It has an OFF button Folks
Posted By Kathleen David on February 26, 2005
The following is a story from the AP wire that is making the rounds.
FCC rejects ‘Angel’ indecency complaint
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — A love scene from the canceled TV show “Angel” that showed a female character turning into a vampire and biting her partner’s neck did not overstep federal indecency rules, the Federal Communications Commission ruled Friday.
It was one of two scenes from a November 2003 episode of “Angel” that were not “sufficiently graphic or explicit to render the program patently offensive” by contemporary standards, the FCC said in denying an indecency complaint from the Parents Television Council.
“Angel,” which was canceled by the WB last year after five seasons, starred David Boreanaz in the title role of an 18th-century vampire who tried to atone for past evil deeds in present day Los Angeles.
One scene involved Angel in an intimate moment with a female character in which Angel’s hips are seen “moving back and forth,” the Parents Television Council said in its complaint.
In the scene depicting the female vampire biting the neck of her partner, also a vampire, both characters had clothes on and “their breathing is heavy,” the complaint said.
The episode aired at 9 p.m. EST on Nov. 19, 2003. The indecency law bars nonsatellite radio and noncable television stations from airing between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. indecent material such as references to sexual and excretory functions. Those are the hours when children are more likely to be watching TV.
But not all sexual and excretory references or scenes are considered indecent. The FCC must consider context and its decisions are subjective interpretations of the law.
The FCC said the “Angel” scenes were not patently offensive “as defined by commission precedent” and therefore were not indecent.
The complaint was officially filed against WBDC-TV in Washington, though the program aired on WB stations across the country. The FCC asks that indecency complaints include the call letters of a television or radio station.
I checked out the Parents Television Council webpage and found it full of self-righteous indignation colored with titillation.
I am grateful my parents taught me that I have control over my actions, but not to inflict my tastes and opinions on others as a matter of course. The PTC certainly enjoys having a modicum of power and control over what they think the rest of us should view. What happens when the pendulum swings back and all these self righteous control freaks lose the support they currently have? Instead of protecting children from life, they should be teaching them about it. The poor kids who have parents that buy into all this censorship garbage are going to be at a disadvantage when they go out into the real world. I would much rather see less violence and gore on TV than worry about my child being exposed to sexual conduct. But, then again, I would rather talk to her, instead of cloistering her.
A friend of mine at school teaches drama and is assistant head of our middle school (all girls, grades 6-8). Most of the kids absolutely adore her.
A few of them came to her at the start of the year hoping to start a Buffy club, with her sponsorship, since she’s a huge fan. She agreed, and it’s actually enjoying a huge renaissance of popularity in the eighth-grader set.
Kristin (said friend) is being very careful about what episodes or parts of episodes she’s showing. There are a couple she’s simply going to refrain from showing at all regardless of relevance to the overall arc, simply because they’re not her children and are still 13-14. (Anyone with longtime Buffy experience can probably guess most of the relevant episodes; Kath, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s some of the same ones Ariel hasn’t seen yet.) With others (like the two-parter in season 2 where Angel turns), she’s simply making some judicious use of the fast-forward button and saying “okay, you all know what they’re doing, let’s move on”.
No muss, no fuss. (And this is not a prudish person by any means — just someone who’s taking her responsibility for other people’s children seriously.)
My daughter’s too young for me to worry about these issues just yet (I mean, at six months it’s not like she’d understand the relevance of any of it), but I’d like to think Lisa and I are going to find a good balance. Karen, I think you speak for a lot of us above there — and Kath, thanks for raising the issue in the first place.
TWL
rambling a bit
Thank-you Tim. Mattie just turned 5 and at this age I am very picky abut what she watches, but, she has an 8 year old cousin who exposes her to things, like cartoon network and gameboy. She will be starting school next year and I will lose some of the control I now have. Rather than trying to make sure everything is pre-sanitized for her protection, I explain, suitable to her age, things she asks about. But for some people, it is easier to let the PTC parent their children. Then they don’t have to do the thinking. Or the work. I hope she will always look to me as a source of information. Being honest with kids builds trust. Condemning everything they are exposed to does nothing for their confidence or ability to make their own decisions.
I wish people like the PTC didn’t have the power that they do, but I’m not sure what to do about it. I can wait for them to go away (the pendulum) or I can try to organize my own counter group (I don’t have the time with all of the other things I’m involved in) I can ignore network tv and go for cable, movies, books, library videos, satellite tv enjoying the freedom for now and knowing that one day “they” (the censors) will come for what I’m currently free to watch, I can send money to the ACLU (or CBLDF) but I have to be tight wtih money these days. So what is left?
So, I’m guessing this was a Darla episode? Ironic for me, in that I just got to meet Julie Benz over the weekend at MegaCon. She did a wonderful panel yesterrday, too.