No announcement yet.

FCC consider 'license revocation' for VIACOM/CBS

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The FCC should punish CBS and its affiliates by banning them from running infomercials! The public would love it and it would hit the broadcasters in their bottom line.

    As for Jackson and Timberlake, they should simply be banned from any further television appearances since they have proved that they don't have the discretion to know when children might be watching or what is suitable for family programming.


    • #17
      It actually depends on how you "look" at the boob.

      I don't see it as porn. If it's porn, then there should be tons of "sexual act", not showing your boobs and looked shocked . (should i say it's the worse porn act? )

      Anyways, I would rather see as a guy's insult on female's body. Females have the rights to show their chest like men did, but they don't need a man to do it for them.

      Originally posted by Cubana
      The episode with Janet Jackson's boob was wrong, we all know it. But revoking the license of the CBS because of that? I am completely against showing "porn" in the Super Bowl, mainly because there are millions of little kids watching, but that is too hard! Perhaps a fine should be OK, but sending the CBS away, come on, there have been worst things than that showed in American television...
      Airline Route News
      Airline Route Map Drawings


      • #18
        Originally posted by screaming_emu
        I do my own preflight inspection because I am responsbile for the safe operation of the aircraft. I see your point that the CBS management is responsible for what goes on their network, but finding them at fault for what happened is the equivelent of finding the pilot responsible for something going wrong that could not be found during preflight or runup. Yes, they were techincally responsible, but I dont believe that finding them at fault would really accomplish anything.
        I never said they were at fault did I? Don't make assumptions for me. I said they were "responsible". Responsible means they pay the price, what ever that ends up being. Can they prevent this type of thing in the future? Probably not, but if they write their contracts better in the future regarding such "willfull disregard" and back it up with stiff punishment of their own if those rules are breached, then Yes, they can make a difference in the prevention.