<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with Indecency</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/Indecency</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'Indecency' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:39:22 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:39:22 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>&quot;I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness...&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/65313/I%2Dsaw%2Dthe%2Dbest%2Dminds%2Dof%2Dmy%2Dgeneration%2Ddestroyed%2Dby%2Dmadness</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/03/MN0PSIM67.DTL&amp;type=printable&quot;&gt;Too Hot To Hear&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;i&gt;Fifty years ago today, a San Francisco Municipal Court judge ruled that Allen Ginsberg&apos;s Beat-era poem &lt;a href=&quot;https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/6f7dd8b9270db5c585256d0d001e0a93?OpenDocument&quot;&gt;&quot;Howl&quot;&lt;/a&gt; was not obscene. Yet today, a New York public broadcasting station decided not to air the poem, fearing that the Federal Communications Commission will find it indecent and crush the network with crippling fines.&lt;/i&gt; More on Allen Ginsberg &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.levity.com/corduroy/ginsberg/home.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;small&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://footprints.organique.com/&quot;&gt;Via&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/small&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.65313</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:39:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>allenginsberg</category>
		<category>FCC</category>
		<category>ginsberg</category>
		<category>howl</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>obscenity</category>
		<category>poem</category>
		<category>poetry</category>
		<dc:creator>amyms</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Swingers Clubs ruled legal in Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/47794/Swingers%2DClubs%2Druled%2Dlegal%2Din%2DCanada</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;amp;c=Article&amp;amp;cid=1135205412524&amp;amp;call_pageid=968332188492&amp;amp;col=968793972154"&gt;Newsfilter: Sex Clubs OK in Canada&lt;/a&gt; ruled the Supreme Court yesterday in a 7-2 decision that drastically alters the definition of indecency in this country. What will be the results of this far-reaching change? Will &lt;a href=&apos;http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051222/SWINGERS22/TPNational/Canada&apos;&gt;gay bathhouses and marijuana growing&lt;/a&gt; be affected? Will there be &lt;a href=&apos;http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=cfafe135-d41e-4d29-88a9-ae727ded02e6&amp;k=55301&apos;&gt;anti-social behaviour?&lt;/a&gt; &lt;b&gt;&quot;Now harm, rather than community standards, is the key yardstick that will be used to measure the point at which constitutional freedoms can be limited&quot;.&lt;/b&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.47794</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:20:30 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>canada</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>lifestyle</category>
		<category>privacy</category>
		<category>sex</category>
		<category>supremecourt</category>
		<category>swingers</category>
		<category>swingersclubs</category>
		<dc:creator>stinkycheese</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The best of the worst of the week on television.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/41246/The%2Dbest%2Dof%2Dthe%2Dworst%2Dof%2Dthe%2Dweek%2Don%2Dtelevision</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/main.asp"&gt;The best of the worst of the week on television.&lt;/a&gt; The Parents Television Council, a U.S.-based watchdog organization trying to stamp out indecency on the airwaves, is doing their part in the war against moral turpitude. How? By creating a website where they host videos of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/main.asp&quot;&gt;the most offensive scenes on television&lt;/a&gt;... inadvertently creating some of the most amusing content on the internet!  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.41246</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:05:41 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>morality</category>
		<category>morals</category>
		<category>sex</category>
		<dc:creator>insomnia_lj</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>PTC won&apos;t let the FCC be?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/37569/PTC%2Dwont%2Dlet%2Dthe%2DFCC%2Dbe</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656"&gt;The mice that roar.&lt;/a&gt; &quot;According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003&#8212;99.8 percent&#8212;were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.&quot;  We &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/36991&quot;&gt;already know&lt;/a&gt; what a few people can do to your television viewing... is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Brent_Bozell&quot;&gt;this man&lt;/a&gt; effectively in charge of the FCC&apos;s indecency monitoring?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.37569</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:54:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Censorship</category>
		<category>FCC</category>
		<category>Indecency</category>
		<category>Powell</category>
		<category>PTC</category>
		<dc:creator>XQUZYPHYR</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Chilling Private Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/36907/Chilling%2DPrivate%2DRyan</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/index.htm?cnn=yes"&gt;The Chilling Effect.&lt;/a&gt; Some ABC affiliates have opted not to broadcast a scheduled airing of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/&quot;&gt;Saving Private Ryan&lt;/a&gt;, due to concerns over new FCC indecency regulations. They don&apos;t want to get fined. The FCC won&apos;t say in advance whether the film is indecent (&quot;that would be censorship&quot;). But don&apos;t worry, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.parentstv.org/&quot;&gt;Parents Televsion Council&lt;/a&gt; says the &quot;context&quot; makes it OK. Which is fine, but who utlimately gets to judge the context?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.36907</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:46:32 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>specialinterestgroups</category>
		<category>television</category>
		<dc:creator>jpoulos</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Stern versus Powell.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/36533/Stern%2Dversus%2DPowell</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&amp;amp;storyID=6619262"&gt;Howard Stern faces off against Michael Powell.&lt;/a&gt; Earlier today, Howard Stern finally got to confront his nemesis, FCC chair Michael Powell. This occurred, naturally, on the radio, when Howard called in to another talk show. Powell was a guest of KGO&apos;s Ronn Owens and Howard called in, asking Powell, &quot;Does it make you nervous to talk to me?&quot; He accuses Powell of getting his position due to nepotism; Stern also asks about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0504044oprah1.html&quot;&gt;Oprah&apos;s indecency&lt;/a&gt;, and Powell says Stern &quot;personalizes&quot; the debate and says &quot;I don&apos;t think we have made any particular crusade of the Howard Stern Show or you.&quot; Howard disagrees, saying, &quot;I hope there&apos;s no sort of retribution as a result of my phone call which I believe Michael&apos;s capable of.&quot; After Howard hangs up, Michael admits, sort of, that &quot;Howard has an argument.&quot; KGO has audio of the show for &lt;a href=&quot;http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo09.asx&quot;&gt;Windows Media&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://rope.kgoam810.com/archive/kgo09.ram&quot;&gt;RealPlayer&lt;/a&gt;  (skip ahead to 32:05 to hear Howard&apos;s call).  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.36533</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:24:22 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>howardstern</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>michaelpowell</category>
		<category>radio</category>
		<dc:creator>realityblurred</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Pink Floyd and Indecency</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/31758/Pink%2DFloyd%2Dand%2DIndecency</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.wncx.com/"&gt;Crap - now they FCC Thought Police are going after Pink Floyd. Is &lt;b&gt;nothing&lt;/b&gt; sacred?!&lt;/a&gt; WNCX, a local Cleveland &quot;Classic rock&quot; station (who just happens to be the same station that airs The Howard Stern Show in the area) is unable to play Pink Floyd&apos;s &quot;Money&quot; because of the use of the word &quot;bullshit&quot; within the song.  To be honest, until this was brought to my attention, I had completely overlooked that lyric in the song.  But thanks to the FCC War Against Indency, I&apos;m now fully aware of it!  What other cases of &apos;indecency&apos; would you have overlooked had the authorities not brought it to your attention?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.31758</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2004 07:01:43 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bullshit</category>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>cleveland</category>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>money</category>
		<category>pinkfloyd</category>
		<category>radio</category>
		<category>wncx</category>
		<dc:creator>tgrundke</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>FCC commissioner Michael Copps seeks indecency definition overhaul.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21784/FCC%2Dcommissioner%2DMichael%2DCopps%2Dseeks%2Dindecency%2Ddefinition%2Doverhaul</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&amp;amp;cid=638&amp;amp;ncid=762&amp;amp;e=1&amp;amp;u=/nm/20021121/en_nm/media_indecency_fcc_dc"&gt;FCC commissioner Michael Copps seeks indecency definition overhaul.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;The current definition of indecency to me should be capturing for enforcement purposes some of these programs and it is not.  We are only having a paucity of enforcement actions against programming that is &lt;a href=&quot;http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/021121/161/2qggn.html&quot;&gt;palpably&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/southpark/&quot;&gt;demonstrably&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.touched.com/&quot;&gt;indecent&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;
Is it really time to redefine indecency, or to reexamine why exactly it is we are defining indecency to begin with?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21784</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:05:12 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>michaelcopps</category>
		<category>usa</category>
		<dc:creator>mikrophon</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20805/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;amp;ncid=802&amp;amp;e=2&amp;amp;cid=599&amp;amp;u=/nm/20021014/media_nm/tech_acclaim_xxx_dc"&gt;A New Milestone for Video Games?&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Three of the nation&apos;s top retailers, including Wal Mart, on Monday said they had refused to carry a new video game billed as the first major release to feature full-action nudity and with prostitutes and pimps as major characters.&quot; I enjoyed their &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bmxxxx.com/bannedads/index.html&quot;&gt;&quot;banned ads&quot;&lt;/a&gt; myself.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20805</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Oct 2002 17:00:48 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>controversy</category>
		<category>games</category>
		<category>gaming</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>retail</category>
		<category>videogames</category>
		<category>walmart</category>
		<dc:creator>owillis</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/8211/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/11/children/index.html"&gt;The Morality Police.&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Our hysterical attempts to shield kids from images of sex and violence are stunting young lives -- and trapping us all in a Big Lie.&quot; A well-argued piece, more of an op-ed than a straight-up book review. As a scientist I only quibble with the author&apos;s musing that &quot;if there really were a cause-and-effect link between real violence and media violence, then it would have been proven by now.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.8211</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:32:09 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>innocence</category>
		<category>morality</category>
		<category>oped</category>
		<category>op-ed</category>
		<category>protection</category>
		<category>Salon</category>
		<category>standards</category>
		<category>TheMoralityPolice</category>
		<dc:creator>topolino</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/6848/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42892,00.html"&gt;Feds post indecent material.&lt;/a&gt; In a move sure to be challenged, the FCC released a report which offfers examples of what they consider to be indecent, and not indecent. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

In typical government style, anything that is referred to &quot;sexual&quot; is deemed indecent.  But use of the word such as &quot;motherF****r&quot; isn&apos;t.  This just makes things even more confusing... at least to me.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

Examples:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;b&gt;Indecent&lt;/b&gt;: &quot;Well, it was a nice big fart. I&apos;m feeling very gaseous at this point.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Not indecent&lt;/b&gt;: &quot;The hell I did, I drove motherF****r, oh. Oh.&quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;

&lt;b&gt;Indecent&lt;/b&gt;: &quot;Sit on my face and tell me that you love me. I&apos;ll sit on your face and tell you I love you too.&quot; - Montey Python

 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.6848</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2001 05:43:31 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>obscenity</category>
		<category>wired</category>
		<dc:creator>da5id</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/6313/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4149636,00.html"&gt;Scotland Yard raids Saatchi Gallery over complaints of child pornography in Tierney Gearon show&lt;/a&gt; - Why? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=004527568754033&amp;rtmo=pssspMSe&amp;atmo=rrrrrrrq&amp;pg=/et/01/1/17/tltiern17.html&quot;&gt;Gearon&lt;/a&gt;, a former fashion model turned art photographer, has included in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.independent.co.uk/enjoyment/Art_and_Design/Visual_arts/2001-01/darwent140101.shtml&quot;&gt;show&lt;/a&gt; a couple of pictures of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/londonlive/entertainment/exhibitions/camera_1.shtml&quot;&gt;her children naked&lt;/a&gt;. &quot;In one the two children are wearing theatrical masks while in the other her son is urinating in the snow.&quot; Gearon sees nothing wrong with her pictures, but apparently they make &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lineone.net/telegraph/2001/01/17/features/the_17.html&quot;&gt;some people&lt;/a&gt; a little nervous.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.6313</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2001 06:19:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Britain</category>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>ChildPornography</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>Guardian</category>
		<category>indecency</category>
		<category>naked</category>
		<category>nude</category>
		<category>ObscenePublicationsSquad</category>
		<category>pedophilia</category>
		<category>photography</category>
		<category>photos</category>
		<category>SaatchiGallery</category>
		<category>ScotlandYard</category>
		<category>UK</category>
		<dc:creator>pracowity</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


