Forum - View topicThe Edit List - Samurai Champloo Episode 02
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Stueypark
Posts: 116 |
|
|||
|
The standards are not based upon the content of the cable networks and providers, but rather to their means of operation and transmission.
According to the FCC: "On March 4, 1996, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-84) establishing interim rules to implement Section 505 of the 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming." So, section 505 limits what cable networks can do, well, it did for a little while. "On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court also determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional." There are some various rules, such as political advertising, libelous content, etc., but they've never been able to pass Federal regulation of cable content without the Federal courts overturning them. Of course, this is only on the Federal level, it has been determined individual states may impose restrictions on cable boradcasts, the most extreme example is Massachusettes who has a whole slew of rules. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/csgen.html |
||||
|
||||
Kazuki-san
 Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||
|
Stueypark: I beg to differ. Any cable channel launching into a 5 minute string of obscenities, during children's programming, would be in violation of existing law.
"Q: How have obscenity and indecency been defined? A: In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court established the following criteria to determine whether speech is obscene: (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; (2) whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In 1978, the Court stated that whether the work could be deemed "patently offensive" would depend on context, degree and time of broadcast. The Commission's generic definition of "indecency" is one that applies to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs. Q: Are there provisions in federal law which penalize the showing of obscene material on cable channels? A: Yes. Both 47 U.S.C. §559 and 18 U.S.C. §1468(a) respectively bar the transmission of obscene material over a cable system and the knowing utterance or distribution of obscene matter by means of a cable television system or subscription service. " http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/program.html |
||||
|
||||
|
Stueypark
Posts: 116 |
|
|||
|
But ever since the requirement of V-chips in televisions, as well as the use of TV-ratings, both 559 and 1468 have been taken to court and defeated a number of times, although not ruled unconstitutional (which is why they are still on the books), so what power they once had is gone.
The idea being, that now since parents are capable of controlling their own TV sets the responsability has shifted back to the home (and stops having the government stepping on the toes of the 1st amendment). The only real complaints which are still acknowleged about cable decency are those on the un-rated live programming. That's why the Alaskan senator is pushing so hard for new rules, he wants something that can stick in court. |
||||
|
||||
|
toomanyalts
Posts: 115 |
|
|||
Ah if those parents didn't want their children to be taught religion then non Christian references wouldn't be there if they were so anal to think any mention was teaching religion. There is a world of difference from mentioning something and teaching it. Religious fundies don't know this difference. This is why they want religious motts up everywhere even though there own thelogians view this as being against Christiany. This is why they want school boards to put in Evolution disclaimers and teach Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is admitted as being nonsense by it's advocates who say it is not ready to be taught and nothing scientific can result from teaching it. Mentioning God in anime and videogames is often as a blasphemy or used as in insult. In fact videogames mention Christianity and the Christian god quite frequently however these mentions are often protested by the more radical Christian sects because of how the references are portrayed. Usually a church is very evil in a video game. Chat filters that remove the word god do it to protect the word. It is one of the words along with several racial epithats that are bleeped out and the vast majority of people asked agree with the bleeping. Several Jewish and Christian sects agree with this in prinicple. You aren't supposed to be spell God out in writing. They ever use metaphors or Jehovah. Also Ruroni Kenshin was edited for the Toonami timeslot when such references could have generated such a firestorm of hate for Cartoon Network. Edited for Adult Swim in the first place they would have potentialy been different. Heck Ruroni Kenshin would be mostly unedited if Broadcast now on Adult Swim for the first time. Ghost in Shell had the laughing man say that god was a son of a bitch and Kusanagi said that he was blasmephous. Old adult swim and toonami would never have left Ghost in the Shell broadcast that. The edits are getting more coherent and sensical in the new releases on Adult Swim's lineup. Lets hope they continue. |
||||
|
||||
|
Kurapica
Posts: 1 |
|
|||
|
See I really don't get the damn point of editing out "shit", while they use "B!tch (sorry it won't show any other way, so I won't be able to make my point clear)" and otehr worse words without editing... So tell me this... Is Adult Swim just doing it for teh hell of making something creative? Or are they retarded?
Last edited by Kurapica on Wed May 25, 2005 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10472 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||
Actually, it's almost the exact opposite. The people they're concerned about are christians who will become offended if Christianity is badly represented. Extremists who have issues with exposure to beliefs that are different than their own are easy to ignore. Regular people who have issues with improper representation of their own religion are much harder to ignore because 1) they have a point and 2) they're more numerous. Hense, Cartoon Network and other networks sometimes edit out representations of Christianity that either a) present christianity in a bad light, or b) present Christianity inacurately. Most networks are also careful about their presentations of Islam and Judaism as well. However they are less careful when it comes to non-judao religions (Neopaganism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Vodun, etc...) because the North American population of devout non-judao believers is relatively small in comparisson. Whatsmore, in the case of Buddhism, its teachings would have a devout buddhist not vehemently care if Buddhism were misrepresented. -t |
||||
|
||||
Haiseikoh 1973
 Posts: 1590 Location: Waiting for the Japanese 1000 Gunieas. |
|
|||
Us Buddhists have more pressing matters to deal with than such petty tripe done in many japaanese Anime. Plus our Miko are hotter than Underage Alter Boys.  
|
||||
|
||||
|
Falcon5768
Posts: 22 |
|
|||
|
Cable limits and the laws governing obsenity on cable where lighten up when the Vchip was introduced, so while it wouldnt be wise to have a 5 minute block of the words you shoudlnt say on TV, legaly they are allowed to these days.
That being said, its all for sponsors which was actually a huge fear CC had when they aired the infamous swear episode of South Park. In the end, no one complained or for that matter even seemed to care and they have since reshown the episode many times unedited. |
||||
|
||||
|
Kazuki-san
Posts: 2251 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||
But what I'm saying is it's not legal when it is found to be obscene. The deal is that someone must first complain before they look into it, and then it's judged on a case by case basis. While something like South Park can get away with it, due to the nature of channel it airs on, there's no way CN could just broadcast 5 minutes of swear words during the middle of children's programming, and someone not complain, and for it to not be found obscene. BTW, the Vchip argument is nice and all, but the fact is that it works off of ratings that are made voluntarily by the stations. In any case, this isn't exactly the time nor place to argue such things. |
||||
|
||||
Shiki MSHTS
 Posts: 738 Location: NoVA |
|
|||
It strikes me as odd that advocates would call what they're supporting "nonsense". Evolution is already being taught in school boards, mainly in the science department. Creation is mainly only taught in history, and they always explicitly say they're only teaching it for the educational values. However, Intelligent Design is far from being unscientific. If anything, it's harder to prove that evolution has any strong scientific basis to it. However, I'd rather not throw this thread completely off topic.
I'm not completely denying you, but again, do you have any specific references? While a church may be depicted as corrupt and evil in a game, I have yet to see them ever specifically refer to Christianity. If you really want to discuss this, I'd rather you PM me rather than reply on this topic, as it is starting to stray pretty off topic. ------------ Anyone have an answer to my previous question about the ED song for episode 2? =/ |
||||
|
||||
sailorspazz
 Posts: 195 Location: Portland, OR |
|
|||
|
Adult Swim has gotten away with airing the word 'shit' before. In one of the last episodes of Space Ghost Coast to Coast, Space Ghost was talking about all sorts of obscene things (all of which were bleeped out), and then Moltar said "You can't say that kind of shit...I mean, stuff." Of course, in both this case and the South Park episode where they said shit 161 times, it seems like it was okay to say it since they were making fun of the fact that they're not supposed to say it (but then again, Comedy Central has also aired the South Park movie, which contains all sorts of "offensive" stuff). But since they apparently CAN have a little bit of swearing in their shows, it seems kind of pointless for them to "scratch out" the one or two swear words that might appear in each episode of Samurai Champloo. If they can probably get away with it, why edit it?
|
||||
|
||||
Joe Mello
 Posts: 2347 Location: Online Terminal |
|
|||
|
Because whoever has the magic scissors doesn't want to try and see if they can get away with it.
I want to bring up the old point that the bleeping getting old: One thing I can't stand is people who chronically swear. Any high schooler or later has to have seen at least one person who couldn't string 5 words together without one of them starting with "f." I have a feeling that this issue will be apparent in the SC script, as Mugen seems to have that kind of "I'm gonna curse every 3 [wikki wikki] seconds" personality, so yes, the "creative editing" could get old really fast. |
||||
|
||||
|
Shiki MSHTS
Posts: 738 Location: NoVA |
|
|||
I don't think Mugen is THAT bad. Not even really close really. And whenever he does curse, it's usually not dire enough for them to scratch it out. While I agree that I don't like people with chronic swearing problems, it is pretty funny to have that one essential scene where something goes wrong and then they start cursing like a trucker, while the censors can barely keep up. =P |
||||
|
||||
Tony K.
 SubscriberModerator  Posts: 11507 Location: Frisco, TX |
|
|||
|
About the Christianity thing. Does this mean they won't be showing that episode of Champloo where:
spoiler[ A Japanese guy fakes being a Christian]. It's not demeaning to religion in any bad way, in fact I thought the episode was quite funny, but he does spout a little nonsense hear and there, which might be enough to offend or rile up some of the.. less than tolerable devout Christians  .
|
||||
|
||||
|
Steventheeunuch
|
|
|||
Assuming said people are up to watch it, which considering there wasn't any protest to say, Big O (with it's plentiful god references and such), I doubt there'd be much action taken, if at all. |
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group