http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=655808

By Karolos Grohmann

ATHENS (Reuters) - A clutch of complaints by U.S. viewers that the
Athens Olympics opening ceremony featured lewd nudity has incensed the
Games chief, who warned American regulators to back off from policing
ancient Greek culture.

Gianna Angelopoulos warned the Federal Communications Commission
watchdog, sensitive after a deluge of outrage when singer Janet
Jackson's breast was exposed at a Super Bowl game, not to punish NBC
television that aired the Games.

Male nudity, a woman's breast and simulated were the subjects of
shrill complaints about the opening ceremony on August 13 which were
posted by the FCC on its Web site.

"Far from being indecent, the opening ceremonies were beautiful,
enlightening, uplifting and enjoyable," Angelopoulos wrote in a weekend
commentary in the Los Angeles Times titled "Since When is Greece's
Culture Obscene?"

"Greece does not wish to be drawn into an American culture war. Yet
that is exactly what is happening," she said.

Complaints focused on a parade of actors portraying naked statues.
Among them were the Satyr and the nude Kouros male statues, both
emblems of ancient Greece's golden age.

Created by modern Greek dancer Dimitris Papaioannou and broadcast in
the United States by NBC, the opening ceremony was credited with giving
the Games a vitally successful start.

HISTORY OF EROS

"We also showed a couple enjoying their love of the Greek sea and each
other. And we told the history of Eros, the god of love. Turning love,
yearning and desire into a deity is an important part of our
contribution to civilisation," Angelopoulos said.

The FCC, whose authority only extends to U.S. media, has said it is
looking into complaints, nine of which were listed on its Web site, but
it was not clear whether a formal investigation would be launched.

Angelopoulos, who said the handful of U.S. complaints were dwarfed by
the 3.9 billion people who watched the ceremony, had a blunt message.

"As Americans surely are aware, there is great hostility in the world
today to cultural domination in which a single value system created
elsewhere diminishes and degrades local cultures," she said in her
commentary.

"In this context, it is astonishingly unwise for an agency of the U.S.
government to engage in an investigation that could label a
presentation of the Greek origins of civilisation as unfit for
television viewing."

An FCC spokesman was not immediately available for comment on Monday,
which is a public holiday in America.

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:00:11 +1100

Mark wrote:

> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=655808
>
> By Karolos Grohmann
>
> The FCC, whose authority only extends to U.S. media, has said it is
> looking into complaints, nine of which were listed on its Web site, but
> it was not clear whether a formal investigation would be launched.

If an investigation is launched, and particularly if the are penalties
imposed, the US TV stations should refuse to show the Olympics at all,
and the IOC should refuse to sell TV rights to US companies.

This would show the US how silly it is.

Also, since income from the US is essential for the financial viability
of the games, it would probably destroy the games forever, and I
wouldn't have to suffer them distorting televsion schedules for two
weeks every four years.

Sylvia.

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:50:57 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:00:11 +1100, Sylvia
wrote:

>
>
>Mark wrote:
>
>> http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=655808
>>
>> By Karolos Grohmann
>>
>> The FCC, whose authority only extends to U.S. media, has said it is
>> looking into complaints, nine of which were listed on its Web site, but
>> it was not clear whether a formal investigation would be launched.
>
>If an investigation is launched, and particularly if the are penalties
>imposed, the US TV stations should refuse to show the Olympics at all,
>and the IOC should refuse to sell TV rights to US companies.
>
>This would show the US how silly it is.
>
>Also, since income from the US is essential for the financial viability
>of the games, it would probably destroy the games forever, and I
>wouldn't have to suffer them distorting televsion schedules for two
>weeks every four years.
>
>Sylvia.

Neither the fcc or the bush league will try to stop the olympics...
That is no 'janet jackson' type issue...

Besides; the black women dancing nude in the previous olympics didn't
raise any complaints, did they? I don't recall any.

In this case, the nude white statue 'simulations' are actually faked.
The important half of them 'are' statues. As can be seen in the blow
up, the men are standing behind fake bottom halves of a nude male
body.. It looks like some morphing or other means of making them
look human nude when in fact they're not. There is a statue cutout in
place in front of each man..., and the men who are actually wearing
shorts. Ha! It seems like it would have been easier to just *do
it*?

More pathetic people and their anal, prissy, *proper* lunacy...

Sex on the beach...? Didn't Burt Reynolds do that already? :-)

Floyd

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:53:16 +1100

Floyd Baker wrote:

> Neither the fcc or the bush league will try to stop the olympics...

Well, no, but I can dream can't I?

> That is no 'janet jackson' type issue...

In my travels around US law sites, I did come across a law that made it
not only unlawful to be nude (defined there to have the widest possible
meaning) in public, but to be wearing clothes that made it look as if
one was nude, even though one wasn't.

Reminds me of the alleged Victorian practice of covering table legs
because bare legs were too lewd.

Sylvia

From:	El Dorado Hot Springs
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:49:28 GMT

Dear Sylvia,

"Sylvia" wrote in message
news:41ecc06c$0$24458$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

> In my travels around US law sites, I did come across a law that made it
> not only unlawful to be nude (defined there to have the widest possible
> meaning) in public, but to be wearing clothes that made it look as if
> one was nude, even though one wasn't.

Yes, crazy, ain't? And that includes wearing clothing that depicts nudity
even if the nudity is frontal and it's on the back of your shirt!

NIFOC,
Bill

From:	annon-imus at www.com
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:54:17 GMT

El Dorado Hot Springs wrote:
>
> Dear Sylvia,
>
> "Sylvia" wrote in message
> news:41ecc06c$0$24458$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > In my travels around US law sites, I did come across a law that made it
> > not only unlawful to be nude (defined there to have the widest possible
> > meaning) in public, but to be wearing clothes that made it look as if
> > one was nude, even though one wasn't.
>
> Yes, crazy, ain't? And that includes wearing clothing that depicts nudity
> even if the nudity is frontal and it's on the back of your shirt!
>
> NIFOC,
> Bill

You think things are bad? Now they are forcing cartoon characters to be
censored. Art as a form of expression is a protected First Amendment right. I
am sick of all this shit being done to our rights, and always this same old,
"what about the kids?" crap or "what about granny?" excuse. Screw granny and
the brats. Teach them to change the channel or avert their eyes.

Fox Blurs Cartoon Rear End on FCC Worries

Jan 17, 6:00 PM (ET)

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Fox says it covered up the naked rear end of a cartoon
character recently because of nervousness over what the Federal Communications
Commission will find objectionable.

The latest example of TV network self-censorship because of FCC concerns came a
few weeks ago during a rerun of a "Family Guy" cartoon. Fox electronically
blurred a character's posterior, even though the image was seen five years ago
when the episode originally aired.

"We have to be checking and second-guessing ourselves now," Fox entertainment
president Gail Berman said Monday. "We have to protect our affiliates."

Fox hadn't gotten any complaints about the cartoon. But the move follows the
FCC's decision in October to fine 169 Fox stations $7,000 each for airing an
episode of "Married By America" that showed people licking whipped cream from
strippers' bodies and a man in his underwear being spanked by strippers.

"It's certainly confusing when you have to do something like that," Berman said.
"It's just that we were trying to find our way and do what's responsible."

At PBS, executives said this weekend they will edit out a glimpse of a naked
woman in a fictional account of a terrorist "dirty bomb" attack that will air
next month after being shown first on HBO.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050117/D87M474G0.html

From:	Sylvia
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:24:45 +1100

annon-imus@www.com wrote:

> Fox Blurs Cartoon Rear End on FCC Worries

It's the best form of censorship - self censorship. You tell people
they're under threat of dire punishment if they step out of line, but
you don't tell them exactly what that means.

So they take a more conservative course than you could have enforced.

Sound familiar?

Sylvia.

From:	Floyd Baker
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:52:12 -0500

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:53:16 +1100, Sylvia
wrote:

>
>
>Floyd Baker wrote:
>
>> Neither the fcc or the bush league will try to stop the olympics...
>
>Well, no, but I can dream can't I?

Oh? Well, now that you mention it, it is becoming a farce, isn't it.

Crooked from the get go, American athletes at a major disadvantage to
the rest of the world.., and now they are going to include 'Ballroom
Dancing'. Ohhhh dear. I just ate another frog. I'm going to be
really sick today.

>> That is no 'janet jackson' type issue...
>
>In my travels around US law sites, I did come across a law that made it
>not only unlawful to be nude (defined there to have the widest possible
>meaning) in public, but to be wearing clothes that made it look as if
>one was nude, even though one wasn't.

That was what Boise... Ooops! I just realized that I came up with
Iowa, not Idaho, out of my head on another post about that... :-/
I'll have to fix that one...

Anyway... That sounds like the 'prohibition' that Boise just passed.
The guys from the AF base down the road must have been giving them
some problems... :-)

>Reminds me of the alleged Victorian practice of covering table legs
>because bare legs were too lewd.

Ha! Just how low can we go...

Aren't humans really a very sad lot...?

They used to require a cooling off period too, when a gentleman was to
sit on a seat that was previously 'warmed' by a woman... :-)

>Sylvia

Please visit my website at www.cheef.com/buffaloskin/

* Learn about the lifestyle *

From:	Kri
Subject:	Re: Johnz---Any Comment?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 13:38:10 -0800

I think it is time that everyone grew up! Whats the big deal about
nudity? Our kids don't see it as wrong until we twist their thinking!
We are all born nude and who am I to tell God he made a mistake and I
need to cover it up?