The FCC has tilted into oblivion with it's quixotic quest to "regulate" TV in an era where "V-Chips" and other parent safe features exist.  

  You have 400 choices on the dial.. you can't change the damn station?

  I'm all for assessing fines to every dumbass who wasted federal tax dollars by writing complaint letters, a much more exhausting bit of work in comparison to CHANGING THE GOD DAMNED CHANNEL

  by tmservo433 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:37:10 PM PDT