FCC Commish Tate — Asshat of the Week

This post comes with a soundtrack provided by the Meatmen. Listen to this song as you read this entry.

Last week, the FCC imposed a fine of $1.43 million against ABC for daring to show the side and back of a naked woman getting into a shower on NYPD Blue. (source)

The FCC’s briefing said:

“Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law and common sense.”

Lemme get this straight…. case law determines what is a sexual organ? And common sense tells us that the buttocks are a “sexual organ”????

Here is the comment that gets Ms. Tate the Asshat award:

“Our action today should serve as a reminder to all broadcasters that Congress and American families continue to be concerned about protecting children from harmful material and that the FCC will enforce the laws of the land vigilantly.” (source)

If the FCC wants to rely upon case law, here is some for them:

“Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.” ACLU v. Gonzalez, 2007 US DIST LEXIS 20008 (E.D. Pa. 2007)

And if we want to speak to the issue of common sense… I hope that Commissioner Tate is run out of Washington as soon as possible. Any person who thinks that the sight of buttocks is “harmful material” from which children need protection (and that the “laws of the land” do not include the First Amendment) has no right to serve this country. Perhaps once her neo-con benefactor is finally out of office, a nice government in Iran or North Korea would have use for her services?

Buttocks… buttocks… I love buttocks…. ” (The Meatmen, We’re The Meatmen… And You Suck! – Touch And Go Records 1983)

Related post: Fox v. FCC – Is Common Sense and Liberty Coming Back Into Vogue?

Also, see Dr. Marty Klein’s take on this issue here: Obsessed With Asses, FCC Screws America

20 Responses to FCC Commish Tate — Asshat of the Week

  1. Son of Asshat says:

    I like how your (1st Amendment protected) Gen-XY Buzzword-laden opinion matters so little that the only way for you to be published is on the internet on your sad, little blog where you make outlandish claims against people you don’t know, hoping that one of your air-headed students (male?) thinks you are a mildly-funny, older man – though from your tone and voracity against a great, mature woman should place you in a group with a statistically higher chance for erectile dysfunction (also attributable to your continual contact with adult ‘recreational materials’?).

    I wish you the worst of luck and hope that you continue to lobby for ABC to broadcast whatever you see fit (…full frontal male nudity?? You be the judge).

    – Occasionally Irreverent Thoughts on Douchebags from Georgetown/Massachusetts/Barry(HA HA HA HA)

  2. Son of Asshat says:

    moderate this

  3. 60,993 hits in one year = “sad and little”?

    Perhaps you didn’t look at my publications page… no, I have the opportunity to publish elsewhere. I just like being able to publish in the blog format.

    If your mother doesn’t want to be criticized, tell her to wipe her ass with something aside from my constitution.

    FYI — I don’t really care what ABC broadcasts. I have made a CHOICE to have no television signals in my home. No TV. No Cable. (I have a TV, just with a DVD player hooked up to it). When I want to watch football, I go to a bar.

    That’s the nice thing about America … you get to make that choice.

    Well, theoretically, at least.

    -The Douchebag from Georgetown/Massachusetts/Barry.

  4. blevinsj says:

    I would like to thank you to both Mrs. Asshat and Son for clarifying an issue, I have pondered endlessly into the night…what is a butt? Now it is resolved by “case law and common sense,” it is a purely sexual organ. Based on this conclusion I have a mental picture of how this occurred…

    All of the great minds and personalities of the Supreme Court came together: Earl Warren, Learned Hand, Ginsburg, Sandra Day O’Connor, Thurgood Marshall, Black, Warren Burger, and Taft…they all looked at one another and knew they must resolve the paramount issue of mankind…what is a butt? There was much debate and Learned Hand created formulas to explain the points…legal analysis was moot…finally O’Connor dropped her trousers and the court unanimously agreed…the butt was hereby a purely sexual organ. Leanred Hand annotated the common sense treatise and all was well with the world…Enter NYPD Blue (the purveyor of BUTTS!).

    Sound ridiculous? I hope so, because it should go without comment and some people should lose their privilege of speech. However, let us ponder what the world and jurisprudence would be like if the Super Supremes made the above decision….Butts are purely a sexual organ…

    Sir Mixalot would be sitting in a NY jail cell for promulgating obscene material. “Baby Got Back” would be obscene under the tenets of Miller. The song would go to purient sexual desires and have no artistic merit. Jennifer Lopez’s ass-set would be censored at every concert and you would need to be 21 to attend a live show or buy a DVD of Salena. All night clubs would be subject to rezoning based on the sexual activity that occurs on the dance floor involving the butt. Now these examples only affect the entertainment world…what about the “last vestige of a weary soul”…the private home…

    Based on the paramount decision by the Super Supremes in FCC v. Butts, toilets are only sold at adult novelty shops. No one speaks about their toilets but we all know we have them. Using #2 is denounced as heretic science, as no one would ever produce exrament from a judicially recognized sexual organ…Farts are banned as unprotected speech. Hemroids become the new herpes. I proffer maybe the fart example would aid society…but I digress…

    In FCC v. Butts, the Super Supremes made it apparent that butts were only a sexual organ. That was the last brick in the wall for the mouth. The linear legal fallout from butts becoming a purely sexual organ was that the mouth soon followed. The FCC decided there would be no showing of the mouth on television because it is a purely sexual organ (supports by common sense and case law…obviously). As we all know (common sense) the mouth is only for oral copulation and for nothing else. Next stop for FCC censorship….the hand!

    The point is that EVERY PART OF THE BODY COULD BE A SEXUAL ORGAN…some of the most erotic and sexual art, picture, scene, description, or portrayal are fully clothed people in provacative postures. The butt has other purposes other than for sexual reasons. Based on the FCC conclusion as to the butt, I hereby remove any credibility in anything the FCC decrees. The Supreme Court of the United States should be the only formal body to decide what should be allowed for public consumption…and this scenario is scary, but at least the Supremes must produce an accounting for the decision than just unadulterated crazy.

    As for Tate wiping her butt with the Constitution…please do not do that Mrs. Tate, you may be performing an unprotected, obscene act involving you purely sexual organ…her butt.

    For the record…I am a male but the post is only comical because of what came from Tate’s hand and what was manifested between her ears. Stop being crazy and you will stop being funny.

  5. Tara says:

    Speaking for the young, female, non-air-head portion of the class: I second Mr. Blevins’ analysis and I sincerely question the intelligence of Mr. Son of Asshat, who obviously relied on his own childish and immature personality to make absolutely irrelevant comments that serve no purpose whatsoever…

  6. Yeah, but my comments were a bit immature too… initially. Plus, you can’t fault a guy for sticking up for his mom. -MJR

  7. […] Similarly, Professor Marc Randazza spares no language when he brands Deborah Taylor Tate of the FCC as “A$$hat of the Week.&#8221… […]

  8. Tara says:

    That’s assuming you believe he is really her son – which I admit I didn’t believe. I was really just trying to draw attention to the fact that his comment didn’t add anything to the debate. If he believes the FCC should be able to limit television content to such great lengths, he could have at least made an effort to prove his point…

  9. Tara says:

    Point well taken…

  10. […] NYPD Blue Fines This posting earlier slammed FCC Commissioner Tate for being a petty fascist. FCC Commish Tate — Asshat of the Week […]

  11. Of course, she is an evil little fascist… I just didn’t want people to lose sight of that.

  12. […] also, my other good buddy Marco Randazza’s post here. Posted by ajcontiguglia Filed in First […]

  13. sbk says:

    With the acceptance of homosexuality by the American culture how is it that the “buttocks” are NOT a sexual organ? My dictionary uses “anus” as a synonym for “butt.”

    It also begs the question if the human asshole is so unoffense to the public, why do you use the term “Asshat?”

  14. Do I need to draw you a picture?

    Have someone take a picture of your ass. See the fleshy parts? Those are your buttocks. The little hole where the poop comes out is the anus. If you wish to consider the anus to be a sexual organ, I suppose that there is an argument in your favor. The buttocks are as much a sexual organ as the biceps.

    Naturally, I presume that Ms. Taylor Tate and the Kansas board of education would say that this is only a theory.

    And why do I use “asshat?” Asshat and asshole are not synonymous, asshole.


  15. […] only Deborah Taylor Tate, Sam Brownback, and a certain uptight trademark examiner (who will not be named during ongoing […]

  16. […] Blue Update An update to my post, FCC Commish Tate — Asshat of the Week (which has, itself been updated) here is the scene that got ABC a $1.4 million […]

  17. George Arndt says:

    The FCC only regulates broadcast TV and radio, both which are in decline. Anyone with an internet or cable connections can see a LOT of nudity and foul language. The FCC is a paper tiger in the end. They are completely out of touch with new trends in culture. The attitudes about sexuality and nudity in the US are becoming more like Europe’s.

  18. […] to me as a First Amendment advocate, but it also has the right tone when considered in light of Deborah Taylor Tate’s recent statement that “the law is simple. If a broadcaster makes the decision to show indecent […]

  19. M Irvine says:

    with regards to the first post, what’s wrong with full frontal nudity? please stay out of my household. I promise to stay out of yours.

  20. […] because the Michigan Court of Appeals understands anatomy to a greater extent than Kevin Martin or Deborah Taylor-Tate (they think that the buttocks are a sexual […]

%d bloggers like this: