Hey, there's naked people on ESPN2!

Couple of problems here: In addition to the fact taht the FCC does not enforce its indecency regulations against the cable channels, NBC's coverage was no more "live" than ESPN's.

i say... i dont friggin care. excuse my language, but i dont. and people who get all outraged are exactly why we're in the situation we're in now. stop whining. i mean, sure be mad or upset, but only a few seconds, minutes tops... I mean only bad can come from making this a big deal, now if it were something worth going crazy and getting a posse together, then I would be right there with you. but seriously, ive had enough of this crap.

Seth: I'm not sure what event you're talking about when you say "NBC produced a performance sexually oriented adult nude content." Wimbledon??

And this isn't really about whether or not the FCC has power over what cable shows. I'm just talking about common sense in this day and age. Why would ESPN show a naked guy on tape when they knew it was coming? Why bring potential trouble to your network?

The streaker was dutch tv presentator. Filming for a new show "try before you die" or something. and some one proposed that he'd streak on wimbledon. It's a tradition :)
http://www.ad.nl/sport/article449488.ece?start=2
http://www.bnn.nl/index.jsp

both in dutch, babelfish doesnt like it

Was he wearing something that would have been publicity?

We tend to get streakers on cricket all the time here, just because they can! There's pictures of him in all the papers this morning too.

The chill of the airwaves by the FCC is despicable. It should've never occurred, but the Republicans had to find some way to keep the Neocon radicals under their wing.

Kevin M.....very clever. :D That is my favorite screen name of the day!

Jj is right. The FCC doesn't have control over what the cable channels do...yet. They desperately want it, and the nutter groups that back all the various protests desperately want them to have it, but so far cable retains the ability to operate under a different set of rules.

Personally, I'm more in favor of reducing the FCC's power back to regulating public airwaves used for communications purposes. Nothing more. The blurry line of decent and indecent should not even enter into the equation. Viewership should take care of that. Enough people don't like your content, and don't watch, you have to change what you do. And as far as 'protecting the children', that's what parents are for, not politicians with questionable motivations.

SCREWED UP MORAL SYSTEM!

This country's morals are out of whack. We desensitize our children to war and violence, and even have a holiday devoted to scaring them (and their oldercounter parts) with chainsaws among other imagery, and convince them that if they use certain words they'll go to a fiery place to be molsested by the devil, but GOD FORBID if they see a body part HALF OF THEM HAVE! And if every parent's dream of a heterosexual child comes true, they'll end up seeing (and worshipping) those parts anyway!

By the way I'm not against Halloween, but my brother was temporarily traumatized by a chainsaw guy in a haunted house our parents took him to. However, those same parents deemed Step by Step, a show that now repeats on ABC Family, "inappropiate". Messed up? Yeah.

Let your kid say fuck. Let them see a tit or a cock. Or better yet, don't have them.

The second one is correct, the fcc right now only regulates over the air channels, not cable, so espn is in the clear to do pretty much whatever they feel like, in a way

Another thing to consider is that ESPN2 is a cable channel. I am not clear what, if any, authority the FCC has over cable channels. I don't think they have any content authority (swear words, etc) over any service to which an individual chooses to subscribe and is not available freely to the general public.