The Buttocks are Not a Sexual Organ: ABC and the FCC

I’m just grateful that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the internet. And I’d bet that members of the Anal Sex and Ass Appreciation groups agree. Because, let me tell you, The Federal Communications Committee has something against butts.

And this isn’t just any grudge, it’s a rancor for whichthe ABC network might have to pay $1.4 million USD. The story goes like this:

In 2003, ABC showed an episode of NYPD Blue that showed images of a woman’s ass as she got ready to shower. The woman was Charlotte Ross, the character was Det. Connie McDowell. Some of you may remember the episode. If not, and once again, let me be grateful for the Internet, you can see screenshots here or the video clip here. Fast-forward to the present, when the FCC is fining 52 ABC stations for showing the episode and the nudity contained therein.

The FCC deems "sexual or excretory activities" shown in an "offensive" way before 2200 as indecent.

ABC has rejected the claims, saying the buttocks are not a sexual organ.

But that isn’t even the whole story – oh no! Because the FCC goes on to point out that the episode also portrayed some of the woman’s breasts. And for this partial breast and butt transgression, ABC may be paying upwards of a million dollars, as the United States has recently sanctioned a very large escalation in such fines.

The broadcaster has said it will appeal against the decision, which is the second largest indecency fine imposed on a broadcaster.

In 2006, the FCC imposed a $3.6m (£1.8m) against CBS for an episode of Without A Trace, which was settled for $300,000 (£152,000).

I know, I know, the argument can be made that, while one does not have to agree with the rules that are in place, you can’t argue against the enforcement of said regulations. But I’m still a little confused. And a bit humored, in fact, as I attempt to envision FCC officials – white and old and male – sitting around discussing, “Cartoon butts? Okay! Female butts? No good. What about tightly fitting, sheer material over a female butt? Hmmm…” I am perhaps oversimplifying the issue, but I still get carried away with such scenes.

-“Well, Dick, what do you think? Are buttocks more offensive than breasts? Which will scar our children more?”

-“And, hey, what about the value of the fines; how do we decide those? Should we base them on absolute or relative size? Do we charge more for more, how do they say, ‘junk in the trunk’? Or, what about the super skinny actresses with no meat on their behinds…should they be charged as much?”

-Ad infinitum

Fun, isn’t it?

In addition, let me highlight something that I find particularly ridiculous about this story: The episode aired in 2003. By charging the network such a high fine and bringing national (and international) coverage to the story, many more people are going to view the guilty body parts. I know I wouldn’t have seen the t’n’a without hearing of the story. Then, let me ask the perpetual (and probably rhetorical) question, “Is this about money or principles?” Does the FCC really care about protecting the viewers (from the allegedly potential harms of viewing such flesh), or are the fines predominantly created for the purpose of generating revenue?

That video clip and those images were definitely the least sexual things Fatality saw all day…

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/all/22963/The-Buttocks-are-Not-a-Sexual-Organ-ABC-and-the-FCC/