PETA is against eating pork for dinner but now faults NBC for rejecting a PETA Super Bowl ad that depicts what looks like the beginning of a home party striptease performance. In the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica case, the Supreme Court upheld the federal broadcast indecency law, at one point comparing broadcast indecency to a "nuisance . . . like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard."
All across America, communities large and small are enacting sexually oriented business laws to restrict where strip joints can locate and the hours of their operation. If the vast majority of these communities had a choice, they would ban these moral pigsties altogether.
Now, the Guardian of our dinner tables wants to beam the beginnings of an uninvited striptease act into tens of millions of homes during what is often the most-watched entertainment program of the season and one that attracts millions of children. Many will eat dinner at some point while watching the game.
And unlike the Super Bowl 2004 Halftime Show debacle involving the exposure of
PETA has a long history of engaging in morally offensive antics to promote its radical animal rights agenda, but it does its partly worthy cause no favor by doing so. Few adults consider eating meat to be morally wrong; most adults are offended by or concerned about indecent content on TV.
The broadcast TV networks have a long history of broadcasting morally offensive programming, network promos, and sponsor ads into American homes at all hours, including the family hour. But at least on this occasion, NBC TV got it right when it said no to PETA smut.
SOURCE Morality in Media