NEWS: In the Name of Decency: WB Self-Censors New Series "The Bedford Diaries"

CULTURE: In the Name of Decency: WB Self-Censors New Series "The Bedford Diaries"

Once upon a time there was a country called America. America was lauded far and wide as a haven of freedom—its constitution even had a special amendment called the "First", which existed specifically to ensure the freedom of speech. The First Amendment read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Despite the seemingly all-inclusive scope of the First Amendment, there were always those tricky state and federal obscenity laws. These laws allowed the government to supercede the First Amendment, and therefore to limit free speech. The concept and control of obscenity was a big deal in America. The country continually struggled to define the obscene, and debated how prosecutors, courts, and the media might best identify and avoid it. The problem was that the attempt to obliterate obscenity inevitably resulted in censorship, such as book banning and blacklisting.

Fast forward to the 21st Century, during which modern Americans continue to grapple with the age-old problems of obscenity in the media. These days, the bully that the media is trying to avoid confrontation with (in the form of millions of dollars in fines) is an independent United States government agency called the Federal Communications Commission. As the ACLU put it:

Sex has notoriously been treated as obscene in America, and these days it's no different: the discussion and depiction of sex and sexuality continues to be an area where artistic expression can be officially banned. The recent self-censoring by the WB of it's new series "The Bedford Diaries" demonstrates this all too well.

Perhaps the FCC has a death wish, because ultimately their absurd attempts to clean up and over-regulate TV will ultimately send viewers away from broadcast television and into the obscenely open arms of cable. Whatever happens, one thing is for sure: the pixilated, bleeped, edited and/or cut premiere of "The Bedford Diaries" will air this Wednesday, March 29 on the WB.

I'm so fucking sick of America.

"I love the place i live but i hate the people in charge"

-Immortal Technique

I'm confused, I just watched the "uneditied" version online, and I couldn't find anything that would have been objectionable - no near-nudity (the streaker was seen from the waist up) or "descriptive language - This was like a tame 90210 episode...

WE'RE CENSORING THIS SHOW THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T NEED TO BE CENSORED! GIVE US PUBLICITY!!! EVERYONE WATCH IT!

Yeah, this seems kind of staged. Way to feed the fire, miss editor.

I think we have a winner....I guess "self-censored" was probably a givaway...

Also: CHECK OUR WEBSITE, TOO!!! HOT NUDE CHICKS DOING IT FOR THE CAMERAS!! TOO HOT FOR TV!

RARRRRRR!!!!!! I HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!! MUST PUBLISH ANY NEGATIVE STORY THAT TANGENTIALLY CONNECTS!!!!!"

The prelude is a bit dramatic. Having said that, I have worked at a radio station & a television station and FCC regulations really are nebulous to the point that station managers live in constant fear and confusion over what is permissable.

The key problem being that the FCC regularly avoids establishing a definitive set of parameters regarding what is considered decent & indecent, primarily because they know once they do that someone will drag their ass into court and have that definition blown to pieces. Instead, they choose to harass and intimidate stations with occasional reminders, whether it be phone calls from field agents or snail mail, that they may be doing something wrong. It is a fact that the FCC has harassed many broadcasters into "self-censoring" by simply refusing to issue broadcasting licenses to companies with multiple stations. They have also used this tactic to keep broadcasters from taking them to court to challenge decency guidelines. They pretty much operate like the mob, and that is racketeering at it's finest.

[Edited on Mar 27, 2006 10:10AM]

So if electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Seriously, though, the plot behind this series is laughable. As someone who took a couple human sexuality classes, I know that professors have to go through a shitload of red tape before they can even conduct a simple in-class poll.

Shit, is this what they call fanwanking? Can it even be considered fanwanking if I have no intention of watching this series?

And poor Matthew Modine. Le Divorce wasn't that bad!

I believe so.

I'm five minutes into watching the first episode and it's already ridiculous.

A life-drawing art model that looks like that? Not bloody likely!

*continues watching*

How the hell is it convenient or even plausible to have weekly video assignments in a non-media class? What a bitch it would be to grade!

This article would be a whole hell of a lot better if you cut the beginning part of it. You're mostly preaching to the choir about the FCC and since they didn't enter into it, what a company chooses to air or not air is entirely up to them.

Yes Sean, but I think the real issue is that this show is utter crap even uncut. I know because I'm watching it in its entirety. Sleep is for suckers.

I would expect nothing less from a show entirely about sex. Because, you know, that's the basis of like 12 billion shows already, and there's really nowhere you can go with it other than the "irritating soap opera where everyone sleeps with everyone else" route.

My main problem right now is that the professor's office is wood-paneled and about twice the size of my bedroom. All of my professors are lucky if they don't have to share an office the size of a cubicle.

I guess that's how the other half live at private schools. Preppie jerks.

Holy crap. I want my hour back!

You'd only have wasted it similarly.

Come on now. That's not even close to a legitimate, believable background for a show, for reasons Anonymouse and _DictionaryGirl_ touched on above.

Anyway, regarding censorship, I don't flinch when TV or movies or books throw just about any "obscene" thing my way. It's simple, folks. If you don't want to see that sort of thing, and if you don't want your children to see it, lock the TV up or just throw it away. I don't own one, and I'm relatively undamaged. We vote by viewing, so don't watch whatever bothers you. Change the channel or cut power. It's an inch from your thumb. If Americans are watching this "Obscenity", they want it and no government agency, in my opinion, should intervene. Likewise, if a company censored strictly but people wanted something more explicit, no government agency should force the company to provide edgier material.

If we want a show about squirrels, law shouldn't compel the company to provide one. It's up to that company and more importantly it is up to us to express our views to that company.

When the population's uninvolved, government sometimes steps in and, in my mind, violates freedoms.

I wish I were as cool as you.