Jan 26
$1.4 Million Buttocks
Apparently the FCC has defined buttocks as a part of our anatomy that is a sexual organ. Or an excretory organ. It’s unclear whether the fine is $1.4 million for each station or if that’s the total for all 52 ABC stations.
The fine stems from an NYPD episode where “multiple, close-up views” of the woman’s “nude buttocks” were depicted.
From Volokh:
The agency [FCC] said the show was indecent because “it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs , specifically an adult woman’s buttocks. The agency rejected the network’s argument that “the buttocks are not a sexual organ.”
From Tigerhawk:
This is strange, because the buttocks is not actually an organ. It is “either of the two rounded prominences on the human torso that are posterior to the hips and formed by the gluteal muscles and underlying structures.” Yes, they can be attractive, but they can also be repulsively unattractive. The same might be said — and it often is — of thighs. Are they, too, sexual organs?
This sort of hair-splitting silliness is what comes from regulating that which should not be regulated.
From my brother:
Why don’t you post a lot of photos of buttocks and I’ll let you know my conclusions.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Where is Justice Powell; Edwin Meese, when we need them? Somebody, probably God since Darwin already had one,
gave us all a place to sit or rest our legs or internal organs. I am in favor of that. Just because some parts
, like knees for example, are sometimes pretty does not make them functional in that way. Remember when you were
you were first in love and an earlobe could drive you crazy? Or in my case, knees.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I think there is a problem in Houston with your comment part.
January 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Houston? I’m nowhere near Houston.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Oh bollocks.
Wait… no… different part of the anatomy.
The sentiment’s still valid, however.