Judge rules against companies like CleanFlicks

[Miss Jasmine]

Miller v. California in 1973 broadened the three point test...

To determine if a work is obscene it is necessary to establish that "the average person, applying contemprary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Second, the materials must depict or describe in "aptently offensive" way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. Third, the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientic value. The test is "conjuctive"; all three parts must be met if a work is to be ruled obscense and therefore outside of constitutional protection.

Ahhh good ole Media Law class.

Anyway, but this definitition I can see Janet Jackson's **** being offensive, but not SPR. I think the ABC affiliates woosed out. Of course it does seem the FCC has been running rampant as of late.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Miller v. California in 1973 broadened the three point test...

To determine if a work is obscene it is necessary to establish that "the average person, applying contemprary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Second, the materials must depict or describe in "aptently offensive" way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. Third, the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientic value. The test is "conjuctive"; all three parts must be met if a work is to be ruled obscense and therefore outside of constitutional protection.

Ahhh good ole Media Law class.

Anyway, but this definitition I can see Janet Jackson's **** being offence, but not SPR. I think the ABC affiliates woosed out. Of course it does seem the FCC has been running rampant as of late.

Thanks Miss Jasmine; there's always more to learn!

We totally agree about the FCC as of late. They don't list clear broadcast standards and define what will be a punishable offense, and instead go after selected targets and leave other ones free and clear.

 

[Charade]

What's interesting is that many affiliates opted not to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of running afoul of FCC regulations. Last Veterans day, the film was scheduled to be shown on one of the networks (ABC, I believe, without looking it up), and a number of affiliates declined to show it believing that they would be heavily fined by the FCC for airing obscenities in the wake of the whole Janet Jackson superbowl affair.

A follow up question would be did any of the stations that aired it get fined?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

A follow up question would be did any of the stations that aired it get fined?

As far as I know...that would be a big NOPE. Although, I believe, there was a complaint filed by the American Family Association and the FCC shot it down claiming the use of the F word was part of the artistry of the film.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Miller v. California in 1973 broadened the three point test...

To determine if a work is obscene it is necessary to establish that "the average person, applying contemprary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Second, the materials must depict or describe in "aptently offensive" way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law. Third, the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientic value. The test is "conjuctive"; all three parts must be met if a work is to be ruled obscense and therefore outside of constitutional protection.

Ahhh good ole Media Law class.

Anyway, but this definitition I can see Janet Jackson's **** being offensive, but not SPR. I think the ABC affiliates woosed out. Of course it does seem the FCC has been running rampant as of late.

I tried really hard to remember MMC4200--but it just wouldn't come up.

Thanks for finding that-or remembering that!

 

[redshoes]

I always assumed when a movie is edited that you lose a bit of what is meaniful in the film itself. I compare it to having a wonderful work of art and taking a black pen through it- its just not the same piece of art afterwards.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I never knew this service existed before all this. I'd like to see the "cleaned-up" version of Scarface or Reservoir Dogs. What are they, like 8 minutes long?

The thing about editing that drives me nuts is that some very good movies are ruined by it.

On TV they always edit "the N word" out of the movie Trading Places. So, the pivotal scene - the one that MAKES the movie - is changed! A first-time viewer wouldn't have any idea what was motivating the characters. I saw the Godfather on TV once and they edited out the horse's head. You saw the guy in his bed and heard the screaming, but you never saw the head!

My guess is that this kind of stuff is why Steven Spielberg insists that his movies (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan) are shown without editing. I applaud him for it. Plus, his movies have messages. How can you come away from Saving Private Ryan wondering if your words and actions make you deserving of what those men did for you if you don't SEE any of it???

And if a few mommies want to keep their little kids from seeing these things, all they have to do is turn off the TV. That will work until the kids get older when the mommies always lose the war, anyway.

 

[elismom]

That's what they did to the movie E.T
I still have my old VHS copy because the dvd has been edited out in parts
I just don't get why they did that

 

[Charade]

That's what they did to the movie E.T
I still have my old VHS copy because the dvd has been edited out in parts
I just don't get why they did that

That's different. The studios that released the DVD did that. Why? Who knows. Some movies have different versions. Directors cut, extended versions, special edition, etc. But all of these are done by the company that owns (or give persmisson to) the title.