# Satellite TV censorship



## PROSA (Jun 17, 2004)

Satellite/cable TV channel TNT recently began showing episodes from the HBO series "Sex and the City." According to what I read, however, the show is considerably censored for its TNT showing, with nudity and profanity removed. On somewhat similar lines, it's not hard to see evidence of censorship on other popular channels like MTV and Bravo.
It seems to be the rule that free satellite/cable channels like TNT - in other words, those available as part of one's basic satellite or cable TV service - are subject to censorship standards similar to those on broadcast television, while it's anything goes on the extra-cost, "pay" channels like HBO and Showtime. This rule is apparently policy rather than statute, as the Federal Communications Commission does not have jurisidiction over cable or satellite programming.
Given that the stated purpose of censorship is to protect children, why is there a free-vs.pay distinction? It does not logically follow that children are less likely to watch HBO as opposed to TNT, to use my example, if they're both available in the home. Further complicating the issue is that there are a few free satellite/cable channels that do show nudity and other sorts of adult programming; these include Independent Film Channel and World Link TV, both of which are rather obscure noncommercial channels, and, oddly enough given its parent corporation's political leanings, Fox Movie Channel.


----------



## Jasonbp (Jun 17, 2002)

TBS is showing *Sex and the City* not TNT.


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2004)

umm the ONLY reason pay channels were started was to show movies un-cut in their intended form.thats why they are "premium" services


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2004)

PROSA said:


> Satellite/cable TV channel TNT recently began showing episodes from the HBO series "Sex and the City." According to what I read, however, the show is considerably censored for its TNT showing, with nudity and profanity removed. On somewhat similar lines, it's not hard to see evidence of censorship on other popular channels like MTV and Bravo.
> It seems to be the rule that free satellite/cable channels like TNT - in other words, those available as part of one's basic satellite or cable TV service - are subject to censorship standards similar to those on broadcast television, while it's anything goes on the extra-cost, "pay" channels like HBO and Showtime. This rule is apparently policy rather than statute, as the Federal Communications Commission does not have jurisidiction over cable or satellite programming.
> Given that the stated purpose of censorship is to protect children, why is there a free-vs.pay distinction? It does not logically follow that children are less likely to watch HBO as opposed to TNT, to use my example, if they're both available in the home. Further complicating the issue is that there are a few free satellite/cable channels that do show nudity and other sorts of adult programming; these include Independent Film Channel and World Link TV, both of which are rather obscure noncommercial channels, and, oddly enough given its parent corporation's political leanings, Fox Movie Channel.


IFC is Rainbow(cablevision)..and worldlink is public access ..neither have any connection with fox


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Last night Spike showed the Godfather, 'uncut and shown how it was meant to be seen'. However when they got to the wedding night scene, where Michael's new bride lowers her top, instead of getting the original version her breasts were distorted by 'blocks'. I had expected them to so something since in the USA we're not allowed to see womens breasts. I was upset how Spike had made a big deal about how this was uncut but they still didn't have the b*lls to show a pair of naked breasts for 4 seconds in a classic movie.


----------



## GutBomb (Jun 17, 2004)

what cable and satellite channels can get away with is more up to the advertisers that pay them for commercial time. An advertiser that does not want to be associated with undesirable things like profanity and nudity (why these things are "undesirable" is better left to another thread) will not pay the same amount (or at all) for advertising space on a channel. A&E and Comedy Central have started making good effort into uncensored TV by (for the most part) relaxing their censors a bit, in A&E's case, allowing the S word and comedy central showing uncensored movies in their late-night saturday "secret stash" time slot.

It's all about money and image.

(it's pretty sad when advertisers don't give a rat's ass about someone getting their spine pulled out through their mouth, or seeing actual video footage of people being shot at the end of high speed chases live on the news, but get all up in arms about showing a female breast for 4 seconds. what is more harmful for children really? seeing a boob, something every female has, and something that is not inherently sexual, or seeing graphic violence?)


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I have hairy boobs and I go out in the yard topless everyday in the heat and humidity of summer. I know it's disgusting, but I do it because I'm a man and I can. Shouldn't women be accorded the same freedom. I say yes! Let those boobs swing free, ladies. Your right to free expression is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.

ABC's "funniest videos" programs recently aired a home video clip showing a small boy and girl standing in the tub with shaving cream all over. The little boy's stuff was carefully electronically obscured, but the little girl's wasn't and her...ahem...little, er, ah, 'cleft' was briefly, but plainly visible. It's obviously blantant sexism to the nth degree.

I don't see what the big deal is all about. The networks will allow 48 inches of voluminous, heaving bazoooms to flop all over the neighborhood, but let a tiny sliver of aurolea show and heads will roll. Unbelievably turgid nipples can artfully strain in cinematic close up against the thinnest of fabrics and that's ok, but never shall a smidgen of mammary valve see the light of day, so to speak. The very fount that gave us sustenance in our yout is transformed into an object of covert mindless censorship.

It's insane. Maybe I should move to the French Riviera, or better yet, join Hell's Angels and wear a black tee shirt that commands all of womenkind to "Show me your tits!" Now where did I put that uncensored "Girls Gone Wild" tape?


----------



## PROSA (Jun 17, 2004)

GutBomb said:


> what cable and satellite channels can get away with is more up to the advertisers that pay them for commercial time. An advertiser that does not want to be associated with undesirable things like profanity and nudity (why these things are "undesirable" is better left to another thread) will not pay the same amount (or at all) for advertising space on a channel. A&E and Comedy Central have started making good effort into uncensored TV by (for the most part) relaxing their censors a bit, in A&E's case, allowing the S word and comedy central showing uncensored movies in their late-night saturday "secret stash" time slot.


Ah ... that may explain the lack of censorship on IFC and LinkTV(formerly WorldLinkTV), as neither one runs commercials. No advertisers to offend.
I *think* that the movies on Fox Movie Channel also are shown without ads, though I cannot recall for sure.
Thanks for your helpful answer.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Let's just make sure that the "censorship" being discussed by the thread-starter is not the government censorship that many people automatically assume is meant when they hear the word.

Going back to the SpikeTV "no boob shot" example, SpikeTV is not like HBO where people pay directly for that specific channel. It's bundled together with other channels by the network in order to force providers to carry as many of their channels as possible. (ABC Family is tied to ESPN, for example.) That means that the potential audience is extremely varied and can include small children that many believe should not see certain images.

I have to throw my 2 cents worth in about what images children should or should not see. I agree that extreme violence should be kept away from small children (including video game simulated violence) and I also believe nudity should be kept away from small children as well. I'm sure lots of predators out there would love for 4-year olds to think that it's OK to show your body to everyone. Now let the outrage begin.


----------



## HappyGoLucky (Jan 11, 2004)

You do realize that there is currently a move in congress to basically censor even the premium channels like HBO. Several "holier-than-thou" Senators and Representatives feel that what they think is inappropriate should apply to everyone else, regardless of whether it is paid for or not.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

durl said:


> Let's just make sure that the "censorship" being discussed by the thread-starter is not the government censorship that many people automatically assume is meant when they hear the word.
> 
> Going back to the SpikeTV "no boob shot" example, SpikeTV is not like HBO where people pay directly for that specific channel. It's bundled together with other channels by the network in order to force providers to carry as many of their channels as possible. (ABC Family is tied to ESPN, for example.) That means that the potential audience is extremely varied and can include small children that many believe should not see certain images.
> 
> I have to throw my 2 cents worth in about what images children should or should not see. I agree that extreme violence should be kept away from small children (including video game simulated violence) and I also believe nudity should be kept away from small children as well. I'm sure lots of predators out there would love for 4-year olds to think that it's OK to show your body to everyone. Now let the outrage begin.


Isn't this why we have the V chip and DBS/cable STB's have the ability to limit what shows are allowed to be viewed unless you have the password/code for the STB? You may have your views but with all the technology out there now there shouldn't be laws passed to prevent grown adults from watching a movie as it was meant to be shown. Other areas of the world, Europe and Japan come to mind, where nudity on TV is allowed and they have MUCH lower crime rates then here in the states. Maybe we should try everything goes for awhile to see if it makes a difference


----------



## ypsiguy (Jan 28, 2004)

durl said:


> Let's just make sure that the "censorship" being discussed by the thread-starter is not the government censorship that many people automatically assume is meant when they hear the word.
> 
> Going back to the SpikeTV "no boob shot" example, SpikeTV is not like HBO where people pay directly for that specific channel. It's bundled together with other channels by the network in order to force providers to carry as many of their channels as possible. (ABC Family is tied to ESPN, for example.) That means that the potential audience is extremely varied and can include small children that many believe should not see certain images.
> 
> I have to throw my 2 cents worth in about what images children should or should not see. I agree that extreme violence should be kept away from small children (including video game simulated violence) and I also believe nudity should be kept away from small children as well. I'm sure lots of predators out there would love for 4-year olds to think that it's OK to show your body to everyone. Now let the outrage begin.


European television is way more "risque" and yet their culture is much less violent than ours. Television isn't the problem. Its just a "red herring" used by politicians bent on a power trip. Since we have the V-chip and other child proof mechanisms now, children can now be adequately protected. TV should be allowed to experiment and let the viewers decide what they feel is appropriate. TV needs to be a more true and accurate window on our society, good or bad.


----------



## RichW (Mar 29, 2002)

:righton: Nick, you have such a way with words. I salute you!


----------



## Steveox (Apr 21, 2004)

Just Wait untill the sopranos comes out on TBS then it will be a ****ty boring series.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

I love forums!!! To say that television is the root of the ills of America is something no one can prove. However, we should be looking at the culture as a whole. If other countries are less violent than ours, then why is that? Is it because they allow nudity on television? I doubt it. The Autobahn has no speed limit over most of the highway but it has fewer deaths on average than the US speed-controlled roads. Is that because you can see naked women on TV any hour of the day? I seriously doubt that as well. Japan has lower crime rates but they also have a deeper sense of honor and respect in their culture than we have in the US. Some Asian countries have very low crime rates but you may get your hand cut off for stealing.

There's much more than could be said here, but I'm just trying to get people to ask questions and answer them honestly. With privileges comes responsibility, but a lot of people in America have trouble accepting the latter.


----------



## Poosh (Sep 16, 2002)

I also think though because of the whole thing about how there is violence and sex on TV that our children will see it and be bad people is a lot of crap. And to me whats worse is that it propagates the people who use sex and violence in video games and tv as an excuse for their violence. Rather then just the obvious that they have no morals and are just crappy people with possibly crappy upbringings. And then if you remove the sex and violence in TV and video games they are still crappy people doing crappy things.

So why censor it. This culture of ours will always be full of crappy people doing crappy things. Allow the good ones to see their sex and violence


----------



## SimpleSimon (Jan 15, 2004)

TV sex & violence as the sole cause of our ills IS a pile of crap. However, I believe it IS one of the MANY factors involved. I remember when the Three Stooges and Roadrunner were going to be the end of life on earth.

There is a difference between those types of shows and the current ones, however. Slapstick and 'primitive' animation are quite different than the realism of both 'real' and animated shows today. How much difference in effect is there? I dunno - I'm just stating an observation. Could the realistic violence being seen actually desensitise our youth. Could be. Worth thinking about.

As for the sex, the opposite effects may be there - hiding the sex/nudity/love may have a different negative effect - oversensitising our youth. Again - could be. Worth thinking about.

Bottom line - let those that are concerned use their V-Chips and off buttons, and let ME watch what "I" want to watch - I'll protect MY kids (if I had any).


----------

