Fox News Hosts Video of Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:35 am

Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:*** Warned for baiting *** That was unnecessary.

Are you actually serious

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:36 am

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Same thing applies, minus the ratings perhaps. I make a point to avoid anything Fox News. I find them disgusting.

Yeah that's fair enough, I think hating FOX News is about the only thing the internet hivemind gets right.

by **The Emerald Dawn** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:38 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:The FCC might disagree.

On what grounds?

If they were showing it on air, the FCC would have issues with it.

Live executions aren't exactly good to eat for everyone.

by **Ethel mermania** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:46 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:On what grounds?

If they were showing it on air, the FCC would have issues with it.

Live executions aren't exactly good to eat for everyone.

News media has show death On air before, unfortunately this isn't particularly remarkable. Too my knowledge there is no regulation against it. Now Janet Jackson's nipple on the other hand...

by **Nanatsu no Tsuki** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:47 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:If they were showing it on air, the FCC would have issues with it.

Live executions aren't exactly good to eat for everyone.

News media has show death On air before, unfortunately this isn't particularly remarkable. Too my knowledge there is no regulation against it. Now Janet Jackson's nipple on the other hand...

Yeah, you can show a beheading, live, but God forbid you show tits. One tit pops and all hell breaks lose because '''think of the children and the moral fiber of this country!''

by **Ethel mermania** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:48 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:*** Warned for baiting *** That was unnecessary.

Are you actually serious

She is, the proper place to appeal is in moderation.

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:50 am

Ethel mermania wrote:She is, the proper place to appeal is in moderation.

Thank you teacher's pet.

by **Securitan** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:59 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:She is, the proper place to appeal is in moderation.

Thank you teacher's pet.

Arguing is just a fast track to being B&.

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:00 am

This is the internet equivalent of the kids reminding the teacher about homework at the end of the lesson.

by **The Emerald Dawn** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:01 am

So the question I have is, if showing it on air *isn't* an FCC violation of some sort, what held them back?

Steve Deucey could just talk about how warm he felt watching the godless heathen burn.

by **Securitan** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:02 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:So the question I have is, if showing it on air *isn't* an FCC violation of some sort, what held them back?

Steve Deucey could just talk about how warm he felt watching the godless heathen burn.

Probably what held them back is their puritanical fan base.

by **The Emerald Dawn** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:02 am

Securitan wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:So the question I have is, if showing it on air *isn't* an FCC violation of some sort, what held them back?

Steve Deucey could just talk about how warm he felt watching the godless heathen burn.

Probably what held them back is their puritanical fan base.

You mean the ones who enjoyed a witch barbecue on Sundays?

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:03 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:So the question I have is, if showing it on air *isn't* an FCC violation of some sort, what held them back?

Steve Deucey could just talk about how warm he felt watching the godless heathen burn.

Probably fear of backlash, also it means that people could just flick on the TV and accidentally come across it. It being on their website prevents that, you can't accidentally view it.

by **Kuango** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:11 am

I'm sure it didn't take long for Fox to blame Obama for this despite it having nothing to do with him.

by **Ethel mermania** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:19 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:She is, the proper place to appeal is in moderation.

Thank you teacher's pet.

Clearly you needed to be educated. if not you would have complained in the proper place.

by **Devvo Mate** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:22 am

Ethel mermania wrote:Clearly you needed to be educated. if not you would have complained in the proper place.

by **Rebellious Fishermen** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:25 am

I approve. We damn well need people to realize exactly how bad it is by showing every gruesome detail.

by **Digital Planets** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:26 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:Clearly you needed to be educated. if not you would have complained in the proper place.

Look, if you're gonna be a douchebag and can't handle a warning, which, I remind you, can be appealed, get out.

by **L Ron Cupboard** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:29 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
L Ron Cupboard wrote:I am under the impression that watching the video would be an offence in the UK. Will be interesting if people get prosecuted for looking at the Fox News website.

Why would it be? I've watched it and not had the boys in blue booting down the door.

The Met said this when video of James Foley being killed was released by ISIS

In a statement, the [London Metropolitan] police force said it was "investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley." It added: "We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the U.K. may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."

by **Imperializt Russia** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:47 am

L Ron Cupboard wrote:
Devvo Mate wrote:
Why would it be? I've watched it and not had the boys in blue booting down the door.

The Met said this when video of James Foley being killed was released by ISIS

In a statement, the [London Metropolitan] police force said it was "investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley." It added: "We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the U.K. may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."

Lol, good luck.

Especially since the BB-fucking-C allowed people to view that material, by having disseminated it, on live televisual broadcast. Of course, it was an edited cut, but if that's what the offence constitutes, that's outright retarded logic.
Scare tactics to try and prevent people watching it, people at risk of radicalisation.

"May constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."
Vague. As. Fuck.

by **Dread Lady Nathicana** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:47 am

Devvo Mate wrote:
Merizoc wrote:Oh, is is that fellow?

Yeah he was ranting about the fact the forum isn't in Hindi earlier, he's a fucking loon.

Since I missed this in working up the rest - *** 1 day ban *** for the outright flame there. Seriously, not cool.

by **Valica** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:06 pm

I step away for, what, an hour?
Come back and I actually see a divided and thought-provoking debate rather than a flame war.
This is one of the first posts of mine to achieve meaningful responses and it's not even a god damn OTTO.

Just to clarify, in case anyone missed the thirty other comments about it, they didn't actually air the video on TV.
They posted a link to watch it on their website.

Regardless of that, I think it was the right move.
If our American society wasn't so uptight with nudity and real-life violence, they probably would have aired it.

As far as I know, the FCC can't keep violence and nudity off of the TV.
The reason we don't see tits and dick all over cable is because advertisers would pull their ads to save face.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/program-content-regulations

Nudity:

Section 505 of the 1996 Act states that cable operators, or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit adult video programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video programming distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours of the day when a significant number of children are likely to view it.

However, Section 505 was challenged in the courts. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S., determining Section 505 unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules implementing Section 505 can not be enforced.

Violence only increases the "objectionable content" rating (TV-14, TV-MA, etc.).

So that should clear some stuff up.

by **Neutraligon** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:12 pm

I am...not sure I agree with the decision. I kinda feel that by showing this they are giving ISIS more of a platform. There is no need for the visuals to show how despicable they are.

by **Kainesia** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:14 pm

L Ron Cupboard wrote:I am under the impression that watching the video would be an offence in the UK. Will be interesting if people get prosecuted for looking at the Fox News website.

It's not an offence to watch material like this in the uk. Only to broadcast it. I've seen the ISIS beheadings, and... oh crap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4

by **Kainesia** » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:15 pm

Kuango wrote:I'm sure it didn't take long for Fox to blame Obama for this despite it having nothing to do with him.

Well, they have a point. Obama wasn't in the video, so what's he trying to hide?

Fox News Hosts Video of Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive

Who is online