Family Guy – talk about a misnomer. The animated Fox television series crossed sexual, moral and religious boundaries on Sunday evening when it aired content inappropriate for its young target audience.The controversial material was not limited to one subject, or isolated in a single scene. Images of gay men kissing, a baby eating semen, physical abuse, sexual touching and a half naked male were just a few of the disturbing images viewers were treated to in the March 8 episode.
The Parents Television Council has issued a press release regarding the indecent content. Tim Winter, President of the PTC has alerted the Federal Communications Commission to the controversial content aired at 8:00pm CT, during the so-called family hour.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
“Our organization is taking its concerns directly to every parent, every Fox affiliate and every advertiser -- as well as to those whom the Congress has instructed to uphold the law: the FCC. We encourage our members and concerned citizens to contact their local broadcasters and their public servants with their complaints. Each and every advertiser who paid for this show to air will also be personally contacted by the PTC and asked if bringing orgies and bestiality into American living rooms resonates with their corporate image,” Winter said in the press release.
The episode centered on the main character Peter, the family’s deadbeat father, attempting to earn extra cash by subjecting himself to a variety of experimental injections. One of those injections contained the so called “gay gene,” injected by a doctor who admitted that “if we’re correct, we will have successfully proven that homosexuality is genetic and not a matter of choice or environment.”
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Once injected, the character began acting in stereotypically gay ways, including listening to musical soundtracks, wearing fashionable clothing, speaking in a high voice, and suddenly finding a knack for baking. It all sets up some predictable shots at Christianity:
MEG (daughter): So, dad’s gonna be gay forever?
LOIS (mother): Possibly Meg, so we’re all just going to have to get used to this and learn to accept your father for who he is now.
STEWIE: Oh great plan Lois. Hey here’s a nutty idea: Ever read the Bible? Leviticus 18:22.
BRIAN (dog): Stewie you’re judgmentally quoting Bible verses and you don’t even know how to read.
STEWIE: Welcome to America, Brian.
Later, when Peter is attending “Straight Camp,” the camp counselor greets his campers by saying “You’re all here because you’ve made a choice to renounce your evil sinful ways and redeem yourselves in the eyes of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who hates many people, but none more than homosexuals.”
But the bashing doesn’t stop there – even former president Ronald Reagan was a target by the writers. When Peter turns down his wife’s sexual advances in which she touches his penis, she says, “You mean we can’t have sex… Peter, we’re married!” Peter responds by listing off married gay men including Ronald Reagan. The scene switches to a press conference in which a reporter asked Reagan if he had reached a missile pact. “Well, you could say that,” Reagan replied. “There was a missile and something definitely got packed. (laughter)”
Peter eventually found a homosexual soul mate and told his wife he was leaving her because he couldn’t deny who he is. He then asked his son Chris, to “take the lessons I have taught you and be the best leader of this household you can,” because he is now the “man of the house.” After Chris agreed to follow in his father’s footsteps, he proceeded to flatulate on his sister’s head and punch out his mother.
The episode ended when Peter’s gay gene vaccination wore off during the gay orgy arranged by his partner. The news of Family Guy’s divisive content shouldn’t be too shocking. In 2007, Colleen Raezler of CMI noted that Family Guy has "out-cruded" itself. Similarly in October 2008, MRC President Brent Bozell pointed out that Family Guy writer Seth MacFarlane is not afraid to offend “millions of Christians.”
Some family show.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
At least "South Park"
March 11, 2009 - 15:18 ET by moderncommentaries83At least "South Park" offends all equally...
"Family Guy" is disgusting. Glad I don't watch it, and will probably block it from my television.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
It's why I'll sometimes
March 11, 2009 - 15:36 ET by Lord ElicaniIt's why I'll sometimes watch South Park, and even have respect for the creators. They're like the Monty Python guys: Make fun of everything the same.
I used to trust the media
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
- Queensrÿche, "Revolution Calling"
South Park is actually an
March 11, 2009 - 16:36 ET by MrSnugglesSouth Park is actually an intelligent show, family guy is just trash. It isn't even funny, never has been.
South Park had an entire
March 12, 2009 - 01:52 ET by Anniee451South Park had an entire episode (a two-parter, IIRC) about The Family Guy and why they hated it. Kyle insisted that Cartman ought to LIKE the Family Guy and Cartman tore that argument to pieces. I do not hate TFG especially, but when they pointed to the sea-cows putting random subject balls together to come up with TFG jokes? That was awesome.
No, there is little comparison - Trey and Matt are equal opportunity bashing libertarians and TFG creator is an avowed leftist, and never the twain shall meet. Now they're on a quest - they've made Stewie a gay baby for like two or three years now, and now they're just stirring sh**. Trey and Matt never reverted to such nonsense. Their nonsense is just that - nonsense - and they don't pretend any different. TFG does it all on one side to offend. Screw that.
Libertarians love this filth Conservatives do not
March 12, 2009 - 02:06 ET by Daniel BakerThanks for getting this on broadcast tv to offend me libetarians
-----------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
If you think Family Guy
March 11, 2009 - 16:56 ET by JasonCIf you think Family Guy doesn't offend equally, you clearly haven't watched it. There is an entire episode dedicated to ruthlessly mocking Bill Clinton. Terrorists are routinely vilified.
Overall, like South Park, I'd say that the show denounces extremism in all its forms; though I would concede that the head writer himself is likely left-leaning, based simply on his willingness to be iconoclastic toward, well, everything.
Has Family Guy made fun of Obama yet?
March 11, 2009 - 18:10 ET by Captain KirockNope, didn't think so.
But they have found the time to accuse Sara Palin and John McCain of being supported by Nazis, just a few days before the election.
Seth MacFarlane is clearly a bleeding heart liberal and his show does not miss an opportunity to take more cheap shots at conservatives than liberals. The group that has clearly been attacked the most on his show are Christians, so don't try to hide behind the "equal offender" label.
Of course, Family Guy jumped the shark a few years ago and now just goes for the shock value of gross and disgusting scenes.
Clearly he is a liberal.
March 11, 2009 - 18:17 ET by JasonCClearly he is a liberal. And no, he hasn't made fun of Obama yet. In fact, I'll go ya one better, he explicitly endorsed him.
However, Obama is not the end-all-be-all of liberalism, and if you've watched the show at all you know perfectly well that FG has done some serious lampooning of obnoxious liberal rhetoric.
Seth MacFarlane is clearly a bleeding heart liberal and his show does
not miss an opportunity to take more cheap shots at conservatives than
liberals. The group that has clearly been attacked the most on his
show are Christians, so don't try to hide behind the "equal offender"
label.
Are you actually keeping track of this? You'd have to watch an AWFUL LOT of this horribly offensive show to have a precise bifurcation of liberal vs. conservative jokes. And he does mock and satirize other religions as well. That he more often teases Christians (I'll take your word for it) just speaks to the fact that it's by far the most prominent in American culture - and American culture in general, I would argue, is his real target.
Seth MacFarlane is scared of Obama
March 11, 2009 - 18:39 ET by Captain KirockNot just Seth, but all comedians are terrified of making fun of Obama. They are are scared that they might be labelled a racist and they are scared of offending their friends' liberal politics.
There's plenty of material there. Heck, by Seth's standards he could do a whole show on the Obama/Clinton connections. Maybe he could do a Barrack/Hillary sex scene or a Wild Bill/Michelle seduction scene?
Oh wait, that's only funny when it applies to conservatives.
SOUTHPARK IS VILE. No one should endorse that filfth
March 11, 2009 - 21:52 ET by Daniel BakerReply to all the South Park is wonderful posts. They are obscene and try to offend the most vile demographic. They have done far worse than this episode of family guy.
-------------------------------------------
Google and Apple officially fought traditional marriage: . Please Boycott them. A Boycott changed McDonald's mind.
I can see how it could
March 11, 2009 - 21:56 ET by balboaI can see how it could offend people. It's not for everyone. But I think it's pretty darn funny, and often makes GREAT points.
Gee, Daniel, sometimes the "vile" South Park guys just nail it
March 11, 2009 - 22:02 ET by R D Helmhttp://www.youtube.c...
:-)
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
I've watched just about every episode
March 13, 2009 - 14:52 ET by StrictConstructionistI've watched just about every episode of Family Guy, if not every episode, just because I think its a funny show and it would take a lot to offend me. However, its Seth MacFarlane directs his jokes at the right FAR more than he does the left. Its his right to do so, but its undeniably there. He does this particuarly through "Brian" whether he be in the red state of Texas because the family had to go into the witness protection program, or Brian and Stewie get sent back into time in Nazi Germany. The show is funny, and if I found it offensive I would simply turn it off, as anyone who finds it offensive should. But again, MacFarlane CLEARLY takes shots at the right far more than the left, which has been more of a recent thing (last year or two). I really can't even think of many jokes he's directed at the left. From his Wikipedia page (take it for what its worth):
"MacFarlane is a supporter of the Democratic Party.[20] He has donated $33,500 to Democratic causes such as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.[71] In addition, he has also donated $1,000 to U.S. President Barack Obama, and has spoken at an Obama rally.[71]
An outspoken Democratic Party supporter, MacFarlane often uses his
show, "Family Guy" as a platform to voice his political views.
Oftentimes, this agenda is achieved through the dialogue of the Griffin
family's dog, "Brian", who often utters comments to shame the Bush
administration."
Aired content inappropriate?
March 12, 2009 - 08:54 ET by William Phelps"aired content inappropriate for its young target audience." Who do they think is the target audience? This isn't a kids show and parents who let their kids watch are irresponsible. Quit blaming that crap on the network and monitor your kids. I agree that sometimes this show goes too far with the vulgarity for network TV, and it should probably be moved to a later time slot. No one complains when Jack Bauer tortures a guy to death (especially not me), but its just as vulgar....granted its in a later time slot.
And anyone who watches South Park and thinks Family Guy goes too far is mentally retarded. The only difference I've seen in the two shows is that dumb people have great difficulty keeping up with the jokes on Family Guy...but they are both equally vulgar and biased.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. -Virgil-
Wonderful post, Phelps.
March 12, 2009 - 09:26 ET by JasonCWonderful post, Phelps.
Well, I've never watched
March 11, 2009 - 15:20 ET by bigtimerWell, I've never watched this show...nor will I.
a baby eathing semen? and
March 11, 2009 - 20:13 ET by TruthMongera baby eathing semen? and no outrage from the left whatsoever
promote Jesus Christ on TV - then you'll see liberal outrage
who's worst prez ever now?!!
Hey... hi TM... You got
March 11, 2009 - 20:25 ET by bigtimerHey... hi TM...
You got that right.
It its any depiction of a child eating semen
March 11, 2009 - 20:35 ET by nwahsIts already against the law, and is child pornography- cartoon or not. If that actually happened, simply contact the FBI or center for missing and exploited children.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
No it's not.
March 11, 2009 - 21:38 ET by mizflame98Virtual child porn is legal.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075
Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Who knew
March 11, 2009 - 23:17 ET by nwahsWho knew, the porn industry has a lobby group.
"Hey Mom and Dad, I got that job I was applying for!"
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
Actually, It Was A Bowl Of Cereal With Horse Semen In It...
March 11, 2009 - 22:32 ET by The7SticksPeter had a bunch of milk jars filled with horse semen in their refrigerator (which, for hilarious results, was mixed in with the regular milk bottles), and Stewie was eating a bowl of cereal which may or may not have had horse semen in it. It has more to do with the humor of seeing Stewie's beyond hi-larious expression of shock and revulsion even though he's still trying to eat his cereal.
Best...Episode...Ever!
-"Victory Shall Be MINE!"
-Stewie Griffin, from Family Guy
Hm. Funny that those details
March 11, 2009 - 22:34 ET by balboaHm. Funny that those details were left out in the above article...wonder why?
Yeah, you said it!
March 11, 2009 - 22:50 ET by mizflame98Stewie consuming human semen is a vile and disgusting thing, but horse semen is a laugh riot! (note my sarcasm)
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
I just think that the author
March 12, 2009 - 13:05 ET by balboaI just think that the author of the article intentionally left out the word horse or that it was accidentally ingested in order to arouse more outrage and indignation.
Heretic ;-)
March 12, 2009 - 14:35 ET by HillbillyKingHow dare you insinuate that some of the contributors here at NB employ some of the same manipulative techniques in their pieces that they vilify the liberal press for utilizing in their work.
Good gosh man, don't you know that this site is a paragon of truth, justice and the American way?
(Of course thats why you're right bal, I reckon NB is a paragon of the American way)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Oh I do insinuate! Usually
March 12, 2009 - 14:39 ET by balboaOh I do insinuate! Usually this is WTH's department, creating mountains out of misleading molehills, but this author seems to be doing just fine, too.
I have to wonder about the mindset
March 12, 2009 - 17:30 ET by mizflame98...of a person that would show less outrage and indignation to a scenareo where a baby consumed horse semen accidentally as oppose to purposefully consuming human semen. Either way, it's vile and disgusting and anyone who would think that a scenareo of a baby consuming something like that is funny, well...there is a booming pharmacutical industry that they might need to consider.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
you're right bal - knowing
March 11, 2009 - 22:50 ET by TruthMongeryou're right bal - knowing that then makes the baby eating semen schtick a good ol fashioned absolute laugh riot fun for the whole family kinda thing
who's worst prez ever now?!!
What's the difference?
March 11, 2009 - 22:56 ET by RESTLESS 1Human semen, or horse semen, it is still disgusting and not funny.
I've never understood the hilarity that some see in disgusting acts. Don't get me wrong, I always thought a good fart at the appropriate moment of silence in English class was funny as hell, but I outgrew that by eigth grade.
That said, I don't think crying to the FCC is the answer, other than they have designated the "family hour" time frame. They should probably have it moved to a later time, at least in the central time zone where it is on at eight.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
but still...
March 11, 2009 - 15:22 ET by AJBThere has been objectionable crap on tv for years. It's the PARENTS job to monitor what their kiddies watch. Don't like Family Guy? Read to your children, play a game with them, do a puzzle. Don't expect the Gubment to raise your kids...
That's all nice to say AJB,
March 11, 2009 - 15:31 ET by motherbeltThat's all nice to say AJB, but does that mean that people don't have a right to complain? They should turn it off and shut up?
This a a show called "Family Guy" airing in the so-called "family hour" for crying out loud! And don't tell me that they didn't make it an animated show for a reason....it gives the appearance of "family-friendly" because it's animated.
I am sick of being told: Just turn it off. Don't watch. Don't like the clothing designers are offering? Make your own. Just shut up and leave the rest of us alone.
So it's a free-for-all?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
mb... It's obvious where
March 11, 2009 - 15:36 ET by bigtimermb...
It's obvious where they are going with this indoctriniation with the young...it never ends.
Disgusting...absolutely disgusting.
How can you accuse a show
March 11, 2009 - 17:17 ET by JasonCHow can you accuse a show that you, by your own admission, have never seen, of anything? Much less something as insidious as indoctrination.
I'm quite sure that if I accused Limbaugh of something that serious based on one disembodied soundbite presented for my contemplation by a liberal outlet - having never listened to him before and never planning to again - you would call me out, and rightfully so.
And let it be noted that as offensive and obnoxious as I find Rush, Hannity, Coulter, et al, I've never been enough of an ineffectual whiner to contact their publishers or broadcasters and try to use my super-citizen-power to have something that other people enjoy and find worthwhile removed from the air.
STEWIE: Oh great plan Lois. Hey here’s a nutty idea: Ever read the Bible? Leviticus 18:22.
BRIAN (dog): Stewie you’re judgmentally quoting Bible verses and you don’t even know how to read.
STEWIE: Welcome to America, Brian.
This was hilarious. But the show also makes ruthless fun of empty liberal rhetoric. So it balances out in the aggregate.
I REALLY like...
March 12, 2009 - 14:41 ET by HillbillyKingthat "super-citizen-power" word combination!!!
Very well said Jason! It articulates "that" concept very well. (I'm being completely serious about this)
Is that your construct, or someone elses?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
It's from Super Troopers, a
March 12, 2009 - 15:25 ET by JasonCIt's from Super Troopers, a very underrated little comedy about Vermont State Troopers who are so bored by the lack of crime that they get into all sorts of silly schenanigans. I guess it's a Police Academy sort of concept, but the jokes are much funnier.
Thanks...
March 12, 2009 - 23:16 ET by HillbillyKingI saw that movie a couple of years ago. Of course being slightly inebriated at the time has nothing to do with why I don't remember that line ;-)
Maybe I'll just watch it again and pay closer attention. ;-)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Jason
March 13, 2009 - 11:25 ET by Tom in NCI don't watch this garbage either, and I also don't need to taste horsesh*t to know that it is horsesh*t
THE "O" HAS GOT TO GO!
"This a a show called
March 11, 2009 - 16:26 ET by ckc1227"This a a show called "Family Guy" airing in the so-called "family hour" for crying out loud! And don't tell me that they didn't make it an animated show for a reason....it gives the appearance of "family-friendly" because it's animated."
I think it's called irony.
It doesn't matter what appearance it has, it's not a family show. And just because it airs during the "family hour" doesn't mean the family is obligated to watch it.
So yes, if you don't want to watch it, change the channel. There are much more important things to worry about than trying to control what someone else watches on television. Otherwise, you're basically making the same argument talk radio haters' make.
Seems like that to me
March 11, 2009 - 17:07 ET by nwahs"Otherwise, you're basically making the same argument talk radio haters' make."
Seems so to me. It seems like intrusive government if the FCC would get involved in regulating this type of satire. The parent group has every right to contact the advertisers. But they take up the liberal cause when they contact the FCC.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
You guys are just
March 11, 2009 - 17:52 ET by motherbeltYou guys are just rationalizing.
Satire (or irony) is one thing. Community standards of decency are something else. They could satirize all they want about gays and without being disgusting (bare butts and semen?) about it.
And ckc...your claim that just because it's in the family hour doesn't mean the family should watch it doesn't hold water.
The family hour is supposed to mean this is entertainment suitable for family viewing.
If it's clearly not, there is cause for complaint.
And if the FCC has acted in other matters of similar nature, which it has over the years, regarding the "family hour" there is no reason why they couldn't now.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Again, who decided on this
March 11, 2009 - 17:57 ET by JasonCAgain, who decided on this family hour thing?
And I just plain disagree with you about the rest. Who are we to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
There are copious warnings about "adult content" at the beginning of each episode. I don't see what's wrong with the "just don't watch it if it offends you" approach.
well Jase
March 11, 2009 - 18:14 ET by botgJasonC is a nambla member could be my first point then i could continue my satire by suggesting JasonC follows the Vienna Boys Choir around the world on his vacation time. Perhaps the JasonC has friends who are known terrorists subplot is yet to be explored? Meybe we could detail the many cases of domestic violence that JasonC has caused?
After all who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
i think you get the point?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Except none of that would
March 11, 2009 - 18:21 ET by JasonCExcept none of that would be the least bit funny because I'm a private citizen, not a public figure who has a background which, in context, would lend humor to those accusations.
I don't recall MacFarlane ever satirizing a person who had not willingly entered the public domain.
what is humor? one mans
March 11, 2009 - 18:27 ET by botgwhat is humor? one mans hilarity may be another mans offense
However, i will accept your admission that it's about where the boundary should be and not about whether or not bondaries should exist.
So we've begun to agree, but you failed to answer:
Who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I'm not talking about
March 11, 2009 - 19:36 ET by JasonCI'm not talking about boundaries. I'm talking about the pragmatic fact that they wouldn't do that because 99.999999999% of their audience would say "Who's that?" And thus, the joke would fail.
And the answer to my/your question is: No one. Everyone is perfectly free to critique the show. But it is total BS to say "Hey now, you can make your point about [issue x] without resorting to [thing which offends me]." Because no, apparently the satirist could not, and if they did, they would likely be making a different point altogether.
And it is even more BS to go crying to the FCC because you're either easily offended but to weak-willed to just not watch it, or you're too authoritatively impotent to monitor your kids' viewing habits.
so as long as it's 'satire'
March 11, 2009 - 19:52 ET by botgso as long as it's 'satire' it's all good? you'd allow insulting any group or person? Should we have Eddie Murphy in "the adventures of Buckwheat?"
Who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make? - jase
botg... Can't help it,
March 11, 2009 - 21:45 ET by bigtimerbotg...
Can't help it, I'm laughing here, that was an excellent come-back, excellent questions...
I'm waiting to see the response...ought to be interesting, typical, but interesting.
I don't understand the
March 12, 2009 - 08:00 ET by JasonCI don't understand the point you're making about Eddie Murphy as Buckwheat; he did play Buckwheat on SNL, didn't he? Am I supposed to be offended?
I like Family Guy, so yes, I guess I would allow the insulting of any group or person. But again, I think that common sense will prevent ordinary, non-celebrity people from being personally insulted because it wouldn't make sense to the audience. Maybe I'm missing your point when I say this. It is nice to be your tagline though, even if I'm not sure why you insist on calling me 'jase'...
So by your logic
March 13, 2009 - 11:16 ET by Tom in NCIf I wanted to make animated series where I had a character named JasonC, portrayed him(or her) as a 40 year old cross dressing prostitute who has AIDS and turns tricks while trying to make enough money for their next rock of crack cocaine and if I provide a disclaimer:
All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
and since I don't know who you are or if JasonC is your real name then it would be okay, by your logic.
You wouldn't be offended or be concerned that it offended people who watched it if I named it something innocent such as the Adventures of JasonC?
The fact is you wouldn't like it and someone innocently tuning in to it would find it offensive especially if they were thinking it was just an animated sitcom, so wrap your logic around that.
GIVE THE "O" THE HEAVE HO
Funny you should ask.
March 11, 2009 - 18:30 ET by mizflame98Q: Again, who decided on this family hour thing?
A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Viewing_Hour
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Thanks mizflame....I just
March 11, 2009 - 18:47 ET by motherbeltThanks mizflame....I just got back and was about to answer Jason's question....the same FCC that he and ckc now say shouldn't interfere here.
Imagine that.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Again, you are missing my
March 11, 2009 - 18:49 ET by motherbeltAgain, you are missing my whole point, which is that it should not be on in the family hour! Which by the way, was decided on by......wait for it...... the FCC!!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
I have no respect for the
March 11, 2009 - 19:31 ET by JasonCI have no respect for the FCC or anything they decree. As I said elsewhere, their very existence is more offensive to me than anything Seth MacFarlane could possibly put on my TV screen.
And if Family Guy violated their piddling little standard, they would be fined. They haven't been so apparently they didn't.
Well, that's just dandy,
March 11, 2009 - 19:57 ET by motherbeltWell, that's just dandy, Jason; since you have "no respect" for the FCC, I guess that's the end of that argument.
Excuse me for a while, as I try to find an argument that you can "respect"....after all, that's the standard here, isn't it?
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Interesting...
March 11, 2009 - 20:28 ET by UnsaneReally? Please demonstrate your disrespect of the FCC by flouting one of their regulations and see what happens!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'm not involved in
March 12, 2009 - 08:02 ET by JasonCI'm not involved in broadcasting, so it's not really an issue. I will, however, amend my over-the-top sentiments to say that what I have no respect for is the branch of the FCC which can be used in the service of moral hysteria to dictate what I, and others, can or cannot handle seeing on public airwaves.
Complain all you want
March 13, 2009 - 15:01 ET by StrictConstructionistComplain all you want, but basically, yes, if you don't like it simply turn it off.
Freedom doesn't produce desirable results for everyone all of the time. With it you need to take the good an the bad.
You're Right, But...
March 11, 2009 - 16:22 ET by deerjerkydaveAJB, you're right that parents can and absolutely should shield their children from this kind of tripe. But contacting Fox or the local TV station to complain about the content is perfectly within the rights of individuals. No rights are being trampled. No government mandates or force are being implemented.
Involving the FCC is questionable IMHO. It may be useful inasmuch as laws may have been broken. But In general I prefer a laizzes faire attitude from the government.
I agree
March 11, 2009 - 17:09 ET by nwahsContacting the FCC is what I object to.
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
People should govern themselves.
March 11, 2009 - 19:28 ET by deerjerkydavePeople should govern themselves. They can organize and boycott. They can complain. They can win hearts and minds to their cause. But I don't agree with clubbing people over the head with government to FORCE them into doing things, except in limited cases like basic morals (theft, dishonesty) and natural rights.
Government should be viewed as a necessary evil, not the solution to everything. Unfortunately, Obama views the government as the solution to everything which is why I want him to fail. Sorry Newt, I'm not a RINO.
Not all cartoons are for kids.
March 11, 2009 - 15:39 ET by superconSome have some very adult themes.
One is Family Guy.It is probably the most offensive cartoon on T.V. today.
I watch it almost every night.Sorry guys...don't be mad.
Those of you who have known me for a while know that that I can be a little outrageous sometimes.I think the show is funny. I don't turn to T.V. for moral guidance.It is just something I use to kill some time at night before bed.
Family Guy is definitely offensive...no doubt but sometimes it is so damn funny.That's why I like it.
Maybe it could have some sort of content rating though.They're crazy.
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
Subway reataurants
March 11, 2009 - 15:54 ET by garyganuI was amazed that the Subway restaurant chain used "Family Guy" in their promotions last year. I was disgusted that a family restaurant thought it was OK to use a cartoon that legitimizes all types of sexual deviancy and targets it to children, was used for a promotion.
Here's a clue.
March 11, 2009 - 17:57 ET by mizflame98If a cartoon shows up on Adult Swim, chances are it is not appropriate for kids to watch. Family Guy has been running on Adult Swim for a while now.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
I never watched this trash a day in my life.....
March 11, 2009 - 15:46 ET by NC Cop....and I'm glad I didn't. Especially after their comparison of McCain/Palin to Nazis, I told myself I wouldn't ever watch it in the future either.
This country is in for some hard times, and Obama's minions are doing whatever they can to help and distract.
Does anyone see the Content Rating System anymore?
March 11, 2009 - 15:49 ET by someloudthunderTraditional Family Guy episodes are rated TV-14. Not meant for children. Because of these:
This episode should have been classified for TV-MA. (I didn't see the rating, it might have.) If it wasn't it should have. There were some STRONG sexual references, STRONG language and STRONG suggestive dialogue. To those of you "disgusted" with this program where have you been for the past 10 years? You know Seth McFarlen puts his opinion in his comedy. I mean come on. Does this really shock you? It's like being shocked that meat comes from animals. This program is not targeted towards kids and don't give me that, "oh it's a cartoon so it's obviously targeted towards kids" bull. This is on at prime time when most children should be in bed. You notice a strong difference in objectionable material between this and the Simpsons. If you are letting your child watch this show and you object - turn off the tv. If you are letting your child watch this show and you don't object - that's your personal opinion and parenting. Totally subjective. There is nothing wrong with this cartoon. So it has material you object to. Big whoop, you do things that offend people too. We have the freedom to offend anyone we please. I can go up to a man or woman and make fun of them for being obese and they can make fun of my disgusting teeth. I can make fun of a Muslim because they blow things up, they can make fun of me for eating pork or some other stupid thing. To hit the main point again, Family Guy is not for kids, it was never targeted towards kids. It's rating of TV-14 is proof enough - and if you consider your 14 year old a kid instead of a teenager, cut the chord man.
Traditional Family Guy
March 11, 2009 - 15:59 ET by motherbeltTraditional Family Guy episodes are rated TV-14. Not meant for children.
Then what the heck is it doing airing in the 8=9 PM so-called Family Hour ?
This is what the complaint is about; not the fact that it can be disgusting. If it were on later, that would be a different story.
I could be wrong, but I don't think South Park airs during the family hour. In fact, it's on a cable (the Comedy) channel, not regular network television. That makes it different too.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
It's cable.
March 11, 2009 - 16:32 ET by superconPeople pay for cable. Parents make a conscious choice to allow it into their home.I always respect your opinions Motherbelt but to me this is like having a liquor cabinet in the dining room.It's not the fault of Seagrams Seven if the kids steal some whiskey.It should have been locked up.Put it this way.The kids can't get a copy of Playboy at home unless a parent brings one home.PlayBoy has some cartoons in it...(I'm told) but it is not for children.
There is also some questionable stuff on HBO during family hour as well.If it is really "family hour" then why are the kids watching r-rated T.V.alone...?
Still friends...?
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
The fact that South Park is
March 11, 2009 - 18:56 ET by motherbeltThe fact that South Park is on cable is the whole point I was trying to make. People have to make a conscious decision to have it available. Not so with Family Guy, unless I'm mistaken. If this Fox channel is available only by paying for cable then I guess my objection isn't fair. I'm not extremely knowldgable about TV so I may have misunderstood the workings..is Fox not bound by the FCC's standards?
HBO is in a whole different class as a Premium channel, isn't it?
And yeah, still friends.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB
March 11, 2009 - 18:59 ET by botgthe local FOX station in San Diego still broadcasts over the air
Who are you to tell a successful and consistently interesting satirist what he should or shouldn't do in order to get across the point he's trying to make?
Who exactly has the
March 11, 2009 - 17:01 ET by JasonCWho exactly has the authority to determine what time slot constitutes the family hour? What does that even mean. Besides which, reruns of the show can be seen as early as 6:00 on weekdays, on a variety of channels.
In other words, the show makes money, because it gets plenty of advertising contracts, because it clearly taps into something that a lot of Americans want to see. someloudthunder's post is so spot on, I'm not even going to try to elaborate upon it.
Family Guy is on at 9pm in
March 11, 2009 - 18:58 ET by JesseJacksonIVFamily Guy is on at 9pm in most of the country, not the 8pm hour.
It's on at eight in the central time zone
March 11, 2009 - 22:45 ET by RESTLESS 1My guess is that is true of the mounain time zone as well. Don't know about the pacific time zone, might be seven there.
Edit: It's on at nine out west. Not sure about mountain. Not that it matters. Reruns air at earlier times everyday.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Yep.
March 11, 2009 - 16:01 ET by EvokeYep, someloudthunder.
Shame on you
March 11, 2009 - 19:49 ET by Tim GrahamJudging from your completely blase attitude toward this latest outrageous episode, I imagine we'll see you in this same space a few years from now when there's actual nudity and sex acts and F-bombs on network television, and you'll still be saying "hey, man, whatever." You are not so much arguing a position as you are arguing a negation. You don't object to anything. You are a complete black hole. How you are proud of this position is beyond me.
Sex acts AND F-bombs?
March 11, 2009 - 20:43 ET by balboaSex acts AND F-bombs?
LOL-So much for someloudthunder
March 11, 2009 - 20:55 ET by R D HelmNow he sounds like a quiet wimper.
Nice shooting, Mr. Graham. :-)
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
That Is Why I'm Not A Conservative...
March 11, 2009 - 23:06 ET by The7SticksFirst of all, the word is "f**k". I blotted out the two middle letters just to be polite, but I got to tell you honestly: If you can't have a serious conversation about the usage of language without having to use a euphemism like, ughh, "f-bomb", then you can't really be all that smart. George Carlin did excellent skits about how certain words get diluted out of political correctness over the decades. For example, did you know back in the 1940s during WWII, the term "Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder" was more commonly referred to as "Shell-shock"? You know how I found that out? From George Carlin's skits about language.
It is rather sad that it takes a comedian to point out the truth about certain aspects of our life. When people tend to protest over something, they usually don't tend to examine the whole thing thoroughly, which seems to be the case right here. It reminds me of a quote from the Harry Potter novels in reference to Voldemort being referred to as He-who-must-not-be-named: "Fear of a name only increases the fear of actually saying it." The problem is, you are afraid to say the word "f**k" and I am not. I realize the power it might have and that is why I rarely use it when in fits of rage. You are simply afraid that it will anger those who may think don't approve of it. You are afraid, period. Which is why you are a conservative and I am not. If you want to share outrage with me over tax-and-spend earmarkers and military de-funders, I'll listen. But if you believe, as so many misguided people seem to believe that we are in a moral decline, then discuss it with your religious leaders, because I'm not interested. It's a myth and it's not going to be brought upon by a brain-damaged horse licking a mentally-retarded fat man's buttocks as he sleeps.
As Mark Twain once said, "I shall not use profanity unless it is used in discussing taxes."
You know how I found that out? From George Carlin's skits...
March 11, 2009 - 23:11 ET by R D HelmWhich appears to be where you obtained the bulk of your historical knowledge.
And by bulk, I mean 99.999999999999999876% of it.
The rest came from Access Hollywood. :-O
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
And this is why I am a conservative.
March 11, 2009 - 23:22 ET by mizflame98Because I can us the term F-Bomb to be polite to others without complaining and denegrating others. Just because I use the term doesn't make me or anyone else less intelligent. In fact, I'd question your IQ level since you feel the need to establish a person's intelligence based on their consideration of others.
PS:
I knew about the term Shelled-shocked since I was a child. Not because I heard George Carlin, but because I read books. Maybe you should try it sometime.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
The episode was so
March 12, 2009 - 12:04 ET by chronicThe episode was so offensive that Newsbusters decided to post "the half-nude man" as their picture for the story. I'm completley offended, what if a child was on this site...
... and all the "f-bombs" too. I thought this was a site with morals and values but they must watch Family Guy and have been corrupted.
How can a company that
March 11, 2009 - 15:58 ET by balboaHow can a company that proudly holds up Hannity and BOR before the masses then fall to this level?
Cmon.......
March 11, 2009 - 16:39 ET by Joe4Coulter..........you know very well FOX TV and the FOX News Network are separate entities. FOX TV delivers our 'local news' in the Detroit area and just like the rest, they are as left leaning as the newspapers.
This programing has got nothing to do with Hannity & BOR. Nice try, Bal.
Good Orderly Direction
J4C... Exactly right...it
March 11, 2009 - 16:46 ET by bigtimerJ4C...
Exactly right...it has been that ways since the beginning.
I'm aware.
March 11, 2009 - 16:48 ET by balboaI'm aware.
"it aired content
March 11, 2009 - 15:58 ET by Evoke"it aired content inappropriate for its young target audience."
Um, does anyone really think that Family Guy is a kids' show simply because it is animation? This is kind of silly and makes us look like...well, old stuffy morons. I admit the show is disgusting, but one of the funniest on TV...
Any 30yr and younger conservatives agree?
Yeah, I agree that I don't
March 11, 2009 - 16:00 ET by balboaYeah, I agree that I don't see how this is targeted to a young audience, unless young means college.
Tattoos = porn
Cartoon = kids' show
you're defending child porn
March 11, 2009 - 22:54 ET by TruthMongeryou're defending child porn now bal:)
and you always used to make fun of "the slippery slope"
who's worst prez ever now?!!
I may not be under 30
March 12, 2009 - 13:52 ET by mvfreemanBut I think the show is a riot.
I watch it with my daughters (19 and 21).
Sadly they don't get all the jokes.
Anyone who thinks it's targeted at kids based on the fact that it's a cartoon clearly has no idea what the show is about.
Cartoon does not automatically equal kids show.
I used to think The
March 11, 2009 - 16:19 ET by mattmI used to think The Simpsons was low-brow, easy target, potty humor at about a Jr. High bathroom wall mentality level....then I attempted to watch an episode of Family Guy....my opinion of the Simpsons improved dramatically.
Family Guy was never the least bit entertaining.
Are you serious about the
March 11, 2009 - 17:02 ET by JasonCAre you serious about the Simpsons? Next to Seinfeld and Fawlty Towers, I'd rank it as the most clever, sophisticated comedy show in history; certainly in its first 12 seasons or so, anyhow.
The Simpsons is hardly
March 11, 2009 - 17:03 ET by balboaThe Simpsons is hardly low-brow.
I like Family Guy
March 11, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Sabre16I go out of my way to watch Family Guy. I love the show. I take the Republican slams with a grain of salt. After all, deep down the show is a comedy and I can take a joke.
They take swipes at the other side as well. Bill Clinton has been portrayed in numerous episodes, but most of the time he dosen't have clothes on (walking out to his mailbox singing "Well it's a mighty fine day to be nude"). Funny as hell. Good thing he is drawn so that his belly covers his junk.
Yes, my wife and I looked at each other a few times (confused) during the last episode, but we will continue to watch
Agree!
March 11, 2009 - 16:24 ET by De_Oppresso_LiberI agree with you. I take the Republicans slams too... hey as Sun Tzu said, 'know your enemy' i.e. 'lefty humor' (sometimes Brian and his snarky liberal comments get to me! -arrrr! LOL)
I think it is funny that
March 11, 2009 - 16:43 ET by Sabre16I think it is funny that Brian (the dog) drives a Prius, and has a "Kucinich '04" bumper sticker on it. I take that as a joke
Family Guy, as my XO use to say "Good Stuff"
March 11, 2009 - 16:20 ET by De_Oppresso_LiberI often tune into 'Family Guy' just to get away from all the endless talking gasbags on cable news. Its nice to laugh at some naughty, witty humor nowadays.
Hmmm...
March 11, 2009 - 16:22 ET by dborschjr68Well, for starters, I am wondering why NB has this listed at all.
Family Guy is disgusting. And...? Big deal. MTV is disgusting. MSNBC is likewise disgusting. However, all these 'disgustings' I am using here come from ME and me alone. MY opinion is that they are disgusting. Hence, I do not watch them. Other folks, liberals and Conservatives alike, do. That is THEIR choice, and God Bless 'em all.
As a Conservative, I support Free Speech and all it entails. Seth McFarlane has every right to be as disgusting as he wishes.
If only Free Speech meant that I had the power to determine for America what I consider to be right and proper. But, it doesn't. And you should be thankful it doesn't, because I would probably wind up banning something that you liked, and then where would we all be?
This is a show on TV. FOX pays Seth to do this show. Seth makes a lot of money from this show, and its subsequent marketing, ie, DVD's, calendars, etc. This is Capitalism. I like Capitalism.
When we start to seek to ban TV shows, or ban books, or ban this or that, we are delving into dangerous territory.
Like I said, as a Conservative I support Free Speech. Period. I understand what Mr. McFarlane is about, and I choose to walk away and not give him my attention or money.
I do not fret about what other people's kids are watching. I take care of my own, thank you very much.
F**K Socialism.
So horrified at criticism
March 11, 2009 - 16:42 ET by UnsaneWell, for starters, I am wondering why NB has this listed at all. For the same reason The Family Guy airs. It airs because FOX can and it attracts an audience. NB did this thread because they can and it garners a readership and a reaction. Next.
When we start to seek to ban TV shows, or ban books, or ban this or that, we are delving into dangerous territory. I am not seeing here a call for governmental censorship or anything of the sort.
Yet, if a television show like this puts out an episode people don't like for (insert reason), you, and people LIKE you, are horrified that people would DARE criticize them.
For the record, I have taken occasional swipes at The Family Guy. I have found some of the episodes to be hysterical. Generally speaking though I avoid television because it's been crap virtually everywhere. I've been at that mode since my teens. So I use my power button constantly.
Nor do I fret about what other people's children are watching. Growing up, my parents didn't care what I watched as long as it wasn't blatant pornography. I've known parents who have raised their children differently. So be it.
But what I take issue with is your seeming insistence (and that of others) that negative reactions to such programs are just flat out evil, horrfying, and obvious harbingers of censorship. This isn't the case. Whenever any form of entertainment is put out there, we the people have the right to cross examine it and criticize it on whatever grounds we choose. If people think The Family Guy to be nauseating due to its broadcast during "family hour", they have the right to be nauseated, and the right to say so. Much as you demand we change the channel when we see crap, you should skip this thread and move to the next one if you hate criticism such as this for such reasons as presented on this thread.
They also reserve the right to contact sponsors and the station to demand it get pulled, because they are working through private channels.
Back in 1987, Simply Red came out with a song called "Money's Too Tight To Mention". It was a total slam of Ronald Reagan. But since the public didn't like the message, the song was pulled from AOR stations due to public demand and public criticism. That is a far cry from government censorship.
Lastly, some seem to be horrified - absolutely horrified - that societies have things called STANDARDS. I am not so much. Hence, the bitching and moaning over this program and how offensive it is to some is perfectly healthy to me.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Just a few things: Who
March 11, 2009 - 17:08 ET by JasonCJust a few things:
Who gets to decide where these standards begin and end? The only way to standardize the standards is to create a government body to do so, hence the creation of the execrable FCC, whose very existence I find 100x more offensive than every scatalogical joke in the Family Guy canon.
If the standards are set on an individual basis, fine. But Fox would not be airing the show in a prime scheduling slot if it wasn't a goldmine. More than enough people have voted with their remotes and advertising dollars to put those who would call their local Fox affiliate and try to get the show reined in or canceled - rather than the far more prudent move of simply not watching it - in minority.
And just as people have the right to air their view that this or that crosses a line or constitutes an offensive representation, those of us who find the same representation to be subversive and witty have the right to critique those views.
Riposte
March 11, 2009 - 18:12 ET by UnsaneWho gets to decide where these standards begin and end? The only way to standardize the standards is to create a government body to do so, hence the creation of the execrable FCC, whose very existence I find 100x more offensive than every scatalogical joke in the Family Guy canon. Surely, Jason, you are aware of the fact that the United States (even under His Majesty The Shahinshah) is a representative democracy and as such, the government tends to mirror the society in which it is embedded. As such, that government will tend to reflect those dreaded standards.
If no one wanted the FCC, it would have been voted out of existence eons ago. Besides, the FCC does a teensy bit more than what you suggest.
If the standards are set on an individual basis, fine. They are, but again, what is the purpose of society? To set STANDARDS of behavior (among other things, but name a society that does not do this). If you can't acknowledge that, well, you are just thrashing your head against a wall made from about 6000 years of human history. But Fox would not be airing the show in a prime scheduling slot if it wasn't a goldmine. More than enough people have voted with their remotes and advertising dollars to put those who would call their local Fox affiliate and try to get the show reined in or canceled - rather than the far more prudent move of simply not watching it - in minority. Actually, voting with remotes AND calling the station AND threatening sponsors are all legitimate and proper forms of protest.
And just as people have the right to air their view that this or that crosses a line or constitutes an offensive representation, those of us who find the same representation to be subversive and witty have the right to critique those views. Hmmm. Where did I say you didn't have that right? What I AM saying is that there are people who are simply enraged that anyone would find offense to this program.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actually, voting with
March 11, 2009 - 19:42 ET by JasonCActually, voting with remotes AND calling the station AND threatening sponsors are all legitimate and proper forms of protest.
Fine, but why can't you just not watch it, and leave well enough alone the millions who want to watch it? This reminds me of the gay marriage debate. A certain behavior offends some people, but instead of just not engaging in that behavior, they have to dedicate their energy to making sure no one can, even though other people doing it doesn't affect them in any way.
And as for the FCC, aren't you the one who's against a nanny state? I mean, maybe I find it "indecent" that some people are richer than others, but that's not a logical justification for a confiscatory tax plan, is it? Can we justify the imposition of our will and moral standards on others in whatever arena we please so long as we classify it as being in the name of decency?
Aren't you a big metal fan? I find metal satanic and aberrant. I'll be sure to waste my time calling up producers of this music and giving them a piece of my mind!
sarc off
See how stupid that sounds? I guess that's my point. It's not that doing these things is wrong or censorial. It's that it's such an infantile, reactionary expension of time and effort just to deprive other people of something they enjoy.
Those EVIL standards
March 11, 2009 - 20:53 ET by UnsaneFine, but why can't you just not watch it, and leave well enough alone the millions who want to watch it? This reminds me of the gay marriage debate. A certain behavior offends some people, but instead of just not engaging in that behavior, they have to dedicate their energy to making sure no one can, even though other people doing it doesn't affect them in any way. Jason, you are better than this. I don't watch friggin television period for the most part. Other than news or sports, I don't care. I have seen the occasional Family Guy episode and the ones I saw left me in stitches.
My TV remains off 90% of the time. BUT, if other people wish to lob calls of protest to the station or affiliates, or contact sponsors of said shows, I'm not stopping them. Voting IS done in other ways other than at voting booths on lots of different things all the time.
Personally, I would rather bitch and moan in a venue like this, and point out to my friends "this is crap" and move on. To me it seems that even this simple, unobtrusive exercise of disgust offends you in some way.
At the same time, I recognize that this society, like any other in about the past 6000 years, has standards. Shockingly so. What people do to enforce those standards...well, societies ALSO do that. Shockingly.
And as for the FCC, aren't you the one who's against a nanny state? What do you think the FCC does? Do you think they are some arm of an evil, oppressive dictatorship that is out to infringe your right to indulge in crap? Unfortunately for you, the FCC does a TEENSY bit more than that. Can you tell me what other functions the FCC has? I know what they are, but do YOU know?
I mean, maybe I find it "indecent" that some people are richer than others, but that's not a logical justification for a confiscatory tax plan, is it? Leftists do that all the time. I am surprised that His Majesty The Shahinshah hasn't ordered the liquidation of every single American who makes more than $42,000 a year, to be honest (at the rate He is going). Can we justify the imposition of our will and moral standards on others in whatever arena we please so long as we classify it as being in the name of decency? Jason, help me out here. Why do we have societies? Why do societies exist?
Aren't you a big metal fan? I find metal satanic and aberrant. I'll be sure to waste my time calling up producers of this music and giving them a piece of my mind! Do so. It's your right. In fact, in 1986, Slayer released their Reign In Blood album. This album's first track is an ode to one "Dr." Joseph Mengele called "Angel of Death". The very first word you hear in that song is "AUSCHWITZ!!!" and it goes downhill from there. CBS Records refused to release this album because of this song, which, by the way, is a staple of Slayer performances; if it is not played, a riot will break out. Now, is that evil censorship? (I'd sharply disagree. They were within their rights to do so.) It should be noted that, in the end, Def Jam Recordings distributed the album, which also contains songs about ritual sacrifice, violent homicide, dismemberment, plagues, and repeated references to Satan and a shot at Christianity called "Jesus Saves".
Did you also know that there are stretches of the state of TX where you CANNOT get MTV, even through cable? Care to guess why that is? HMMMMMMM???
See how stupid that sounds? I guess that's my point. It's not that doing these things is wrong or censorial. It's that it's such an infantile, reactionary expension of time and effort just to deprive other people of something they enjoy. So f***ing what? If people want to do THAT, let them. Not even Mrs. Gore's PMRC could purge the land of metal.
Go back to enjoying your TV shows or whatever else, and get on with life.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"Angel of Death"
March 11, 2009 - 23:45 ET by RESTLESS 1Taken in context, I wouldn't exactly call this song high praise of mengele's ways. It is infectious as hell though.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I have no desire to ban
March 12, 2009 - 08:14 ET by JasonCI have no desire to ban Slayer, or any other product of artistic creativity. There music's a little heavy for my taste, but I certainly respect their musicianship.
My point is not that people shouldn't offer critiques of things they find over the line in terms of taste. In fact, they emphatically should. I do, however, have a problem with those who try to supress something that wouldn't effect them one bit if they just didn't patronize it. Using (hypocritical) moral outrage and trying to shanghai certain regulatory bodies into punishing whatever happens to clash with our preferred worldview is NOT an aspect of the free market. The market, in this case, involves the question of whether FG can maintain a large enough viewership to make enough advertising dollars to continue producing the show and to be an asset to Fox. That's it. And it has. This asymmetrical attempt to rally the morality police against it borders quite closely on nanny state-ism.
If I said I found Humvees 'indecent' to my personal taste and to the environment, and started rallying for environmental groups to use their political clout to ban them, you'd call me a nanny-stater.
If I said I found poverty 'indecent' and wanted to take even more money from your paycheck to prop up welfare programs, you'd call me that even louder.
To wit: Applying abstract and subjective notions of 'decency' to a preferred idee fixe does not end the argument.
And finally, the very notion that FG is damaging the fabric of society is just plain ludicrous. All the real-life problems we have right now, and people choose to divert their outrage to some drawings of people who make bad jokes and are implied to have done nasty things? What a lazy waste of energy. It's very much like the winter of 2004 when the war was raging and the Abu Ghraib story had just broken and the country was collectively wetting itself over a practically-subliminal glimpse of a nipple.
p.s. Stewie was not bashing Christianity. He was bashing people who marshall selective areas of Christianity, despite not even fully understanding it, in order to marginalize others. There's a huge difference, really.
Oh, there are still limits on Fox!
March 12, 2009 - 16:14 ET by Tim GrahamThis is on NB because it's a cause for social conservatives who care about the decline and fall of our culture. You might suggest this sounds like "book bans," but there are plenty of topics that are probably off limits for the "Family Guy" folks.
Start with them making Reagan gay, and not Obama. When "Family Guy" mocks Obama, then we'll believe there are no limits. When "Family Guy" mocks Islam, then we'll believe it. And so on.
Family Guy has mocked
March 12, 2009 - 19:05 ET by JasonCFamily Guy has mocked Islam.
Are you suggesting that implying Reagan was gay could lead to the decline and fall of our culture? Excuse me while I convulse in laughter.
Well you can't make fun of
March 12, 2009 - 19:27 ET by balboaWell you can't make fun of Reagan like that!
~In order for something to be funny
March 12, 2009 - 19:45 ET by choselife3xIt has to have an element of truth. Implying that Reagan was gay is just stupid. Not to mention incredibly rude to his widow. I'm glad that there is no way she would ever watch a show like that.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Not always.
March 12, 2009 - 19:52 ET by balboaNot always.
I think some of you are
March 11, 2009 - 16:36 ET by MazziI think some of you are missing the point. No one is saying that this show should be censored or not allowed on the air at all. It's HOW it is presented that is the problem.
It comes on network TV during prime-time (ie: family time), and it is a cartoon, which would lead many people to assume that it is safe for kids. Personally I would never let my kid watch this trash, but lots of parents are not so conscientious and trust the networks to make decent choices. And our Gubment has taken it upon itself to require the networks to meet certain guidelines, giving the parents a reasonable expection that the shows are "safe".
If the network really wants the show to be on during that time, then they should make an effort to keep the content within reasonable boundries. If they want the show to be as radical as it is, they should push it back to say 10 or 11pm. But to put that show on during that time is really not cool.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
It's a cartoon rated tv-14,
March 11, 2009 - 16:49 ET by JesseJacksonIVIt's a cartoon rated tv-14, that should indicate that it's not a cartoon safe for kids.
So the problem is not with
March 11, 2009 - 16:57 ET by balboaSo the problem is not with the show then, it's with parents not doing due diligence in what their kids watch.
Of course the problem is
March 11, 2009 - 22:05 ET by MazziOf course the problem is with the parents. Parents today rely on the nanny state to tell them how to raise their kids. But that's not the point. The point is that these kids see this junk, because their parents assume that TV at 8pm is "safe" for the kids. And the parents assume that the TV is safe at that hour because our government SAYS it's supposed to be safe.
It doesn't matter how crappy the parents are. It doesn't matter who's fault it is that the kids see this stuff. The fact that children are seeing it is the problem.
Frankly, I am surprised how many so-called conservatives on this site are acting just like liberals on this issue. Because they personally like the show they will defend it to the end, without considering the impact it has on others. It's cool to like the show. I hate it, but I know alot of people who love it. Regardless - it does not belong on at 8pm on network TV.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
Joe Camel
March 11, 2009 - 23:14 ET by TruthMongerthe actual problem really is the continued erosion of decency n general...
see bal, in addition to porning - parents also seem to have a problem keeping their kids from smoking - ya know the camel ads in particular were widely panned by anti-smoking lefties as a "cartoon character" that was NATURALLY TARGETED TOWARS KIDS OBVIOUSLY...
so the libs stepped in with a big $$$ gov campaign against smoking entitled "target market" i believe...
so if the gov steps in for the parents on smoking - then why not this depraved indecency rife within the "entertainment" media?
i believe that all of this "second-hand porn" is causing sexuality cancer within innocent people standing nearby - hence I think we need to start designating buildings as "porn-free facilities" and airplanes as "no-porning" for a start - and then branch out to entire cities and towns with "no-porning bans" to coincide with all of the new smoking bans out there...
who's worst prez ever now?!!
It's not "A" OK for Kids
March 11, 2009 - 16:40 ET by eugeneromeroThere is a disclaimer stating that it is not for younger viewers. With that being said, I've been a fan of this show since it began in 1999. I'm an animator/writer hobbyist so I like this kind of stuff. What can I say, I like crude and offensive humor. I'm surprised liberals aren't making a bigger deal about this because of all the ethnic and minority jokes. Anyway, I'm a right-winger and I love bad humor. Watch out Newsbusters, because if Seth McFarlane sees this article, you'll be the butt of his next joke. I think he's a very talented animator/writer but he also campaigned for Obama. So that makes me smarter than him.
I'm back....
March 11, 2009 - 16:46 ET by Paul Git's been 2 months but I'm finally back on line....anyways.
I watch both southpark and family guy, they're funny. ...
they both take shots at both sides. And I'm sorry NB, but if you guys think this show is gonna turn somebody gay.......I'm sorry
As a 50 y/o
March 11, 2009 - 17:03 ET by jacktheripperI find Family Guy & American Dad hilarious....Simpsons not so much. I have thick skin so Seth can make fun of my kind (conservatives) all he wants as long as he entertains me. I watch the show with my 13 y/o son and he knows when the humor is out of place or too sensitive ...thats when he leaves the room.It's comedy, it's satire and that should not be censored. Don't like don't watch it, boycott the sponsors. Look how long South Park has been on (it rocks by the way) and that show can be offensive to EVERYONE!
PS who doesn't like Stewie...I mean c'mon
I love Family Guy
March 11, 2009 - 17:35 ET by ProssI have just about every season on DVD. I guess its personal choice because I just don't see it as a big deal. Comedy is simply more funny to me when it's offensive or "edgy." It adds to my laughter. As far as this "family time" thing goes I've never even heard of that, maybe someone should let Cinemax in on that because from 6pm to about 2am Hawaii time (which is what time zone I'm in) all the premium channels become softcore porn channels. That's right smack dab in the middle of "family time." To me, Family Guy is far more comedic than any of the other animated series that were mentioned.
Hey Paul G.... I HAVE
March 11, 2009 - 18:02 ET by bigtimerHey Paul G....
I HAVE BEEN WONDERING WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO YOU!
Glad you're back..that's for sure!
Family Guy was funny and
March 11, 2009 - 16:54 ET by Chris NormanFamily Guy was funny and clever the first, and maybe the second season. Subsequently, it has devolved into gross out humor for gross out humor's sake. In between a good joke may slip in, but usually my reaction is, "I can't believe they let that on the air".
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Family Guy is just a
March 11, 2009 - 19:15 ET by Jack BauerFamily Guy is just a piss-poor attempt to ape The Simpsons. Except the Simpsons has soul -- and real heart.
Oh Peter .. FG is just empty. And creepy.
That's why, as you correctly pointed out, the first season was quite funny -- but you just can't love the characters and in the end I hated them. You gotta love the characters.
Besides The Simspons and the late lamented Futurama are just clever. Good news everybody...
don't worry
March 11, 2009 - 16:55 ET by candancePeople on here will cry and pout over Fox allowing this to go on the air, but as soon as NFL season starts again, they will dutifully tune their TVs to Fox and allow the network to make the huge profits they use to keep lesser performing shows on the air.
Want to hurt Fox? Stop watching their entire brand. Period.
Time for more of us to start going galt and pull ourselves away from the matrix. They will never respect your standards and they will never stop pushing the envelope.
Excellent point,
March 11, 2009 - 17:12 ET by JasonCExcellent point, candance.
As for never stopping the envelope-pushing; I hope you're right. They never should stop it. Fifty years ago you couldn't bring a copy of Ulysses or Lady Chatterly's Lover into the states. You could literally have it confiscated at customs. Now they are considered indispensible parts of the Western Canon.
Finally, I find it odd how many conservatives find South Park to be brilliant but vilify Family Guy. The latter does, in fact, mock all aspects of modern culture, and is certainly no more "gross".
Sorry...I will always watch
March 11, 2009 - 17:38 ET by bigtimerSorry...I will always watch football.
As you should, BT. And
March 11, 2009 - 17:52 ET by JasonCAs you should, BT. And I'm sure that if a bunch of sports-hating liberals started petitioning the network for their sexist beer commercials and the general violence of the game itself, you'd be pissed. That's how some of us feel when people start railing against a harmless entertainment that we enjoy just because they're too ineffectual to control what their own kids watch.
Another riposte
March 11, 2009 - 18:18 ET by UnsaneThat's how some of us feel when people start railing against a harmless entertainment that we enjoy just because they're too ineffectual to control what their own kids watch. Basically, you are simply enraged that anyone would DARE criticize Family Guy.
Sorry, they get to face the consequences. They can put "edgy" humor on the air all they want. Just don't be indignant with rage when it pisses people off and they criticize the program. It DOES cut both ways, like it or not.
As for football, bitch and scream all you want about it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
JasonC
March 11, 2009 - 21:46 ET by well99It would be there right.This country allows us are beliefs and the ability to express them in a non violent way.Things may change but if someone finds fault and wants to email or peacefully protest a show right/left so that is up to them.I dont watch abc,cbs, or nbc which is my choice.They remind me of Pravda back in the day.Still if someone else does it is their right.I think your mad because the Euro chefs lost.
Nah, I was rooting for
March 12, 2009 - 15:30 ET by JasonCNah, I was rooting for Carla in the end.
Carla grew on me, but I
March 12, 2009 - 16:25 ET by balboaCarla grew on me, but I didn't really care who won this time around as long as it wasn't Stefan.
balboa
March 12, 2009 - 17:36 ET by well99You aint kidding.I liked Carla too.She wasnt a win no matter how type of person.Carla wanted to win on her cooking skills.I had alot of respect for her.
Carla was a neat woman. But
March 12, 2009 - 17:48 ET by balboaCarla was a neat woman. But one time she screwed up and the judges asked her what happened and she said she tried to get them to "feel the love," almost as an excuse. However, she came back strong.
True
March 12, 2009 - 17:54 ET by well99I remember that episode.Still I liked her personality and the way she would help others out.I liked Hodea also and Jeff.They seemed pretty decent.Carla thought made the biggest impression.Too bad her last meal didnt work out.
I have never watched Family
March 11, 2009 - 17:29 ET by Clear thinkerI have never watched Family Guy, so I may not be the authority on this pareticular cartoon, but I am going to give my opinion anyway... it looks to me as if the program has gone to the dark-side. And it's time for parents to put a block on their TV so their children don't see this CRAP!
Marines Smell A Rat
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Why is Family STILL ON?!
March 11, 2009 - 18:49 ET by BobAnthonyYou know at my "job" I have a co-woirker, who I think is a butch lefty lesbian, is a big fan of that crap show!
And let me ask the people who are blasting Catholics...HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF A CATHOLIC BOMBER CAME UP TO YOU AND SAID IN THE NAME OF JESUS I BLOW MYSELF UP FOR THY SINS...AMEN! **BOOM** HOW WOULD THE HOLLYWOOD LIBTARDS LIKE THAT?!?!?!?!
Want the PLAIN truth and no spin? Listen to The Plains Radio Network online. It's like nothing you've ever heard.
www.plainsradio.com
Who's more dysfunctional Family Guy or BobA?
March 12, 2009 - 12:25 ET by chronicI think calling someone a "butch lefty lesbian" is at least as offensive as anything on T.V. At least there is context to the story of Family Guy versus your homophobic thoughts of youe fellow employees.
WHO CARES!
March 11, 2009 - 18:58 ET by CrashDON'T WATCH IT! Any self named conservative better practice the parenting skills to shelter their children from inappropriate material. I NEVER used the V-chip, it was a joke, I monitored and limited mindless Television from youthful eyes by being there for our child. We read.
If an adult doesn't like the material, why the f--- are they watching it? Who do critics think they are ... cry baby muslims? DON'T LIKE? DON'T WATCH!
Criticism forbidden
March 11, 2009 - 21:00 ET by UnsaneAnd HOW DARE ANYONE express dislike ANY show for ANY reason!!! They should ALL just SHUT UP and NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT IT!!!
Better, we should apply Ludovico's Technique to all of those evil bastards and FORCE them to like crap!!!
Right?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I don't watch it!!!
March 11, 2009 - 21:22 ET by gailannrBut then I come to this nice website and have to have it shoved down my throat anyway!
I watch Family Guy.I think
March 11, 2009 - 19:03 ET by the strugglerI watch Family Guy.I think it's funny as hell.I laugh out loud all the time.
cutting edge?
March 11, 2009 - 19:14 ET by NonanonFar too many people seem to confuse rudeness, crudeness, mean-spiritedness, etc with being cutting edge. Simply re-stating the same old garbage in a nastier manner is not being creative.
Obvious slant
March 11, 2009 - 19:59 ET by BDelaneyI watch Family Guy regularly and lately have been sorely dissapointed with the political inundation of the youth by this show. In one scene baby Stewie had a Nazi outfit on and in a close up it showed him wearing a McCain/Palin pin on his lapel.
People are so misinformed because they take things like this and relate Republicans to Nazis. Let's get serious, children and most uneducated people out there don't know any better and take in the correlation not realizing that the facts would show the exact opposite kind of situation. In other words Baby Stewie in a Nazi uniform would most likely be wearing an Obama pin, as Hitler was a Socialist like Obama.
Hitler? A Socialist?
March 11, 2009 - 20:42 ET by Kingfish17I thought Hitler was a Bush?
I watch Family Guy, but I wouldn't let a child watch it. It does give a modicum of "equal time" when it comes to bashing both sides of the political isle, but it does it in the trite old ways of "Clinton is a lovable scamp who can't keep it in his pants" and "Bush is an Idiot who can't think for himself".
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
so i guess this is the
March 11, 2009 - 21:34 ET by JAJTso i guess this is the show that Shuster, D.L Hughley and the rest of the MSM who called Rush/republicans nazi last week get their reliable sources from....
Depending on context and
March 11, 2009 - 22:39 ET by JerDepending on context and flexible definitions, Hitler might be "plausibly" considered a far Rightist, a far Leftist, a liberal, conservative, etc. I think it best if we just considered him a "monster".
Jer
TV-14
March 11, 2009 - 20:24 ET by Kingfish17The problem with the TV ratings system is that's it passive and not active. If something is rated TV-14, then the viewer should have to do a math problem, via their remote control, that is rated at the 14 year old level so they are able to watch the show! And not a U.S. 14 year old level math problem, but an Asian 14 year old level math problem to boot!
(The above attempt at humor should be viewed as geographical and not ethnic.)
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
Nauseating
March 11, 2009 - 21:18 ET by gailannrI can't come up with another word right now other than "sad." Why has it come to this? Please stop this madness!
Has Anybody Seen The Actual Episode In Question?
March 11, 2009 - 23:39 ET by The7SticksFrom what I have read here, I don't think anyone here has even watched the actual Family Guy episode in question, so maybe I should explain it here in my usual Kafka-esque style:
The episode, titled Family "Gay", starts out with the mentally-retarded Peter Griffin buying a brain-damaged horse at auction because, well he had no reason to, he just wanted to. He pulls all sorts of hijinks with his mentally-challenged horse, like trying to breed from the horse by filling up a refrigerator-load of milk bottles with the horse's semen, despite the fact that most horse-breeders do not want their mares to mate with the seed of a mentally-retarded horse. Unfortunately, the milk bottles filled with horse semen are mixed with the regular milk bottles in the refrigerator, and hilarity ensues. Another hijink is the mentally-challenged horse comes into Peter's bedroom at night at affectionately licks Peter's buttocks the way a dog affectionately licks his master's elbow (Well, at least that's the way my dog Chunky affectionately kisses me, on the elbow.)
Later, Peter enters the horse in a race, but being the mentally-challenged horse that it is, chaos ensues. What sort of chaos? Well, it makes a wild right turn into the stands and causes damage, including the off-screen deaths of numerous deaf children who were unable to fully make out their plea for help with their hands. Also off-screen, a baby was trampled on to death.
The horse suffers a heart attack, and is sent off in the only noble way a mentally-retarded man sends off his dead horse: by tying it to the roof of his car, slamming its brakes in mid-speed, and sending the dead horse crashing through Mort Goldman's pharmacy. As any Jewish person would do, he comments that it used to be rocks that were thrown at him as a hate crime instead of dead, retarded horses. The irony is rather thick, since I myself am an agnostic Jew. Maybe I'm not orthodox, but I am paranoid about anti-Semites throwing dead horses through my window.
And that was just Act 1 and part of Act 2. I haven't even gotten to the part about Peter deciding to pay for the damage caused by the horse by becoming a pharmaceutical guinea pig (Sorry, Simpsons did it first.) First, he's injected with squirrel DNA and sprouts a squirrel tail and crawls up a power pole. Next he is injected with Seth Rogen DNA and sprouts the beard, glasses, and vocal persona of Seth Rogen. The final gene he is injected with is the gay gene. Now not knowing if there is a real gay gene, I would have to sleep on that, but I will always trade the fundamental laws of science for a good larf. Peter becomes gay and leaves his family for the gay lifestyle. A rather important note for those who feel that families are destroyed by the gay agenda.
At this point, I am blanking on the rest of the episode's story, but I believe it ends with Peter reverting back to his normal self whilst in the middle of an off-screen gay orgy. Hilarity ensues.
If anything, I would think the most offensive thing about it was the way it treated mentally-retarded people. I, being semi-Autistic, would be a perfect target to be offended by, but unfortunately that was not the case. I had a good larf and then it was off to watching Star Trek.
I see where you are coming from
March 12, 2009 - 07:42 ET by Areland I didn't see this episode myself as I don't watch Family Guy regularly. However; I wouldn't let my children watch it regardless of what time it aired just based on the episodes I have seen, but thats just me.
Just an aside here
March 12, 2009 - 12:51 ET by nwahsDon't you have a head shot of the character?
You're irrational if you don't want the new president to succeed - Gingrich
And my neighbors wonder why
March 12, 2009 - 19:11 ET by Free StinkerAnd my neighbors wonder why I hardly let my kids watch TV . . .
Tim in a way your thread is all about censorship
March 12, 2009 - 20:15 ET by shawn228Many people so far are saying this has nothing to do with censorship, but discussing the downfall of our culture.
I disagree, I compare this to when liberals complain about Rush and think he should be taken off the air.
The reason is because Mr. Bozell and the PTC is trying to get people to contact people not just for The Family Guy but any content they find immoral or offensive, to stop what they are doing and tone it down.
I, myself have never watched family guy, but I love South Park and Howard Stern. I would be upset if they toned down those shows, just because a few people did not like it.
I do not believe anything goes and I also agree we must be responsible to what hours the free channels show things that kids might see them.
If you don't like it, turn if off. If you want to discuss how much you don;t like it that is fine too, but why contact advertisers of a show and threaten boycotts, just because you want to take away something from somebody because you found it gross?.
He had my vote