Some of them are showing ""Return to Mayberry"" in its place. Coincidence? I think not.

This FCC crackdown garbage has gotten ridiculous. Note how the concern is over ""naughty language"" in a f*cking war movie? No, we''re not worried about the intestines strewn all over the beach, but nameless GI #56 just said ""sh*t!"" Time to crackdown! Ugh.

Well, I guess you won''t be seeing NBC re-air Schindler''s List any time soon. What are they going to replace that with? Gomer Pyle?

What is so bad is the FCC is only partly to blame.

We also need to say something about the people who would call and complain about it. Yes it has F-bombs in it, don''t allow your young kids to watch!

If you don''t like it, read a book or change the channel.

But what I have found myself being bothered by, of late, is some of the news footage that''s been getting airtime. Whether it be the latest fighting in Iraq, or the recent asshat trying to commit suicide by cop at the Mexican consulate here in LA. When I make the connect that it''s real people involved in the violence, I get a bit unsettled.

That being said, I think they *should* be showing this stuff, especially the war stuff. It''s *important* that we see it. However, it''s getting to where I can''t turn on the evening news when the kids are about. While I think it''s important for the adults in the country to bear witness to this stuff - it ain''t for the kids.

I find it more than a little offensive to compare a film meant to reflect the suffering of a group of brave and selfless men with a cheap and sleazy event on a already sleazy halftime show.

This film has been shown before on ABC, twice nationally if I recall correctly.

Suddenly the FCC will come down on them and they are ""afraid"", I see it as little more than a political statement about the FCC and it''s enforcement.

I think a double standard here is more than acceptable.

The problem is that current FCC procedures prohibit the FCC from apriori commenting on whether a particular program would violate their ""standards"". That would be censorship. Couple that with the newly aggressive penalties which I think are unreasonable given, for example, the modest fines imposed for white collar crime (note that a violation of FCC standards is not a crime, I am just drawing a comparison). For example, Martha Stewart.

Oh, and did I mention that their arbitrary and capricious ""standards"" twist and turn in the wind depending on whether the leader of Focus on the Family woke up on the right side of the bed or not? I guess I just did. The standards are unreasonably vague and subject to the political whim of whichever party is in power. Establish set regulations as to what is and is not permissible. No more of this Potter Stewart-wannabe flip-flopping crap: ""I can''t define obscenity, but I know it when I see it.""

Ulairi, this is so off base, it is funny. Not in a "ha ha" kind-of-way. The regulations concerning shop keepers, business owners and doctors are defined. Established. They create certainty. The FCC''s post-broadcast broadcast-executive kill-zone now in existence is very different.

I am sorry, but what government regulations and regulators are inhibiting businesses from doing honest work? Are you talking about the gag-rules that prevent doctors from (or at least create roadblocks to) dispensing information about birth control and abortion (the right to each of the foregoing is still the law of the land)? That''s honest work, and yes they are being inhibited. But I digress . . . .

The standards are, in my opinion, overbroad and ambiguous. I salute the executives of these ABC affiliates -- as I think it is important that we understand that current FCC policy has a chilling effect -- a bad and unnecessary chilling effect -- on speech occurring on the nation''s airwaves.

Let me be clear: personally I''d like to string up both Timberlake and Jackson for their ridiculous behavior. And then again for their lying about it. If you are going to be outrageous, at least be honest about it. But for goodness sake, lets have the FCC impose sound, recognizable, determinable, discrete and definable standards.

Oh, and on an aside, now that Ashcroft is leaving the Justice Department, let''s uncover lady liberty. She''s been under wraps for far too long (you know what they say, ""out-of-sight, out of mind"").

Edited for nits.

Ulairi''s right in that regard, at least. The only thing that''s changed is enforcement, something which would be very hypocritical on the FCC''s part if they decide to punish stations showing Saving Private Ryan now when they hadn''t in the past four years.

Just because they start to enforce the rules doesn''t mean they have changed. I think if we''re going to have these rules, which I think are stupid, we should enforce them.

This is no different from some zoning comissioner trying to hurt a business. The only difference is that the elite left (different than the standard left) is against this. I think if people knew all of the regulations that are forced on to businesses, they would be just as upset.