About 'international standards accounting'|Different Views on SEC Proposal to Allow International Accounting Standards
Ｔｈｅｒｅ ａｒｅ ｓｏｍｅ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ ｔｈａｔ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｎｅｅｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｓａｉｄ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ａｒｅ ｓｏｍｅ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ ｔｈａｔ ａｒｅ ｓａｉｄ ｂｕｔ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｎｅｅｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｈｅａｒｄ. Ｔｈｅ ｊｏｂ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｔｏ ｋｅｅｐ ｔｈｅ ａｉｒｗａｖｅｓ ｃｌｅａｎ: ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ, ｒａｄｉｏ, ａｎｄ ｍｕｓｉｃ ａｒｅ ｕｎｄｅｒ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｔｒｏｌ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ. Ｏｕｔ ｔｏ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｍｍｏｎ ｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ - ｅｓｐｅｃｉａｌｌｙ ｉｎ ｌｉｇｈｔ ｏｆ ｒｅｃｅｎｔ ｉｎｆｒｉｎｇｅｍｅｎｔｓ ｏｎ 'ｇｏｏｄ ｔａｓｔｅ' - ｎｅｗ ｅｆｆｏｒｔｓ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｔａｋｅｎ ｔｏ ｃｒａｃｋ ｄｏｗｎ ｏｎ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｅｄｉａ. Ｂｕｔ ａｓ ｎｅｗ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔｉｏｎｓ ａｒｅ ｓｅｔ ｉｎｔｏ ｐｌａｃｅ, ｔｈｅ ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ ａｒｉｓｅｓ: ｈｏｗ ｉｓ ｉｔ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ ｗｈｅｒｅ ｔｏ ｄｒａｗ ｔｈｅ ｌｉｎｅ? Ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ａｎｙ ｓｅｔ ｇｕｉｄｅｌｉｎｅｓ, ｈｏｗ ｃａｎ ｉｔ ｂｅ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｅｄ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｗｉｔｈｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｒｉｍｅｔｅｒｓ ｏｆ ｃｏｍｍｏｎ ｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ? Ａｎｄ ｈｏｗ ｃａｎ ｉｔ ｅｖｅｒ ｂｅ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｎｄ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｄｅｃｅｎｔ? Ｍｏｒｅｏｖｅｒ, ｃａｎ ｉｔ ｂｅ ａｒｇｕｅｄ ｔｈａｔ ａ ｄｏｕｂｌｅ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄ ｅｘｉｓｔｓ ｆｏｒ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｏｕｔｌｅｔｓ ａｎｓｗｅｒｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ? Ａｎｄ ｉｆ ｔｈｉｓ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｃａｓｅ, ｗｈｏ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｒｅｑｕｉｒｅｄ ｔｏ ｐｌａｙ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｒｕｌｅｓ? Ａｓ ｔｈｅ ｗａｔｅｒｓ ａｒｅ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｏｕｓｌｙ ｔｅｓｔｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｉｓ ｆｏｒｃｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｅｄ ｂｙ ｆｒｅｅｄｏｍ ｏｆ ｓｐｅｅｃｈ ａｎｄ ｅｘｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｍｅｒｅｌｙ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ. Ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｔｉｍｅ, ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ ｆｒｏｍ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ'ｓ ｓｗｅｅｔｈｅａｒｔ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ Ｋｉｎｇ ｏｆ ａｌｌ Ｍｅｄｉａ ｉｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｈａｖｅ ｔｏ ｗａｔｃｈ ｈｉｓ ｏｒ ｈｅｒ ｔｏｎｇｕｅ ｏｒ ｓｕｒｒｅｎｄｅｒ ｔｏ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｄｒａｗｎ ｕｐ ｗｉｔｈ ｂｌｕｒｒｙ ｌｉｎｅｓ. "Ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｉｓ ａｎ ｉｎｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｔ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ａｇｅｎｃｙ, ｄｉｒｅｃｔｌｙ ｒｅｓｐｏｎｓｉｂｌｅ ｔｏ Ｃｏｎｇｒｅｓｓ. Ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｗａｓ ｅｓｔａｂｌｉｓｈｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ａｃｔ ｏｆ 1934 ａｎｄ ｉｓ ｃｈａｒｇｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｎｇ ｉｎｔｅｒｓｔａｔｅ ａｎｄ ｉｎｔｅｒｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ ｂｙ ｒａｄｉｏ, ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ, ｗｉｒｅ, ｓａｔｅｌｌｉｔｅ ａｎｄ ｃａｂｌｅ," (ｆｃｃ.ｇｏｖ 'Ａｂｏｕｔ'). Ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ'ｓ ｄｕｔｙ ｉｓ ｔｏ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｅ ｗｈａｔ ｐａｓｓｅｓ ｔｈｒｏｕｇｈ ｔｈｅ ａｉｒｗａｖｅｓ. Ｄｉｒｅｃｔｌｙ, ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｗｏｒｋｓ ｔｏ ｋｅｅｐ ｍｅｄｉａ ｆｒｅｅ ｆｒｏｍ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｉｔｙ ａｎｄ ｔｏ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔｉｎｇ ａｎｄ ｐｒｏｆａｎｉｔｙ. Ｈｏｗ ｉｓ ｅａｃｈ ｄｅｆｉｎｅｄ ａｎｄ ｈｏｗ ｄｏｅｓ ｏｎｅ ｄｉｆｆｅｒ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｏｔｈｅｒ? Ｔｈａｔ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｉｓ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｉｓ ｐｒｏｈｉｂｉｔｅｄ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｒａｄｉｏ (ｅｘｃｌｕｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｃａｂｌｅ ｃｈａｎｎｅｌｓ ｔｈａｔ ｏｎｅ ｐａｙｓ ｆｏｒ). Ｓｕｃｈ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔｓ ａｒｅ ａｔ ｎｏ ｔｉｍｅ ｐｅｒｍｉｔｔｅｄ. Ｔｈｅ ｃｒｉｔｅｒｉａ ｓｅｔ ｆｏｒ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｉｎｇ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｉｓ ｔｈｒｅｅ-ｆｏｌｄ: -Ａｎ ａｖｅｒａｇｅ ｐｅｒｓｏｎ, ａｐｐｌｙｉｎｇ ｃｏｎｔｅｍｐｏｒａｒｙ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｔｙ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄｓ, ｍｕｓｔ ｆｉｎｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ, ａｓ ａ ｗｈｏｌｅ, ａｐｐｅａｌｓ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｕｒｉｅｎｔ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔ -Ｔｈｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｍｕｓｔ ｄｅｐｉｃｔ ｏｒ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅ, ｉｎ ａ ｐａｔｅｎｔｌｙ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ｗａｙ, ｓｅｘｕａｌ ｃｏｎｄｕｃｔ ｓｐｅｃｉｆｉｃａｌｌｙ ｄｅｆｉｎｅｄ ｂｙ ａｐｐｌｉｃａｂｌｅ ｌａｗ - Ｔｈｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ, ｔａｋｅｎ ａｓ ａ ｗｈｏｌｅ, ｍｕｓｔ ｌａｃｋ ｓｅｒｉｏｕｓ ｌｉｔｅｒａｒｙ, ａｒｔｉｓｔｉｃ, ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃａｌ, ｏｒ ｓｃｉｅｎｔｉｆｉｃ ｖａｌｕｅ Ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｈａｓ ｄｅｆｉｎｅｄ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ ａｓ ｌａｎｇｕａｇｅ ｏｒ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｔｈａｔ, ｉｎ ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ, ｄｅｐｉｃｔｓ ｏｒ ｄｅｓｃｒｉｂｅｓ, ｉｎ ｔｅｒｍｓ ｐａｔｅｎｔｌｙ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ａｓ ｍｅａｓｕｒｅｄ ｂｙ ｃｏｎｔｅｍｐｏｒａｒｙ ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｔｙ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔ ｍｅｄｉｕｍ, ｓｅｘｕａｌ ｏｒ ｅｘｃｒｅｔｏｒｙ ｏｒｇａｎｓ ｏｒ ａｃｔｉｖｉｔｉｅｓ. Ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｍｉｎｇ ｃｏｎｔａｉｎｓ ｐａｔｅｎｔｌｙ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ｓｅｘｕａｌ ｏｒ ｅｘｃｒｅｔｏｒｙ ｒｅｆｅｒｅｎｃｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｒｉｓｅ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｌｅｖｅｌ ｏｆ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｉｔｙ. Ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｉｓ ｄｅｆｉｎｅｄ ａｓ ｉｎｃｌｕｄｉｎｇ ｌａｎｇｕａｇｅ ｔｈａｔ ｄｅｎｏｔｅｓ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｐｅｒｓｏｎａｌｌｙ ｒｅｖｉｌｉｎｇ ｅｐｉｔｈｅｔｓ ｎａｔｕｒａｌｌｙ ｔｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｐｒｏｖｏｋｅ ｖｉｏｌｅｎｔ ｒｅｓｅｎｔｍｅｎｔ ｏｒ ｄｅｎｏｔｉｎｇ ｌａｎｇｕａｇｅ ｓｏ ｇｒｏｓｓｌｙ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ｔｏ ｍｅｍｂｅｒｓ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｗｈｏ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｈｅａｒ ｉｔ ａｓ ｔｏ ａｍｏｕｎｔ ｔｏ ａ ｎｕｉｓａｎｃｅ. Ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ ａｎｄ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌｓ ａｒｅ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔｅｄ: ｔｈｅｙ ｃａｎｎｏｔ ｂｅ ａｉｒｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｒａｄｉｏ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｈｏｕｒｓ ｏｆ 6:00 ａ.ｍ. ａｎｄ 10:00 ｐ.ｍ. Ａｔ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｈｏｕｒｓ, ｃｈｉｌｄｒｅｎ ａｒｅ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ ｔｏｏ ｌｉｋｅｌｙ ａｎ ａｕｄｉｅｎｃｅ (ＦＣＣ Ｐａｒｅｎｔ'ｓ Ｐｌａｃｅ). Ｗｈｅｒｅ ｄｏｅｓ ｔｈｅ Ｆｉｒｓｔ Ａｍｅｎｄｍｅｎｔ ｆｉｔ ｉｎｔｏ ａｌｌ ｏｆ ｔｈｉｓ? Ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ, ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ Ｆｉｒｓｔ Ａｍｅｎｄｍｅｎｔ. Ｔｈｕｓ, ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｗｉｌｌ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｆｏｕｎｄ ｏｎ ａｎｙ ｆｒｅｑｕｅｎｃｙ ａｓ, ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ, ｉｔ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｈａｓ ｎｏ ｒｉｇｈｔ. Ａｓ ｆｏｒ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ, ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ａｒｇｕｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｓｅｔ ａｒｅ ａｃｔｕａｌｌｙ ｐｒｏｔｅｃｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｒｉｇｈｔｓ ｏｆ ｓｕｃｈ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌｓ. Ｂｙ ｃａｔｅｇｏｒｉｚｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｍ ａｓ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｆｒｏｍ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｄｅｅｍｅｄ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ａｎｄ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｌｉｍｉｔｉｎｇ ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅｙ ｃａｎ ｂｅ ａｉｒｅｄ, ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌｓ ａｒｅ ｓｔｉｌｌ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ ｂｙ ａｕｄｉｅｎｃｅｓ ｉｎｓｔｅａｄ ｏｆ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｂａｎｎｅｄ. Ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ ｐｏｉｎｔ, ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｓｔｒｅｓｓｅｓ ｇｒｅａｔｌｙ, ｉｓ ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ. Ａ ｆａｉｒ ａｍｏｕｎｔ ｏｆ ｐｒｉｄｅ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｐａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｉｓ ｔｉｅｄ ｕｐ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｃｅｓｓｉｔｙ ｏｆ ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ. Ｄｅｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｏｎ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｓａｉｄ ａｎｄ ｈｏｗ ｉｔ ｉｓ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｒｅｆｅｒｅｎｃｅｄ, ａ ｔｏｐｉｃ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒｅｄ ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ ｏｒ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ, ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ｏｒ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ, ｏｒ ｉｔ ｍｉｇｈｔ ｎｏｔ ｆａｌｌ ｉｎｔｏ ａｎｙ ｃａｔｅｇｏｒｙ ａｔ ａｌｌ. Ａ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｍｅ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｎｇ ｓｅｘｕａｌｉｔｙ, ｆｏｒ ｅｘａｍｐｌｅ, ｗｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｄｅｅｍｅｄ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｏｒ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ ｉｆ ｉｔ ｈａｄ ａｎ ｅｄｕｃａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｏｂｊｅｃｔｉｖｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｇｕｉｄｅｌｉｎｅｓ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｄｒａｗｎ, ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｍａｒｋｓ ａｒｅ ｆａｉｎｔ. Ｃｅｒｔａｉｎ ｓｔｉｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｃａｎ ｂｅ ｍａｄｅ, ｂｕｔ ｔｒｕｅ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎｓ ｃａｎｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｓｔａｔｅｄ. Ｔｏ ｐａｒａｐｈｒａｓｅ Ｓｕｐｒｅｍｅ Ｃｏｕｒｔ Ｊｕｓｔｉｃｅ Ｃｌａｒｅｎｃｅ Ｔｈｏｍａｓ, ｉｔ ｎｅｅｄｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｅｄ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ａｓ ａ ｃａｓｅ-ｂｙ-ｃａｓｅ ｐｏｉｎｔ. Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ｉｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｓｅｅｍ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｅｖｅｎ ｃｏｎｓｉｓｔｅｎｃｙ ｉｎ ｂｒｅａｋｉｎｇ ｄｏｗｎ ｉｎｓｔａｎｃｅｓ ｉｎｄｉｖｉｄｕａｌｌｙ. Ｔｈｅ ｙｅａｒ 2003 ｓｅｅｍｅｄ ｔｏ ｋｉｃｋ ｏｆｆ ａ ｐｅｒｉｏｄ ｏｆ ｍｅｄｉａ ｓｃａｎｄａｌ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ Ｕｎｉｔｅｄ Ｓｔａｔｅｓ. Ｔｈｏｕｇｈ ｍａｎｙ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｖｉｅｗ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａｎ ｓｏｃｉｅｔｙ ａｓ ｏｎｅ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｌｉｂｅｒａｌ ｏｕｔｌｏｏｋ, ｉｔ ｈａｓ ｎｏｔ ｓｔｏｐｐｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｍａｓｓｅｓ ｆｒｏｍ ｂｅｉｎｇ ａｐｐａｌｌｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｓｈｏｃｋｓ ｒｅｓｏｎａｔｉｎｇ ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎｓ. Ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ａｎ Ｉｒｉｓｈｍａｎ'ｓ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｅ ｖｅｒｂａｌ ｅｊａｃｕｌａｔｉｏｎ ａｔ ａｎ ａｗａｒｄｓ ｓｈｏｗ, ｆｏｌｌｏｗｅｄ ｕｐ ｂｙ ａ ｔｈｒｅｅ ｗａｙ ｓａｍｅ-ｓｅｘ ｋｉｓｓ ｏｎ ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ ａｗａｒｄ ｓｈｏｗ, ａｎｄ ｔｏｐｐｅｄ ｏｆｆ ｂｙ ａ ｐｏｐ ｓｔａｒ'ｓ ｅｘｐｏｓｅｄ ｂｒｅａｓｔ ｏｎ ａ ｓｐｏｒｔｓ ｈａｌｆ-ｔｉｍｅ ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅ, ｔｈｅ ｐａｓｔ ｅｉｇｈｔｅｅｎ ｍｏｎｔｈｓ ｏｒ ｓｏ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｖｅｒｙ ｄｉｆｆｉｃｕｌｔ ｆｏｒ ｅｖｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｐｅｎ-ｍｉｎｄｅｄ ｏｆ ａｕｄｉｅｎｃｅｓ ｔｏ ａｃｃｅｐｔ. Ｂｕｔ ｈｏｗ ｍｕｃｈ ｃａｎ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｂｅ ｄｏｎｅ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ? Ｕ2'ｓ Ｂｏｎｏ ｗａｓ ｔｈｒｅａｔｅｎｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｆｉｎｅｓ ａｎｄ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ ｂａｄ ｐｒｅｓｓ, ｂｕｔ ｍｏｓｔ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｗｒｉｔｅ ｏｆｆ ｈｉｓ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ ａｓ ｅｘｃｕｓａｂｌｅ, ｎｏ ｍａｔｔｅｒ ｈｏｗ ｉｎａｐｐｒｏｐｒｉａｔｅ. Ｂｒｉｔｎｅｙ Ｓｐｅａｒｓ, Ｍａｄｏｎｎａ, ａｎｄ Ｃｈｒｉｓｔｉｎａ Ａｇｕｉｌｅｒａ ｇｏｔ ａｗａｙ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｓｔｕｎｔ ｓｃｏｔ-ｆｒｅｅ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ＭＴＶ ｉｓ ａ ｃａｂｌｅ ｃｈａｎｎｅｌ ｎｏｔ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ. Ｊａｎｅｔ Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ ａｎｄ Ｊｕｓｔｉｎ Ｔｉｍｂｅｒｌａｋｅ ｇｏｔ ａ ｓｌａｐ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｒｉｓｔ - ｏｎｌｙ Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ ｗａｓ ｂａｎｎｅｄ ｆｒｏｍ ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍｉｎｇ ａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｇｒａｍｍｙ'ｓ, ｂｕｔ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｍｕｓｉｃ ａｗａｒｄ ｓｈｏｗｓ ａｒｅ ａ ｄｉｍｅ ａ ｄｏｚｅｎ ａｎｙｗａｙ (Ｃａｒｔｅｒ 15). Ｓｕｃｈ ｉｎｉｑｕｉｔｏｕｓ ａｃｔｓ ａｒｅ ｈｏｔ ｔｏｐｉｃｓ ｉｎ ｏｕｒ ｓｏｃｉｅｔｙ, ｂｕｔ ａｔ ｔｈｅ ｅｎｄ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｄａｙ, ｐｏｐｕｌａｒ ｏｕｔｒａｇｅ ｏｎｌｙ ｇｏｅｓ ｓｏ ｆａｒ. Ａｎｇｒｙ ｌｅｔｔｅｒｓ ａｒｅ ｗｒｉｔｔｅｎ, ｃｏｍｐｌａｉｎｔｓ ａｒｅ ｐｈｏｎｅｄ ｉｎ, ｂｕｔ ｏｕｒ ｆａｖｏｒｉｔｅ ｃｅｌｅｂｒｉｔｉｅｓ ａｒｅ ｕｌｔｉｍａｔｅｌｙ ｅｘｃｕｓｅｄ. Ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｈａｓ, ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｉｓ ｉｎ ｍｉｎｄ, ｔａｋｅｎ ｔｏ ｓｔｅｐｐｉｎｇ ｕｐ ｉｔｓ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｏｄｄｌｙ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ, ｔｈｏｕｇｈ, ｔｈｅ ｆｏｒｅｒｕｎｎｅｒ ｆｏｒ ｍａｒｔｙｒｄｏｍ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｎａｍｅ ｏｆ ｐｏｏｒ ｔａｓｔｅ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ Ｂｏｎｏ ｏｒ Ｍｓ. Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ, ｂｕｔ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ. Ｉｎｄｅｅｄ, ｏｎｅ ｃａｎｎｏｔ ｔｕｒｎ ｏｎ ｈｉｓ ｏｒ ｈｅｒ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｗｅｅｋ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ｈｅａｒｉｎｇ ｓｏｍｅ ｔｉｄｂｉｔ ａｂｏｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｓｅｌｆ ｐｒｏｃｌａｉｍｅｄ Ｋｉｎｇ ｏｆ ａｌｌ Ｍｅｄｉａ'ｓ ｌａｔｅｓｔ ｃｒｕｓａｄｅ. Ｆａｃｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｌｏｓｓ ｏｆ ｈｉｓ ｊｏｂ, ｌｏｓｉｎｇ ｈｉｓ ｓｙｎｄｉｃａｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ ｓｉｘ ｍａｊｏｒ ｃｉｔｉｅｓ, ａｎｄ ａｗａｉｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ａｓｔｒｏｎｏｍｉｃａｌ ｉｍｐｅｎｄｉｎｇ ｆｉｎｅｓ, Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｂｅｃｏｍｅ ｔｈｅ ｕｎｗｉｌｌｉｎｇ ｐｏｓｔｅｒ ｃｈｉｌｄ ｏｆ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｉｓ ｎｏｗ ｈｅｌｌ ｂｅｎｔ ｏｎ ｃｏｍｂａｔｉｎｇ. Ｃｏｍｍｏｎ ｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ, ｉｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｓｅｅｍ, ｉｓ ｖｅｒｙ ｍｕｃｈ ａｔ ｒｉｓｋ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎｌｙ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｖｅｒｙ ｗｒｏｎｇ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ｓｔａｎｄａｒｄｓ ｓｅｔ ｗｈｅｎ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｓｉｔ ｄｏｗｎ ｔｏ ｗａｔｃｈ ａ ｍｕｓｉｃａｌ ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ａ ｂｒｅａｋ ｉｎ ａ ｆｏｏｔｂａｌｌ ｇａｍｅ ｏｎｌｙ ｂｅ ａｃｃｏｓｔｅｄ ｂｙ ｆｒｏｎｔａｌ ｎｕｄｉｔｙ. Ｂｕｔ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ'ｓ ｉｎｔｅｎｔｉｏｎｓ ｂｅ ｓｏｍｅｗｈａｔ ｍｉｓｇｕｉｄｅｄ? Ｔｈｅ ｏｂｖｉｏｕｓ ｉｎｔｅｎｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｒｉｓｉｎｇ ｕｐ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｐｏｐ ｃｕｌｔｕｒｅ'ｓ ａｔｔａｃｋ ｏｎ ｍｏｄｅｓｔｙ ｉｓ ｔｏ ｒｅｉｇｎ ｉｎ ｓｏｍｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｏｕｔｒａｇｅｏｕｓ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｎｏ ｏｎｅ ｗａｔｃｈｅｄ ｔｈｅ Ｓｕｐｅｒ Ｂｏｗｌ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ａｎｔｉｃｉｐａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｓｅｅｉｎｇ Ｊａｎｅｔ Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ'ｓ ｂｒｅａｓｔ. Ｎｏ ｏｎｅ ｗｈｏ ｗａｔｃｈｅｄ ｔｈｅ Ｇｏｌｄｅｎ Ｇｌｏｂｅｓ ｉｎ 2003 ｅｘｐｅｃｔｅｄ Ｂｏｎｏ ｔｏ ｅｘｃｌａｉｍ ｔｈａｔ ｔａｂｏｏ. Ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｌｄ ｏｆ ｍａｓｓ ｍｅｄｉａ, ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｇｅｔ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｅｘｐｅｃｔ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｓｏｍｅ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅ ｔｈａｔ ａｗａｒｄ ｓｈｏｗｓ ａｎｄ ｐｅｒｆｏｒｍａｎｃｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｈａｖｅ ｐａｒｅｎｔａｌ ａｄｖｉｓｏｒｙ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇｓ ａｓ ｐｒｅｃｕｒｓｏｒｓ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｃｏｎｔａｉｎ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｔｈａｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｒｅｑｕｉｒｅ ｓｕｃｈ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｈａｓ ａ ｒｉｇｈｔ ｔｏ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｗａｔｃｈｉｎｇ ｓｏ ｔｈｅｙ ｃａｎ ｄｅｃｉｄｅ ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ ｏｒ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｗａｎｔ ｔｏ ｗａｔｃｈ ａ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｍｅ. Ｔｈｉｓ ｉｓ ｗｈａｔ ｍａｋｅｓ ｔｈｅ ａｔｔａｃｋ ｏｎ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｍｏｒｅ ｃｕｒｉｏｕｓ. Ｓｔｅｒｎ'ｓ ｒａｄｉｏ ｔａｌｋ ｓｈｏｗ ｉｓ ｂｙ ｎｏ ｍｅａｎｓ ｔａｍｅ. Ｉｔ ｉｓ ｒａｕｎｃｈｙ, ｌｅｗｄ, ｏｂｎｏｘｉｏｕｓ; ｉｔ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ａ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｍｅ ｔｈａｔ ｙｏｕ ｗａｎｔ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｒａｄｉｏ ｗｈｉｌｅ ｄｒｉｖｉｎｇ ｙｏｕｒ ｃｈｉｌｄｒｅｎ ｔｏ ｓｃｈｏｏｌ. Ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐａｓｔ ｔｗｅｎｔｙ ｏｒ ｔｗｅｎｔｙ-ｆｉｖｅ ｙｅａｒｓ ｔｈａｔ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｒａｄｉｏ, ｈｅ ｈａｓ ｂｕｉｌｔ ｕｐ ａ ｒｅｐｕｔａｔｉｏｎ ｆｏｒ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｒａｕｎｃｈｙ, ｌｅｗｄ, ａｎｄ ｏｂｎｏｘｉｏｕｓ. Ｈｉｓ ｎａｍｅ ｉｓ ｉｍｍｅｄｉａｔｅｌｙ ａｓｓｏｃｉａｔｅｄ ｂｙ ａｌｌ ｗｉｔｈ ｂａｔｈｒｏｏｍ ｈｕｍｏｒ ａｎｄ ｓｅｘ ｊｏｋｅｓ. Ｔｈｅ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈａｔ ｔｏ ｅｘｐｅｃｔ ｆｒｏｍ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ, ｓｏ ｔｈｅｙ ｋｎｏｗ ｗｈａｔ ｔｏ ｅｘｐｅｃｔ ｗｈｅｎ ｔｈｅｙ ｔｕｎｅ ｉｎｔｏ ｈｉｓ ｒａｄｉｏ ｓｈｏｗ. Ｔｈａｔ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｓｏｎ ｍａｎｙ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ. Ｄａｎａ Ｌ. Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ ｏｆ Ｅｌ Ｄｅｆｅｎｓｏｒ Ｃｈｉｅｆｔａｉｎ ｗｒｏｔｅ ｒｅｇａｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｈｏｔ ｗａｔｅｒ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔｌｙ ｆｉｎｄｓ ｈｉｍｓｅｌｆ ｉｎ: Ｙｏｕ ｈａｖｅ ａ ｃｈｏｉｃｅ ｔｏ ｌｉｓｔｅｎ ｔｏ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｏｒ ｗａｔｃｈ "ＮＹＰＤ Ｂｌｕｅ" ｏｒ ｔｕｎｅ ｉｎｔｏ ｔｈａｔ ａｗｆｕｌ ｃａｂｌｅ ＴＶ ｔａｌｋ ｓｈｏｗ ｆｅａｔｕｒｉｎｇ Ｔａｍｍｙ Ｆａｙｅ Ｂａｋｅｒ ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｒｎ ｓｔａｒ. Ｙｏｕ ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｈａｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｃｈｏｉｃｅ ｗｈｅｎ ｓｏｍｅｏｎｅ ｗａｌｋｓ ｄｏｗｎ ｔｈｅ ｓｔｒｅｅｔ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｐｒｏｆａｎｅ Ｔ-ｓｈｉｒｔ, ｏｒ ｃｕｒｓｅｓ ｉｎ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ, ｏｒ ｂｌａｓｔｓ ｏｂｓｃｅｎｉｔｉｅｓ ａｔ ｙｏｕ ｆｒｏｍ ａ ｒａｄｉｏ, ｏｒ ｗｈｅｎ ｓｏｍｅ ｐｏｐ ｓｔａｒ ｐｕｌｌｓ ａ ｓｔｕｎｔ ｏｎ ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ＴＶ ｏｒ ａ ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ ａｄｖｅｒｔｉｓｅｒ ａｐｐｒｏｖｅｓ ａ ｃｏｍｍｅｒｃｉａｌ ｆｅａｔｕｒｉｎｇ ａ ｈｏｒｓｅ ｐａｓｓｉｎｇ ｇａｓ.Ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｌ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ ｉｓ ｅｘｐｏｓｉｎｇ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ ｔｈｅｙ ｄｏｎ'ｔ ｗａｎｔ ｔｏ ｓｅｅ ｏｒ ｈｅａｒ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ｇｉｖｉｎｇ ｔｈｅｍ ａ ｃｈｏｉｃｅ.(Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ 2) Ｍａｎｙ ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｉｎｇ Ｓｔｅｒｎ'ｓ ｆａｉｌｉｎｇ ｃｒｕｓａｄｅ ｈａｖｅ ａｌｓｏ ｂｅｅｎ ｃａｌｌｉｎｇ ｕｐｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｄｓ ｏｆ Ｓｕｐｒｅｍｅ Ｃｏｕｒｔ Ｊｕｓｔｉｃｅ Ｗｉｌｌｉａｍ Ｊ. Ｂｒｅｎｎａｎ. Ｖｉｓｉｔｏｒｓ ｔｏ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ'ｓ ｗｅｂ ｐａｇｅ (ｏｆ ｌａｔｅ, ｔｈｅ ｈｅａｄｑｕａｒｔｅｒｓ ｆｏｒ ｈｉｓ ａｎｔｉ-ＦＣＣ ｅｆｆｏｒｔｓ) ａｒｅ ｇｒｅｅｔｅｄ ｉｍｍｅｄｉａｔｅｌｙ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｄｓ ｄｉｃｔａｔｅｄ ｕｐｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｄｅｃｉｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ Ｔｅｘａｓ ｖｓ. Ｊｏｈｎｓｏｎ ｉｎ 1989: "Ｉｆ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ａ ｂｅｄｒｏｃｋ ｐｒｉｎｃｉｐｌｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ Ｆｉｒｓｔ Ａｍｅｎｄｍｅｎｔ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｍａｙ ｎｏｔ ｐｒｏｈｉｂｉｔ ｔｈｅ ｅｘｐｒｅｓｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ ａｎ ｉｄｅａ ｓｉｍｐｌｙ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｓｏｃｉｅｔｙ ｆｉｎｄｓ ｔｈｅ ｉｄｅａ ｉｔｓｅｌｆ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ ｏｒ ｄｉｓａｇｒｅｅａｂｌｅ." Ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌｌｙ, ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｆｅｅｌ ｏｕｔｓｉｄｅ ｐｒｅｓｓｕｒｅｓ. Ｉｔ ｉｓ ｎｏ ｌｏｎｇｅｒ ｊｕｓｔ ｔｈｅ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ｈａｖｅ ｔｏ ｐｌｅａｓｅ, ｂｕｔ ｔｈｅ ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔ ｉｓ ｂｅｇｉｎｎｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｒｏｗ ｉｔｓ ｗｅｉｇｈｔ ａｒｏｕｎｄ ａｓ ｗｅｌｌ. "Ａ ｐｏｗｅｒｆｕｌ, ｂｉｐａｒｔｉｓａｎ ｇｒｏｕｐ ｏｆ ｓｅｎａｔｏｒｓ ｗａｎｔｓ ｔｏ ｓｕｓｐｅｎｄ ｆｏｒ ｏｎｅ ｙｅａｒ ｎｅｗ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｒｕｌｅｓ ｒｅｌａｘｉｎｇ ｏｗｎｅｒｓｈｉｐ ｒｅｓｔｒｉｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｓｏ ｔｈｅ Ｇｅｎｅｒａｌ Ａｃｃｏｕｎｔｉｎｇ Ｏｆｆｉｃｅ ｃａｎ ｓｔｕｄｙ ｔｈｅ ｉｍｐａｃｔ ｏｆ ｍｅｄｉａ ｃｏｎｓｏｌｉｄａｔｉｏｎ ｏｎ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ," (Ｙａｎｇ 59). Ｎｅｗ Ｓｅｎａｔｅ ｐｒｏｐｏｓｅｄ ｌａｗｓ ａｒｅ ｃａｌｌｉｎｇ ｆｏｒ ｍａｘｉｍｕｍ ｆｉｎｅｓ ｏｆ $500,000 ｆｏｒ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ, ａｓ ｗｅｌｌ ａｓ ｓｕｇｇｅｓｔｉｎｇ ａ "ｔｈｒｅｅ-ｓｔｒｉｋｅ ｐｒｏｖｉｓｉｏｎ" ｆｏｒ ｒｅｐｅａｔ ｏｆｆｅｎｄｅｒｓ. Ｔｈａｔ ｐｒｏｖｉｓｉｏｎ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｔａｒｇｅｔ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔｉｎｇ ｌｉｃｅｎｓｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｃｏｍｐａｎｉｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｆａｉｌ ｔｏ ｋｅｅｐ ｗｉｔｈ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｈａｓ ｅｖｅｎ ｂｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ ａ ｂｉｌｌ ａｉｍｅｄ ａｔ ｃｒａｃｋｉｎｇ ｄｏｗｎ ｏｎ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ｖｉｏｌｅｎｃｅ ａｓ ａ ｆｏｒｍ ｏｆ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｃｙ. Ｔｈｅ Ｓｅｎａｔｅ'ｓ ｅｆｆｏｒｔｓ ａｒｅ ｐｕｔｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｉｎ ａ ｄｉｆｆｉｃｕｌｔ ｐｏｓｉｔｉｏｎ; ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ ｅｖｅｒ, ｔｈｅ ｗａｙ ｔｈｅ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｒｅａｃｔｓ ｔｏ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔ ｔｒｅｎｄｓ ｗｉｌｌ ｄｅｆｉｎｅ ｉｔｓ ｒｏｌｅ ｉｎ ｆｕｔｕｒｅ ｅｎｄｅａｖｏｒｓ. Ｈｅｉｇｈｔｅｎｅｄ ａｔｔｅｎｔｉｏｎ ｈａｓ ａｌｓｏ ｂｅｅｎ ｂｒｏｕｇｈｔ ｕｐｏｎ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｕｐｃｏｍｉｎｇ ｅｌｅｃｔｉｏｎ. Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ Ｃｈａｉｒｍａｎ Ｍｉｃｈａｅｌ Ｋ. Ｐｏｗｅｌｌ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｆｅｅｌｉｎｇ ｅｎｏｕｇｈ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｔｒａｉｎ ｔｏ ｓｗｉｔｃｈ ｆｒｏｍ ｈｉｓ ｌｏｎｇ-ｓｔａｎｄｉｎｇ ｄｅｄｉｃａｔｉｏｎ ｔｏｗａｒｄ ｆｒｅｅ ｓｐｅｅｃｈ ｔｏ ｆｉｅｒｃｅ ａｔｔｅｍｐｔ ａｔ ｇｕａｒａｎｔｅｅｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ａｉｒｗａｖｅｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｖｉｅｗｅｒ ｆｒｉｅｎｄｌｙ. Ｂｕｔ ｏｎｅ ｃａｎｎｏｔ ｈｅｌｐ ｂｕｔ ｆｅｅｌ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ａｔｔｅｍｐｔｓ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｍａｄｅ ｔｏ ｃｌｅａｎ ｕｐ ｔｈｅ ａｉｒｗａｖｅｓ ａｒｅ ｓｏｍｅｗｈａｔ ｓｅｌｅｃｔｉｖｅ. Ｉｔ ｓｅｅｍｓ ａｌｌ ｔｏｏ ｅａｓｙ (ａｎｄ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｒａｔｈｅｒ ｌｏｇｉｃａｌ) ｔｏ ｔａｒｇｅｔ ａ ｓｈｏｃｋ-ｊｏｃｋ ｌｉｋｅ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ, ｂｕｔ ｗｈａｔ ａｂｏｕｔ ｌｅｓｓ ｌｉｋｅｌｙ ｈｏｓｔｓ? Ｔｈｅ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒ ｓｈｏｗ ｔｈａｔ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｃｏｍｅ ｕｎｄｅｒ ｆｉｒｅ ｆｏｒ ｉｎｖｏｌｖｅｄ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ ｏｆ ａ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎ ｍｅｔｈｏｄ ｏｆ ｏｒａｌ ｓｅｘ, ｗｈｉｃｈ, ｉｔ ｗａｓ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ, ｔｏｏｋ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ ａ ｂｉｔ ｔｏｏ ｆａｒ ｆｏｒ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｈｅａｒｄ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ ｏｖｅｒ. Ｂｕｔ, ａｓ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｂｅｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｔｏ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｏｕｔ, Ｏｐｒａｈ Ｗｉｎｆｒｅｙ ｈａｓ ｒｅｃｅｎｔｌｙ ａｉｒｅｄ ａ ｓｈｏｗ ｉｎ ｗｈｉｃｈ ｔｈｅ ｔｏｐｉｃｓ ｒｅｖｏｌｖｅｄ ｌａｒｇｅｌｙ ａｒｏｕｎｄ ｏｒａｌ ｓｅｘ ａｍｏｎｇｓｔ ｏｔｈｅｒ ｓｅｘｕａｌ ａｃｔｓ. Ａｎｄ ｔｈｏｕｇｈ Ｏｐｒａｈ ｈａｓ ｈｏｓｔｅｄ ｓｈｏｗｓ ｐｅｒｔａｉｎｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｓｏｍｅ ｒａｔｈｅｒ ｓｅｎｓｉｔｉｖｅ ｓｕｂｊｅｃｔｓ, ｔｈｅｒｅ ｗａｓ ｎｏ ｒｅｄｅｅｍｉｎｇ ｅｄｕｃａｔｉｏｎａｌ ｖａｌｕｅ ｔｏ ｗｈａｔ Ｏｐｒａｈ'ｓ ｇｕｅｓｔ ｈａｄ ｔｏ ｓａｙ. Ｉｎ ｆａｃｔ, ｉｔ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｆａｉｒｌｙ ａｒｇｕｅｄ ｔｈａｔ Ｏｐｒａｈ'ｓ ｇｕｅｓｔ ｗａｓ ｊｕｓｔ ａｓ ｃｒｕｄｅ ａｓ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｅｖｅｒ ｂｅｅｎ, ｉｆ ｎｏｔ ｗｏｒｓｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｇｕｅｓｔ, ｎｏｔｅｄ ｉｎ ａ ｔｒａｎｓｃｒｉｐｔ ａｓ 'Ｍｉｃｈｅｌｌｅ,' ｓｐｏｋｅ ｗｉｔｈ ｎｏ ｒｅｓｅｒｖａｔｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｉｎ ｒａｔｈｅｒ ｇｒａｐｈｉｃ ｄｅｔａｉｌ ａｂｏｕｔ ａ ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ ｃｏｎｖｅｎｔｉｏｎａｌ ｓｅｘｕａｌ ａｃｔ. Ｔｈｅ ｓｕｂｊｅｃｔ ｍａｔｔｅｒ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈａｔ ｅｐｉｓｏｄｅ ｏｆ Ｏｐｒａｈ Ｗｉｎｆｒｅｙ'ｓ ｔａｌｋ ｓｈｏｗ ｄｉｒｅｃｔｌｙ ｐａｒａｌｌｅｌｅｄ ｔｈｅ ｓｕｂｊｅｃｔ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｅｄ ｂｙ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ａｎｄ ｈｉｓ ｇｕｅｓｔｓ. Ｙｅｔ ｉｔ ｉｓ Ｓｔｅｒｎ (ｗｈｏ, ａｃｃｏｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｓｈｏｗ'ｓ ｔｒａｎｓｃｒｉｐｔ, ｎｏｔｅｓ ｈｏｗ ｖｕｌｇａｒ ｔｈｅ ｔｏｐｉｃ ｉｓ ａｎｄ ｃｌａｉｍｓ ｔｏ ｅｘｐｌａｉｎ ｔｈｅ ａｃｔ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｓｔ ｐｏｌｉｔｅ ｔｅｒｍｓ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ) ｗｈｏ ｉｓ ｈｉｔ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｆｉｎｅ. Ａｎｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｕｎｗｉｌｌｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｃｏｍｐｒｏｍｉｓｅ; ｈｅ ｕｎｄｅｒｓｔａｎｄｓ ｗｈｅｒｅ ｔｈｅ ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ ｏｆ ｈｉｓ ｓｈｏｗ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｓｅｅｎ ａｓ ｏｆｆｅｎｓｉｖｅ. Ｈｅ'ｓ ｎｏｔ ｄｅｍａｎｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｃｈａｒｇｅｓ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ｈｉｍ ｂｅ ｄｒｏｐｐｅｄ. Ｈｅ'ｓ ａｓｋｉｎｇ ｆｏｒ ｅｑｕａｌ ｔｒｅａｔｍｅｎｔ - ｉｆ ｈｅ'ｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｆｉｎｅｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈａｔ ｐａｒｔｉｃｕｌａｒ ｓｈｏｗ, ｔｈｅｎ ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｎｏ ｒｅａｓｏｎ ｔｈａｔ Ｏｐｒａｈ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ ｆｉｎｅｄ ｆｏｒ ａｎ ｅｐｉｓｏｄｅ ｏｆ ｈｅｒ ｓｈｏｗ ｗｉｔｈ ｓｉｍｉｌａｒ ｃｏｎｔｅｎｔ. Ｉｔ ｄｏｅｓ ｓｅｅｍ ｔｏ ｂｅ ａ ｇｒｅａｔ ｄｅａｌ ｓｉｍｐｌｅｒ ｔｏ ｔａｋｅ ｄｏｗｎ ｔｈｅ ｎａｍｅ ｍｏｓｔ ｃｏｍｍｏｎｌｙ ａｓｓｏｃｉａｔｅｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｂａｗｄｙ ｃｏｎｖｅｒｓａｔｉｏｎ ｔｈａｎ Ａｍｅｒｉｃａ'ｓ Ｓｗｅｅｔｈｅａｒｔ ｏｆ ｔａｌｋ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ. Ｗｉｌｌ ｔｈｉｓ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｉｎ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｂｅｉｎｇ ａ ｍａｒｔｙｒ ｆｏｒ ａｌｌ ｅｎｔｅｒｔａｉｎｍｅｎｔ? Ｉｓ ｉｔ ｊｕｓｔ ｏｎｅ ｍａｎ ｗｈｏ ｎｅｅｄｓ ｔｏ ｇｏ, ｏｒ ｗｉｌｌ ｈｅ ｂｅ ｔｈｅ ｅｘａｍｐｌｅ ｕｓｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔｒｏｌ ａｌｌ ｍｅｄｉａ ｆｒｏｍ ｈｅｒｅ ｏｎ ｏｕｔ? Ａｒｅ ｔｈｅ ｌｉｋｅｓ ｏｆ Ｏｐｒａｈ Ｗｉｎｆｒｅｙ ｊｕｓｔ ｂｅｙｏｎｄ ｔｈｅ ｒｅａｃｈ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ? Ｗｈｅｎ ｉｔ ｉｓ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｎｄ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｄｅｃｅｎｔ, ｈｏｗ ｍｕｃｈ ｏｆ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｔａｋｅｎ ｉｎｔｏ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒａｔｉｏｎ ｉｓ ｒｅｌａｔｅｄ ｔｏ ｃｏｎｔｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｈｏｗ ｍｕｃｈ ｉｓ ｂａｓｅｄ ｏｎ ｔｈｅ ｉｍａｇｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｅｓｅｎｔｅｒ? Ｊａｎｅｔ Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ ｃａｍｅ ｕｎｄｅｒ ｈｅａｖｙ ｆｉｒｅ ｆｏｒ ｈｅｒ ｂｒｅａｓｔ-ｂａｒｉｎｇ ｉｎｃｉｄｅｎｔ ａｔ ｔｈｉｓ ｙｅａｒ'ｓ Ｓｕｐｅｒ Ｂｏｗｌ, ｂｕｔ ａｓ ｍａｎｙ ｆａｎｓ ｏｆ Ｔｈｅ Ｔｏｄａｙ Ｓｈｏｗ ｗｉｌｌ ｒｅｍｅｍｂｅｒ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｔｈｅ ｆｉｒｓｔ ｔｉｍｅ ｔｈａｔ ｍａｊｏｒ ｎｅｔｗｏｒｋ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ｈａｓ ｓｅｅｎ ｍｏｒｅ ｏｆ ａ ｗｏｍａｎ'ｓ ｃｈｅｓｔ ｔｈａｎ ｉｔ ｂａｒｇａｉｎｅｄ ｆｏｒ. Ｗｈｉｌｅ ｃｏｖｅｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ Ｒｅｐｕｂｌｉｃａｎ Ｃｏｎｖｅｎｔｉｏｎ ｉｎ Ｐｈｉｌａｄｅｌｐｈｉａ ｉｎ 2000, ａｎｃｈｏｒ Ｍａｔｔ Ｌａｕｅｒ ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ ｔｏ ｐａｓｓ ａ ｗｏｍａｎ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｃｒｏｗｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｔａｐｉｎｇ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｈｏｗ ｗｈｏ ｏｐｅｎｅｄ ｈｅｒ ｂｌｏｕｓｅ ａｎｄ ｆｕｌｌｙ ｒｅｖｅａｌｅｄ ｂｏｔｈ ｏｆ ｈｅｒ ｂｒｅａｓｔｓ. ＮＢＣ, ｔｈｅ ｎｅｔｗｏｒｋ ｔｈａｔ ｃａｒｒｉｅｓ Ｔｈｅ Ｔｏｄａｙ Ｓｈｏｗ ｒｅｃｅｉｖｅｄ ｎｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｆｉｎｅ ｎｏｒ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇ. Ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｂａｒｅｌｙ ｓｅｅｍｅｄ ｔｏ ｎｏｔｉｃｅ ｗｈａｔ ｈａｐｐｅｎｅｄ, ｄｅｓｐｉｔｅ ｂｒｏａｄ ｍｅｄｉａ ａｔｔｅｎｔｉｏｎ. ＣＢＳ, ｈｏｗｅｖｅｒ, ｉｓ ｆａｃｉｎｇ ａ ｖｅｒｙ ｌａｒｇｅ ｆｉｎｅ ｉｎ ｌｉｇｈｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｓｔｕｎｔ ｐｕｌｌｅｄ ｂｙ Ｊａｃｋｓｏｎ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ Ｓｕｐｅｒ Ｂｏｗｌ ｈａｌｆ ｔｉｍｅ ｓｈｏｗ. Ｎｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｎｅｔｗｏｒｋ ｈａｄ ｐｒｅｐａｒｅｄ ｆｏｒ ｓｕｃｈ ａｃｔｉｏｎｓ, ｙｅｔ ｗｈｉｌｅ ｂｒｏａｄｃａｓｔｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｉｍａｇｅ ｖｅｒｙ ｄｉｆｆｅｒｅｎｔ ｒｅｓｕｌｔｓ ｈａｖｅ ｂｅｅｎ ｙｉｅｌｄｅｄ (Ｃａｒｔｅｒ, Ｃ4). Ａｎｄ ｔｈｅｎ ｒｅｇａｒｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ｔｏｐｉｃ ｏｆ ｃｈｏｉｃｅ, ｗｈａｔ ｏｆ ｓｏｍｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｓｕｇｇｅｓｔｉｖｅ ｃｏｍｍｅｒｃｉａｌｓ ｔｈａｔ ａｉｒ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇ ｄｕｒｉｎｇ ｓｅｅｍｉｎｇｌｙ ａｎｙ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ｐｒｏｇｒａｍｍｅ? Ｅｖｅｒｙｔｈｉｎｇ ｆｒｏｍ ｂｅｅｒ ｔｏ ｈｏｕｓｅｈｏｌｄ ｃｌｅａｎｉｎｇ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｓ ｉｓ ｓｏｌｄ ｗｉｔｈ ｔｈｅ ａｉｄ ｏｆ ｓｅｘ ａｐｐｅａｌ - ｉｎ ｍａｎｙ ｃａｓｅｓ ｔｈｉｓ ｔａｃｔｉｃ ｐｒｏｖｅｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｓｌｉｇｈｔｌｙ ｅｘｃｅｓｓｉｖｅ, ｉｆ ｎｏｔ ｉｎａｐｐｒｏｐｒｉａｔｅ. Ｄｏ ｎｏｔ ｆｏｒｇｅｔ ｔｏ ｔａｋｅ ｉｎｔｏ ｃｏｎｓｉｄｅｒａｔｉｏｎ ａｌｌ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｓ ｔｈａｔ ｓｅｅｍ ｔｏ ｂｅ ａｖａｉｌａｂｌｅ ｔｏ ａｉｄ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｍｅｎ 'ｓｕｆｆｅｒｉｎｇ' ｆｒｏｍ ｅｒｅｃｔｉｌｅ ｄｙｓｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎ. Ａｓ Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ ｎｏｔｅｓ, ｓｏｍｅ ｏｆ ｔｈｏｓｅ ｃｏｍｍｅｒｃｉａｌｓ ｆｏｒ ｓｕｃｈ ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔｓ, ｉｎ ａｎ ａｔｔｅｍｐｔ ｔｏ ｗａｒｎ ｐｏｔｅｎｔｉａｌ ｃｏｎｓｕｍｅｒｓ ｏｆ ａｌｌ ｐｏｓｓｉｂｌｅ ｓｉｄｅ ｅｆｆｅｃｔｓ, ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｗｈｏ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ｍｏｒｅ ｔｈａｎ ｌｉｋｅｌｙ ｈａｓ ｎｏ ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔ ｉｎ. Ｇｒａｎｔｅｄ, ｗｈｅｎ ｗａｔｃｈｉｎｇ ａｎｙ ｃｏｍｍｅｒｃｉａｌ ｆｏｒ ａｎｙ ｐｒｅｓｃｒｉｐｔｉｏｎ, ｔｈｅ ｖｉｅｗｅｒ ｉｓ ｂｏｕｎｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｍｅｔ ｗｉｔｈ ａｎ ｏｎｓｌａｕｇｈｔ ｏｆ ｌｅｓｓ ｔｈａｎ ｐｌｅａｓａｎｔ ｂｏｄｉｌｙ ｍａｌｆｕｎｃｔｉｏｎｓ ｂｒｏｕｇｈｔ ｏｎ ｂｙ ｏｎｅ ｔｒｅａｔｍｅｎｔ ｏｒ ｏｔｈｅｒ. Ｓｔｉｌｌ, ａｓ Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ ｔａｋｅｓ ｎｏｔｉｃｅ ｏｆ, ｌｅａｒｎｉｎｇ ｔｈａｔ ｏｎｅ ｂｒａｎｄ ｏｆ 'ｍａｌｅ ｐｏｔｅｎｃｙ' ｐｒｏｄｕｃｔ ｍｉｇｈｔ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ ｉｎ ａｎ ｅｒｅｃｔｉｏｎ ｌａｓｔｉｎｇ ｆｏｒ ｆｏｕｒ ｏｒ ｍｏｒｅ ｈｏｕｒｓ (ａｎｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｎｓｕｍｅｒ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｓｅｅｋ ｍｅｄｉｃａｌ ｔｒｅａｔｍｅｎｔ ａｓ ａ ｒｅｓｕｌｔ) ｉｓ ｓｏｍｅｔｈｉｎｇ ｍｏｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅ ｐｕｂｌｉｃ ｃｏｕｌｄ ｌｉｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｒｅｓｔ ｏｆ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｌｉｖｅｓ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ｈａｖｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｔｈｉｎｋ ａｂｏｕｔ. Ａｎｄ, ａｓ Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ ｆｕｒｔｈｅｒ ｒａｉｓｅｓ ａｗａｒｅｎｅｓｓ ｏｆ, "ｗｈｏ ｗｏｕｌｄ ｗａｎｔ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｙｏｕｎｇ ｃｈｉｌｄｒｅｎ ａｓｋｉｎｇ ｗｈａｔ ａ ｆｏｕｒ-ｈｏｕｒ ｙｏｕ-ｋｎｏｗ-ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｌｌ ａｂｏｕｔ?" (Ｂｏｗｌｅｙ 2). Ｃｏｍｍｅｒｃｉａｌｓ ｏｆ ｓｕｃｈ ａ ｎａｔｕｒｅ ａｒｅ ｎｏｔ ｗｈａｔ ｗｅ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｐｌａｎ ｏｎ ｖｉｅｗｉｎｇ ｗｈｅｎ ｗｅ ｔｕｒｎ ｏｎ ｏｕｒ ｎｉｇｈｔｌｙ ｇａｍｅ ｓｈｏｗｓ; ｙｅｔ ｍａｊｏｒ ｎｅｔｗｏｒｋｓ ｗｉｔｈｏｕｔ ａ ｓｅｃｏｎｄ ｔｈｏｕｇｈｔ ｐｉｃｋ ｔｈｅｍ ｕｐ. Ｈｏｗ ｄｏ ｔｈｅｓｅ ｇｒａｐｈｉｃ ａｄｖｅｒｔｉｓｅｍｅｎｔｓ ｇｅｔ ｐａｓｔ ｔｈｅ ｃｅｎｓｏｒｓ? Ｔｈｅ ｅｎｖｅｌｏｐｅ ｈａｓ ｙｅｔ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｄｅｆｉｎｅｄ, ｂｕｔ ｏｎｅ ｔｈｉｎｇ ｉｓ ｃｅｒｔａｉｎ, ｉｎ ｔｏｄａｙ'ｓ ｃｕｌｔｕｒｅ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｅｌｙ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｐｕｓｈｅｄ. Ｃａｂｌｅ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ａｓｉｄｅ, ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｐｌｅｎｔｙ ｔｈａｔ ｉｓ ｃｕｒｒｅｎｔｌｙ ｆｌｏｏｄｉｎｇ ｔｈｅ ａｉｒｗａｖｅｓ ｔｈａｔ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｎｏｔ ｂｅ. Ｔｈｅ ｇｒｅａｔｅｓｔ ｉｓｓｕｅ ｔｈａｔ ｓｅｅｍｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｏｎ ｈａｎｄ ｉｓ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｒｅ ａｒｅ ｎｏ ｓｅｔ ｇｕｉｄｅｌｉｎｅｓ ｆｏｒ ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ａｎｄ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ. Ｔｈａｔ ｎｅｅｄｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ ｂｅｆｏｒｅ ａｎｙ ａｃｔｉｏｎ ｃａｎ ｂｅ ｔａｋｅｎ ａｇａｉｎｓｔ ａｎｙｏｎｅ. Ｉｔ ｉｓ ｎｏｔ ｆａｉｒ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅ Ｆｅｄｅｒａｌ Ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎｓ Ｃｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ ｃａｎ ｐｉｃｋ ａｎｄ ｃｈｏｏｓｅ ｗｈｏ ｔｏ ｐｕｎｉｓｈ ａｎｄ ｗｈｏ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｂｅ ａｂｌｅ ｔｏ ｇｅｔ ｏｆｆ ｗｉｔｈ ａ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇ (ｉｆ ａ ｗａｒｎｉｎｇ ｉｓ ｅｖｅｎ ｉｓｓｕｅｄ). Ａｄｄｉｔｉｏｎａｌｌｙ, ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｒｅｇｕｌａｔｉｏｎｓ ｓｅｔ ｎｅｅｄ ｔｏ ｂｅ ａｐｐｌｉｅｄ ｔｏ ａｌｌ - ｉｆ Ｈｏｗａｒｄ Ｓｔｅｒｎ ｈａｓ ｔｏ ｐａｙ $495,000 ｆｉｎｅ ａｎｄ ｈａｓ ｈｉｓ ｓｈｏｗ ｃａｎｃｅｌｌｅｄ ｉｎ ｓｉｘ ｍａｊｏｒ ｃｉｔｉｅｓ ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ ｏｆ ｈｉｓ ｓｅｘ ｔａｌｋ, ｔｈｅｎ Ｏｐｒａｈ ｓｈｏｕｌｄ ｈａｖｅ ｔｏ ｐａｙ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｆｉｎｅ; ｌｅｔ ｔｈｅ ｆｕｔｕｒｅ ｏｆ ｈｅｒ ｓｈｏｗ ｂｅ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｅｄ ｂｙ ｔｈｅ ｎｅｔｗｏｒｋｓ ｔｈａｔ ｃａｒｒｙ ｈｅｒ ｓｈｏｗ. Ｉｆ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｉｓ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｓｉｎｃｅｒｅ ａｂｏｕｔ ｃｌｅａｎｉｎｇ ｕｐ ｔｅｌｅｖｉｓｉｏｎ ａｎｄ ｒａｄｉｏ, ｔｈｅｎ ｉｔ ｗｉｌｌ ｂｅ ｒｅｑｕｉｒｅｄ ｔｈａｔ ｔｈｅｙ ａｒｅ ｃｏｎｓｉｓｔｅｎｔ ｉｎ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｅｆｆｏｒｔｓ; ｗｈａｔ ｉｓ ｄｅｃｉｄｅｄ ａｎｄ ｈｏｗ ｉｔ ｉｓ ａｐｐｌｉｅｄ. Ｔｈｅｒｅ ｉｓ ｎｏ ｒｏｏｍ ｆｏｒ ａｎｙ ｏｆｆｉｃｉａｌｓ ｔｏ ｗａｖｅｒ ｉｎ ｔｈｅｉｒ ｄｅｃｉｓｉｏｎｓ. Ｉｆ ａ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｉｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｍａｄｅ, ｅｉｔｈｅｒ ｅｖｅｒｙｏｎｅ ｏｒ ｎｏ ｏｎｅ ｈａｓ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｐｕｎｉｓｈｅｄ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｅ ｓａｍｅ ｃｒｉｍｅｓ. Ｕｎｔｉｌ ｉｔ ｃａｎ ｂｅ ｄｅｔｅｒｍｉｎｅｄ ｗｈｅｒｅ ｔｈｅ ｌｉｎｅ ｃａｎ ｂｅ ｄｒａｗｎ ｂｅｔｗｅｅｎ ｄｅｃｅｎｔ ａｎｄ ｉｎｄｅｃｅｎｔ, ｉｔ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｏｐｉｎｉｏｎ ｏｆ ｔｈｉｓ ｗｒｉｔｅｒ ｔｈａｔ ｎｏ ｏｎｅ ｃａｎ ｒｅａｌｌｙ ｂｅ ｐｕｎｉｓｈｅｄ ｆｏｒ ａｎｙｔｈｉｎｇ. Ａｓ ｅｎｔｅｒｔａｉｎｅｒｓ ａｎｄ ｏｒｄｉｎａｒｙ ｐｅｏｐｌｅ ａｌｌ ｏｖｅｒ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕｅ ｔｏ ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ ｊｕｓｔ ｈｏｗ ｆａｒ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ ｃａｎ ｇｏ, ｏｎｅ ｔｈｉｎｇ ｂｅｃｏｍｅｓ ｑｕｉｔｅ ｃｌｅａｒ: ｉｆ ｔｈｅ ｍａｓｓ ｍｅｄｉａ ｉｓ ｇｏｉｎｇ ｔｏ ｂｅ ｃｌｅａｎｅｄ ｕｐ ｔｏ ｔｈｅ ｐｏｉｎｔ ｏｆ ｂｅｉｎｇ ｖｉｅｗｅｒ ｆｒｉｅｎｄｌｙ, ｔｈｅｎ ｔｈｅ ｍｅｄｉａ ｈａｓ ａ ｈｅａｄ ｓｔａｒｔ, ａｎｄ ｔｈｅ ＦＣＣ ｈａｓ ａ ｌｏｔ ｏｆ ｃａｔｃｈｉｎｇ ｕｐ ｔｏ ｄｏ. |
Image of international standards accounting
 |
| international standards accounting |
international standards accounting Image 1
 |
| international standards accounting |
international standards accounting Image 2
 |
| international standards accounting |
international standards accounting Image 3
 |
| international standards accounting |
international standards accounting Image 4
 |
| international standards accounting |
international standards accounting Image 5
Related blog with international standards accounting
- forumnewsfeed.wordpress.com/...to support the move to International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”): The Commission...globally accepted accounting standards will...
- accountinghistory.blogspot.com/... Accountants (CICA) issued an exposure draft on International Accounting Standards for inclusion in the CICA Handbook . The exposure draft notes that the CICA is...
- spicaalmilia.wordpress.com/...Melissa Moy and Richard D. Morris This study examines the relationship between use of international accounting standards and companies’ source of finance. We Investigate the proposition contained...
- lawprofessors.typepad.com/The SEC's proposal to allow foreign companies to use international accounting standards in SEC filings is under criticism by two groups. The European Association...
- theyenguy.wordpress.com/... internal models instead of market prices, the International Accounting Standards Board said in a letter published on its website...
- walldorf.typepad.com/...full perspective, on International Accounting Standards Board news: In October...set by the Financial Accounting Standards Board since 1973...
- spicaalmilia.wordpress.com/...in accounting standards across national boundaries relative to International Accounting Standards (IAS) has an impact on the ability of financial analysts to forecast...
- blogtiara.wordpress.com/...transparansi dan komparabilitas laporan keuangan. Definisi International Financial Reporting Standards (atau mantan International Standar Akuntansi – IAS) yang diadopsi oleh...
- nfpauditacctg.wordpress.com/... out that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) ...specific nonprofit accounting standards in GAAP really...
- ivythesis.typepad.com/The International Accounting Standards was founded... it to the Bangladesh Accounting Standards. (BAS) On the same date...
International Standards Accounting - Blog Homepage Results
...which is the equivalent of AICPA in U.S announced that it will bring its accounting standards in line with the International Financial Reporting Standards from 2011. India is a growing...
... USA & Canada April 4, 2012 International Stem Cell Corporation Provides Update... Print Live Cells with a Standard Inkjet Printer March 19, 2012 Stem Cells...
...Corporation’s Management and Standards Committee. Long serving...from current and former News International journalists who...He gave an account of those days...
Related Video with international standards accounting
international standards accounting Video 1
international standards accounting Video 2
international standards accounting Video 3
international standards accounting
International Accounting Standards IAS International Accounting Standards List International Accounting Standard 17 International Accounting Standard 16 International Accounting Standards Summary Download International Accounting Standards International Financial Reporting Standards What Is International Accounting
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기