FCC to Regulate 'Profane' Speech 1206
The Importance of writes "The FCC has been regulating 'indecent' speech on the airwaves for quite some time, but have been getting a lot more attention recently. For example, during last year's Golden Globe Awards U2's Bono said 'This is really, really f-ing brilliant.' Last October the FCC ruled that was ok. Yesterday, under political pressure, the FCC overruled that decision. However, for the first time, the FCC also ruled that the f-word is not only 'indecent' but also 'profane.' According to this new decision by the FCC, any speech that is grossly offensive, whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.' This is a major step forward (backward?) for FCC censors. My analysis is here."
Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything anyone can say is offensive to someone. Expect to see this used against all sorts of things that no sane person would think of as 'profane'.
Bloody sods! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Battle Rages On (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* A struggle more eternal than Linux and SCO...
Overreaching their charter (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the FCC even have the right to add new things to the list of what they regulate? It was my understanding that they enforced decency regs, but could not define them.
Damn it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people find Howard Stern's show to be grossly offensive, however many other people love it. If Stern's show really stepped over the line, people would stop listening to it. If people stopped listening to it, the show would be canceled, and he would be off the air.
I don't understand how Republicans get away with this level of hypocrisy. They are in favor of privitization and less Government regulation of businesses, except when it comes to what can be said in the media. Republicans are in favor of states' rights, except when it comes to a state choosing to allow same-sex marraige. Republicans are "ultra-moralistic" in their own minds, impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual relationship, but when it comes to a Republican aide in the Senate hacking into sensitive Democrat files, only Orin Hatch has the honor to stand against it.
The FCC's ruling is really, really fucking awful.
~JISA
Like a woman suffering PMS (Score:2, Insightful)
Plain and simple, the FCC needs to decide what its stance actually is, and evolve from there... NOT take back all of your progress because someone with money has a vested interest
Howard Stern (Score:1, Insightful)
Fuck this! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
What's new here? (Score:1, Insightful)
Definitions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bloody sods! (Score:5, Insightful)
PARENT YOUR OWN KIDS (Score:5, Insightful)
"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
-- Clare Booth Luce, American playwright and diplomat
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know....I think I prefer crass to waking up to a loud speaker shouting, "Time for Teletubbies! Time for Teletubbies!" every morning for our government mandated exercise session. Also chanting Kumbiyah with your neighbors at sundown every day doesn't appeal to me either.
We are doomed to be food for Morlocks; it is becoming more obvious every day.
Britney (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC Must Be Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
Where does the money from fines go?
Who needs them to regulate anything?
I have 2-13 piped into my house through cable and or satellite therefore I pay for those stations, how dare they regulate what I pay for!
The FCC must be abolished.
Obsenity - the moving target (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems the rules should be applied universally.
Fucking. Not Effing. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, during last year's Golden Globe Awards U2's Bono said 'This is really, really f-ing [sic] brilliant.'
Who needs the FCC when people decide that words like 'fucking' needs to be self-censored? If you're going to fucking quote someone, fuck, man, QUOTE THEM. You're caving in against your own fucking thesis.
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you never heard of an off-switch or don't they build then into American TVs so you cant steal from the TV companies by switching off and not watching the progams that occasionally appear between the adverts ?
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
the fcc is effectively acting as the judicial and legislative branches when it's deciding what is and isn't moral for the ears of both adults and of children.
as a father with children, its your responsibility to monitor what goes in those little ears, and to teach those young 'uns some respect along the way. that's how societ has digressed to a more disrespectfull society. not because some T.V. show uses the word shit or fuck too many times. its because the parents aren't there to monitor their children. they're off earning their 6 figure salaries so they can send the kids to daycare and off to after school activities to lessen the family time together.
you don't like what's on the air waves? get rid of the television. you don't like what's on the radio (read: stern), do away with the radio. your children will be better off by it (though i'm not giving mine up, i'll just watch it with the kids).
we don't need some beauracratic (sp) entity to give moral guideance to our children. we need to accept responsibility for our children's upbringing and take action for that. i would much rather have no fcc involvement in the content that is transmitted across the airwaves. sure, i'd personally use my parental controls if there were a 24x7 playboy type channel on the public airwaves, because i think the freedoms outlined in the constitution have more value than the regulations that are far too often implemented.
Re:This does not lead to censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
It hurts kids to not teach them boundaries, and to excuse them when they do things 'to get rises out of people.'
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
" As a father with children, or just a human being for that matter, it's disturbing how society continues to slide towards being more disrespectful and crass toward each other."
And as a father who is raising our kids to understand that words are merely words, and that some are extremely offensive to others, and to have both the maturity and restraint to know WHEN such cases apply, allow me to say that the FCC can go fuck themselves.
This is a MAJOR problem in the US. We keep expecting society to "protect" our children from themselves. Whatever happened to parents actually parenting? Bad things on TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! Read a freakin' book! Play a game with them! Take them hiking! And instill in them a BASIC FREAKIN' MORAL COMPASS and the ability to think critically!
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as they aren't regulating Cable, Satellite, or the Net - which a consumer chooses to bring into their home - it's fine.
There's a situation now with the networks trying to compete with the likes of HBO or Comedy Central, and seeing how far they can push it.
The reaction to the superbowl stunt shows that the folks are simply sick of it.
I'm as profane as anyone, and enjoy South Park and fart jokes, etc.. But it doesn't belong on the public spectrum, they're for everybody.
I enjoy Howard Sterns show from time to time. I hope he's successful on Sirius or other payed service. He does not belong on the public dial.
It isn't censorship. It's regulating the use of a public resource, which is their job. You can't swear and flash your tits on a public station any more than you can in a public park.
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And as you point out, the average American watches total crap.
Re:This does not lead to censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if I don't want the kids to listen to something on the radio, I turn it off or change the channel
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I Agree With This (Score:1, Insightful)
Since the broadcasters get free use of these valuable airwaves, it's not too much to ask that they not broadcast indecent material. There should be some level of decency that they can't go below.
I think the broadcasters have had too long to go below this, and it's about time they crack down.
If they don't like it, they can put it on cable or satellite radio. Free Public airwaves can and should be regulated.
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Insightful)
The JJ nipple thingy would not have happened if it wasn't for the overreaction it was boudn to cause.
For that matter, youa re objectign to breast feeding? Must be, can't show somethign as natural as a breast to your kid, esp. not at that age!
Expecting some rules for what is not appropriate to eb shown during a time when you can expect young children to watch? makes sense. goign beyond that? thats simply censorship, nothign more and nothing less.
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for supporting the Ban on Nipples on TeeVee, but don't you dare try to shut down wholesome things, like when two football players smack together and one of them gets a broken leg or neck. That shit is the bomb! ...and it helps Timmy build character!
Re:broadcast tv only? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once people get used to having the FCC take on a Comstockian role in censoring broadcast television, they are far less likely to protest if Congress expands the scope of the FCC to cover cable, satelite, and other mediums. Congress has already gone after the internet, after all....
Re:Damn it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the opposite is largely true. If you saw the movie Private Parts (if you haven't, don't), you'd know that Howard Stern almost wears that as a badge of pride, that people who like him tune in to see what he'll do next, and that people who hate him tune in to see what he'll do next.
This has no bearing on the validity of banning a word without regard to its usage or context, but I wanted to point out that your statement is not inherently true. "Crossing the line" is more likely to attract new viewers than repel existing ones, regardless of whether it's appropriate (by whatever definition).
Re:YAY! Lets watch out mouths now! (Score:2, Insightful)
Needless to say, the Internet is completely exempt.
IMHO, the FCC has gone far, far beyond their original duty... (they were originally founded to help avoid wireless transmissions from stepping all over each other and hosing up rescue efforts, party in response to the Titanic disaster.)
OTOH, in my very humble opinion I see no problem with them telling people to clean up their language with regards to public broadcasting, since there is nowhere near the sense of access control that you have with private subscription-like services.
Disagree with Slashdot, get modded down. (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought this site was in favor of free speech and dissent, not censorship! Your Rights Online, indeed!!!
I, too, am a father with kids and am glad that the FCC is FINALLY cracking down. If you want profanity, you've got satellite, cable, or the video/DVD market. If if goes out over public airwaves, there should be restrictions; it is the law, after all....
C'mon. Mod me down and the parent up. Take 7 points away from me, but don't censor people's viewpoints just because they differ from yours. Man, I wish I had yesterday's mod points back. I'd give it an Interesting or an Insightful, not an "I'm going to censor your 'alternate' viewpoint with a FlameBait rating."
yes, the airwaves DO belong to us. (Score:1, Insightful)
The airwaves DO belong to the public, and therefor some balance must be struck. Whether or not *I* am offended by the F-word is not necessarily relevant.
I've always tried to look at things in the perspective of a continuum. Many times it provides a perspective.
In this context, I would anchor either end of the continuum with what I'd consider extremes that define the continuum reasonably well. So, on one end of the continuum I might describe a person on TV (or radio) simply saying, "Hello" to the audience. That seems extreme enough to define a highly INoffensive use of the public airwaves.
On the other end of this continuum I might describe some reality TV show whereby the goal is to survive in the real sense -- and the way a contestant survives is by being the last contestant alive. Each contestant must avoid being killed by the others. AND, the killing must be done with 6-inch knives... and this would be broadcast live and un-edited.
I would believe that would describe pretty wide ends of a spectrum/continuum. I also would submit that almost everyone would agree that somewhere between scenario one, and scenario two, a line is crossed whereby the material has become universally unacceptable. Where exactly that line is noone really knows, nor will anyone ever know.
In the meantime, for the sake of having standards, a line gets drawn. Being somewhere between my two extreme points, obviously some will cry foul. Get over it -- there will never be a way to make everyone happy.
Remember, a democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider all of the alternatives...
Re:Damn it! (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC only regulates radio and broadcast TV, and in 2004 these are rapidly becoming a small fraction of the available media.
You can cry censorship and First Amendment rights till you're blue in the face, but it's perfectly reasonable to set aside a small part of the media and allow the government to regulate it to a reasonable level.
This doesn't violate anyone's rights and no one is holding a gun to Howard Stern's head saying he can't say anything he wants on other media. Besides, I have a hard time believing someone as obviously smart as he having such a hard time not coming up with something else to talk about besides lesbians.
Re:This does not lead to censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, too bad if kids were watching the Superbowl. Actually, not really. There are bad words in the world. People fuck. Stop shielding them from the real world.
Honestly, you'd better not let your wife breastfeed your kids. They might see a nipple. And no sex for you two either. What if they walk in!???
Re:Overreaching their charter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I sue my Cable Co ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I did not pay money to have a television raise your fucking kids. I support child care programs with tax dollars, but using laws and regulations to replace parenting with a TV is too much.
--Tsiangkun
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can make "fuck" illegal, but when you do the government is one step closer to jailing you for the above comment. Think about that. Society needs to be able to be free to offend other people. Because sometimes good ideas are offensive.
Sorry if it bothers your kids. Don't watch TV. It's not that good anyway
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I would prefer to be the one in control when it comes to what I or my children watch, read or listen to. Not the government. Why right does the government have to disagree over what a parent has a responsibility for? Republicans say it's okay to take responsibility for firearms in my house but not a radio?
As for the slide in society, do we blame people for the verbage of others? I think it has more to do with people taking liberties without being responsible for them. "Hey, some singer says an f-bomb so that mean I can say the f-bomb whenevery I want." That is someone not taking a responsibility for acting civil in public. If someone sees a rape in a movie, commits rape, do you go after the movie or the criminal? If someone kills because of the bible do we start censoring the bible or prosecute the murderer?
What nerves me about the whole situation is that this FCC business is not about decency, it's about power (and money i.e. power).
Unprotected Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
They are going after obscene speech, not just offensive.
Personally, if someone wants to create a show that is obscene, it needs to be restricted to adults. NOT be broadcast to the general public. Much as PPV porno is already.
Re:This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm all for repealing the law requiring all citizens to listen to Howard Stern for 3 hours a day.
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really nice to know there are still parents out there who think like I do and believe it's the responsibility of the parents to teach and or protect their children. Unfortunately, we're in a sad minority on those views. It's too easy to make children, then let the schools and the TV babysit them... practically effortless.
I don't think I want my children "numbed" by shows that use profanity as it there were no tomorrow, so we don't let them watch shows like The Sopranos, rather than complain to HBO about it.
TV is a fairly decent tool for recreation, but shouldn't be a medium where kids spend all their free time, wether it be watching Nickelodeon, the Science Channel, or playing a PS2 game. Unfortunately, a good number of parents would rather let their kids stare glassy eyed at the TV rather than expend the energy it takes to spend time with them.
Another nail in the coffin for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
OK so it was wrong, she shouldn't have shown her boob (waldrobe malfunction my ass, attention grabbing idea more like) on national TV during a family show but please, get over it!
My personal opinion is that the US should follow the UK rule, have censorship until 9 pm and then tone it down. It's the parents responsibility to limit what children watch at a time when those that are young and impressional should be asleep anyway.
Ever heard of a thing called the off switch?
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Television broadcasters are allowed exclusive access to use our airwaves for free. In exchange for this incredibly valuable resource, which is collectively owned by The People, they are compelled to serve the public interest, which includes conforming to public standards of decent behavior.
It has been proposed many times by libertarians such as myself that TV signal bands should be auctioned off like real-estate to whoever is willing to pay for it, and then the FCC could collect a small tax from them for enforcement, but otherwise broadcasters could do whatever they like with the airwave spectrum they've purchased fair and square. The networks are addicted to free bandwidth, though, so they scream and wail every time it's brought up. Unless and until such a reform is made, they are accountable to the people, and the FCC is charges with enforcing the will of the people.
If you want to watch a show where people say "fuck" all the time, subscribe to HBO on cable. The Sopranos just recently got season 5 underway.
Re:Disagree with Slashdot, get modded down. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overreaching their charter (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:3, Insightful)
When the song that I was listening to ends either another song starts or the DJ starts talking. Is 50cent coming on next with a long profane diatribe that I don't want my child hearing? Or is the DJ coming on talking about hookers giving oral to the interns and whether or not they like anal? This is putting me in a situation where I cannot control what I or my child will hear next and that is unacceptable. Basically, I am forced to listen. Your next argument will be that I should turn off my radio. This too is an unacceptable argument.
The public airwaves are for everyone. Not just you, EVERYONE. That means that Little Jonnie has just as much right to be able to listen to the radio as you do. Little Jonnie should not be subjected to discussions of oral sex or F-ing this and F-ing that or anything else of the kind. The public airwaves must maintain the highest standards of decency so that any and everyone can listen without being offended.
That doesn't mean that you should not be able to watch your favorite girl-on-girl action on TV or heard graphic, expletive laced conversation on the radio. It means that the public should not be forced to watch or listen to it. For those like yourselves, there are cable channels and satelite radio channels that carry your preferred content. If you choose that type of entertainment, I will not attempt to prevent you from getting it. I just don't want to be forced to experience it myself.
One of the reasons that the FCC was created was to maintain these standards of decency on the public airwaves. However, for some reason they have chosen not to do their job for the past 10 or 15 years and the airwaves are in such a state that it is truely unbelievable. It is about time they did their jobs and it seems that they are starting to again.
Re:Long overdue FCC! -Your Opinion Should be Heard (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does the word "FUCK" need to be said in broadcast media? Freedom of speech used to mean the ability to freely disseminate any idea without fear of reprisal; now it means vocal minorities have the right to have their words forced into our ears. Other than discussion of the use of the word "FUCK" what ideas are censored by not being able to use the word "FUCK" on network feeds, which as this poster notes are seen and listened to by children?
It would seem the average slashdotter has no problem with strangers going up to other peoples' children and using any string of obscenities they want.
Maybe the FCC has gone too far, maybe it hasn't, but it sickens me to see how quickly the knee jerk liberal Slashdot bias is enforced by moderators who clearly didn't have enough time to ready the article in question before modding this comment down.
Other than pre-recording and screening all TV-programming how are parents supposed to ensure their children receive wholesome fare? You may not think the word "FUCK" is harmful for a young child to hear (or other words or images), but that would only be your opinion not a provable fact.
I'm sure if Jason Timberlake hadn't just exposed Janet Jackson's boob, but actually torn all her clothes off and sodomized her for fifteen minutes with extreme camera close-ups and slow motion replay -- that too would be just fine with a great many as well.
Is there really no line at all?
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a member of both the ACLU and the ACU (American Conservative Union). Does that count? Both of them are all for getting government off my back, and that's fine by me. I believe that both fight hard to defend our Constitution from the treasonous politicians and other officials, even though they can sometimes be at odds with one another on a particular issue. I'm not alone, either; Bob Barr is a well-known conservative who frequently does work for both the ACU and the ACLU. What it took to bridge the two organizations was a terrorist act commited by zealots followed by terrorist acts commited by our government in response thereto.
I cannot think of a more inappropriate response to the murder of three thousand people than the wholesale destruction of the values, ideals, and liberties by which they lived, in their name.
!(life > liberty)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now are you going to prevent your children from viewing Slashdot or are you going to write to your congressman to have Slashdot be censored because you're too lazy to monitor your children?
I for one believe the web should not be sensored. This environment is truly one where a person can express whatever ideas they like. What I do appreciate is content ratings (similar to movies, video games, etc...) where I can filter the content at my end. Your comment about parents preventing children from viewing content is where I believe control should be. Not everyone will want to have the filtering and they shouldn't have to put up with it. Some things can be better expressed using foul language (adds a bit of emphasis in most cases).
Re:Damn it! (religious right and Oprah) (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be honest and clear about this too - it is not just the FCC who is doing this, they are getting lots of pressure from the religious right on these issues. This is a perfect example of how a specialty group is directly influencing the government.
The FCC looks like a bunch of idiots over these issues. They are bringing up issues that are *YEARS* old, and fining people for them. The issue they are fining Howard Stern over is from 2001.
I listen to Stern on occasion, and have been more frequently recently. This morning was a fantastic illustration of how stupid this all is. He played a clip from the Jimmy Kimmel show, where Jimmy was defending Howard. He said that they should be going after the filthiest person on TV - Oprah. Jimmy then played a clip from the Oprah show, where she was talking with some women about sex things. They were laughing and having a good time. One of the women mentioned "tossing salad" [everything2.com], and then proceeded to describe what it was. When Howard played this clip, it was bleeped (time delay removed) from his show. He begged his GM to let him play the clip. It was from Oprah, which runs in the mid-afternoon.
Here is the point - Oprah can get away with this kind of talk on her show, but Howard gets fined for something not nearly as graphic from 2001? He has a great argument - if they play the clip and get fined, the FCC would HAVE to fine Oprah. They would never fine Oprah. If they didn't, they would be obvious hypocrites, and if they did they would be showing the world how stupid they are behaving. You don't mess with Oprah. It would make national news if Oprah was fined for indecency.
It is all a big joke, and the religious right is standing firmly behind this one. They have strong ties to Senators (giving them cheap housing) as well as other government officials. Hell, some government officials ARE part of the religious right - all the way up to the drunk-driving President and Vice President. (1 and 2 offenses respectively)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Airwaves belong to the people (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC doesn't just regulate obscene content - what about the "equal time" requirements? What about the public service message requirements?
Act like a father!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then stop being a father and human and start acting like one and teach your kids what is right and wrong, how to act polite with company, what they should and shouldn't watch, yada yada yada
Nothing gets done just looking at it or waiting for others to do it!
--
my sig censors your lame ass
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Indicative of the American mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
This just reminds me, yet again, of how messed up Americans' values are in so many ways, a fact that was first brought to my attention when I went to the United Kingdom (my first trip abroad) back in 1995. Over there, TV is not censored, at least not to the degree that it is here. They leave in nudity, sex, profanity, and all the other stuff. There's very little protest about it because they have a much more mature attitude -- they believe that adults should be allowed to watch whatever they want to watch without having the government tell them whether or not it's OK for them. More importantly, they also believe that if there's a show that has sex, violence, profanity, or anything else they might happen to find offensive, the proper course of action is to change the channel or turn off the set, not to say that nobody else at all should be allowed to see that stuff on TV.
I wish we had that attitude here. As others have said, I find religious junk like "The 700 Club" highly offensive, but I simply don't watch it -- and I don't expect the government to ban it. People who want to see it should be allowed to without government interference, just as people who want to see "Die Hard" uncut should be allowed to without government interference as well.
Re:Damn it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that doesn't mean that this latest "no f-word" nonsense is legal. The FCC regulation of the airwaves is supposed to be allowed because of the small capacity of the radio spectrum. With sat radio, sat TV, cable TV, internet radio, and someday internet TV that argument are becoming less and less persusive.
This latest "crackdown" is purely for political gains. It's an election year and the Bush administration is in trouble. They're looking for anything to appease the conservative voter. "Hey look, we cleaned up that damn Howard Stern. please vote for us". The whole thing is just posturing. I'd compare it to when you were 8 years old and your parents decided to "crack down on this TV viewing". Two weeks later the big crack down was over, and it's business as usual.
Catalyst (Score:4, Insightful)
That's it, folks. I'm not saying I agree with the FCC's kneejerk reaction, but this is why people are upset and we should aknowledge it when discussing this topic.
Having said that, I do believe that there is no cause for relegating broadcast & cable television to G-rated content. If you don't like the services rendered to you, don't patronize it.
Re:Disagree with Slashdot, get modded down. (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon. Mod me down and the parent up. Take 7 points away from me, but don't censor people's viewpoints just because they differ from yours.
How did your head not explode as you were writing that down?
Seriously, you post whines about moderation used to "censor" something you agree with AND clamours on about the holy righjeousness of using federal regulations to censor what YOU disagree with.
I think it should be illegal to be that contradictory.
Armchair moralists (Score:2, Insightful)
When are people going to wake up and start taking care of their own households before they start passing gargantuan federal mandates? Watch TV with your children and monitor the viewing. Spend time with your children and don't let them play alone. Go out with your children and show them through example what proper behavior is. Expecting the government to raise your children, police your society, and walk your dog for you is only going to lead to more laws and regulations about speech, traffic, and dog-poop.
Then again... when the citizens pay close to 50% or more in taxes (12.5% social security, +federal, +state, +local, +6% sales, +gasoline, +energy, +cable, +alcohol, +tobacco, +registration fees, +school participation fees which are supposed to be funded by preexisting taxes, +real estate taxes, etc.)... shouldn't they be entitled to expect this sort of warm security blanket from their big brother?
We're going to end up with the one-size fits all security blanket if you rich yuppies and soccer moms don't get your heads out of your asses and then no one will be happy.
Don't give me any crap about voting, either. As one of the oldest forms of decision making known to civilized man, any decision (eg. election) which relies on the democratic process is inherently RIGGED.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Whenever I walk through town here, the peopel who try to stop me and have a discussion are without exception trying to push one religion or another, but never did I encounter atheists among them.
That might be different where you live, but soemhow I doubt it. I somehow believe that esp. more conservative christians in the USA think that seperation of church and state equals atheism.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay, first of all - how can speech be free if there's an agency in charge of regulating it?
Second, the FCC was created to dish out segments of the broadcasting frequencies and that really isn't an issue anymore... so... I'm really confused why the FCC is now doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with their charter?!
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Profanity as a word only came into existence as a result of religion. Only one out of the four definitions for "profane" from dictionary.com did not have to do with the word "sacred."
Funny enough, profanity is really just something that is not religious. The FCC is profane, in this case.
I think that Washington D.C. is full of idiots.
This is living proof (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm dead serious when I say that too.
This kind of crap never made any sense to me when I was a kid, and it makes even less sense now. Who are these cretins who are so afraid of "bad words" anyway? What kind of bizarre "thoughts" go through their minds that would lead them to go as far as exerting political pressure on the government to protect them from these words?
I just don't get it. Even the "Its for the children!" argument doesn't hold water in my book. Kids need to be protected from many things, but words are not among them. Besides, if these words were truly evil or harmful in some way, they quite simply would have died out ages ago. No one would know them because our ancestors would have stopped using them. The very fact that they have persisted in our language proves that they are harmless. There is simply a legion of brain-dead morons who believe they are. The world would be a much better place if they didn't breed more of themselves.
You can mark this bullshit down under 'A' for absurd.
Re:Let me just say this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really?
Please refresh my memory, in how many European countries can you get actual jail time for drawing Swastikas? What about selling Nazi artifacts on eBay? How many years does that get you?
What about this?
The Council of Europe has added provisions to its European Convention on Cybercrime that criminalize certain Internet content.
Link. [michbar.org]
Link 2 [findlaw.com]
Need I go on?
I just love it when you Euros try to display your superiority by criticizing the Yanks on the issue of free speech.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
The line will be drawn somewhere. Obscenity/profanity is an enormous gray area, not just a black and white "legislation of morality" issue. Jeez.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Religious groups (and the bible) teach that lesbianism and homosexuality are abominations before God, when in fact it turns out that it's pretty much predetermined behaviour, not a "choice". so, how can you condemn someone for sinning if what they are doing is normal for them.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are totally right! Forcing children to listen to 30+ minutes of nonstop commercials is abuse, pure and simple. What kind of life are you preparing them for?
====---====
Re:Overreaching their charter (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, you don't want Congress making these decisions - there is legislation on the Hill to extend indecency regulations to Cable and Satellite, and to name specifically those words that are illegal to say (including the f-word).
It's safe to say that this ruling (and any legislation by Congress) would be challenged in court. Based on the language in the Pacifica case, I suspect the ruling and any hypothetical laws would be reversed.
-Alison (IANAL, and I don't speak for my employer)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I've heard that argument, and it's bullshit. If he'd ripped off her top to reveal a bikini or an undershirt, nobody would be bitching! Hell, if he'd pulled out a bullwhip and pretended to be beating her, there would have been much less controversy! (That last would have offended me but I generally find myself in a minority when it comes to the relative offensiveness of violence vs. sex and/or nudity.) On the other hand, if Janet had calmly and peacefully pulled off her own top to reveal her own nipple, the general public reaction would have been almost identical.
The fact is that we had a firestorm of controversy because a nipple was exposed on live television. Oh the horror, oh the humanity. The supposed violence of the act (and frankly, it didn't look that violent to me) is a distraction being clutched at by those who want to be offended by the nipple but have barely enough intellectual integrity left to realize their position isn't very sound or defensible.
My kids were weaned only a couple of years ago. I don't see any reason why the sight of a nipple on television should be dangerous or harmful to them. They've seen plenty of nipples in their lives, and will probably (hopefully) see plenty more before those lives are done.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but I think he should be allowed to talk about it.
I'm sorry you hate free speech so much.
And yet (Score:1, Insightful)
As a christian *I* find it offensive that people like you are trying to force the shows off radio that I enjoy.
I don't think jesus cares if we look at a saggy boob, or talk about anal sex. And if he does, then heaven probably isn't worth going to.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
The Bible is full of fallacies, one being that gays and lesbians are doing something that is an abomination before god, when in fact what they are doing is within the norms of human behaviour, and pretty much pre-determined before birth. Get some facts [slashdot.org] about human development, and you'll see that the Bible is wrong.
Now, since Jesus held the Bible to be absolute truth, he was wrong as well, or a psychotic.
The hatred aspect comes in when Bible-thumpers, relying on inaccurate "scripture" rather than science and common-sense, say that other people's lifestyles are offensive, and that unless they "repent", they are going to hell.
Repent - to turn away from something, to regret having done something, to repudiate something. Why should gays and lesbians regret or repudiate that which is within the range of normal behaviour in most mammals?
Get over it - the Bible is superstitious junk, hate literature at its' most purile because of the many levels it works on, and filled with so much pornography that children shouldn't be allowed access to it.
When God commands that all the men, and every male child over a certain age, be killed, and that the women be taken as slaves, this is sick stuff.
When God commands that believers may not marry non-believers, it is the God-fearing who are intolerant, not the non-believers.
When Jesus says "believe in me and you shall be saved", he is condemning non-believers to hell.
When God condemns Adam and Eve for disobeying him (even though, not having yet eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they don't have the capacity to understand what disobedience is, never mind what good and evil are), God is indulging in a form of entrapment that us lesser beings would object to. In short, he's an ass.
So, since God created the biology that allows for men and women to be born straight, gay, lesbian, or transexual, he has to take SOME of the responsability. Or are you going to argue against the evidence, and say that sexual preferences are a choice? Did you choose YOUR sexual preference? Or did you just one day discover that members of the opposite sex were no longer "icky" but "mmm- nice!" ? So, if you didn't choose your sexual orientation and gender, who are you to condemn others who didn't either?
I not only don't condemn them - I wholeheartedly support them. Why? Because giving others equal rights enhances all of us as human beings.It's a win-win situation. Whereas depriving others of equal rights degrades us all.
And those who seek to deprive others of their rights in the name of God deserve to be shown for the ignorant fools they are.
So, flame away, but stuff the "you must believe or you will go to hell" stuff. It's coercive hate literature at its' worst.
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Murder, on the other hand, barely affects the rating. I am still mystified as to how Disney managed to get a G (a G!) rating on a cartoon that depicts a murder of a human being (Pocahontas).
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Erections lasting longer than three hours require immediate medical attention."
That's really f-ing brilliant!
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, as if that happened. This country needs to grow the fuck up. I'm certainly not a baby, the on/off switch and tuner knobs work on my radio/tv, and I certainly remember how to work them when I find content I consider disturbing. You figure that children aren't listening to his show as they should all either be under a parent's supervision or at school during his program.
You give these government assholes an inch, and they take a mile. Our basic freedoms are being eroded here and you're complaining about a hypothetical event. Howard has never waved his genitals in front of children and you're an idiot for saying such.
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to realize what actually is and isn't a bad influence on everybody (face it, kids aren't the only ones to condone violence because they are over-exposed to it). Profanity only has power if we grant it power, and censoring it is the fastest way to do that. There's nothing wrong with saying "oh shit" if we say that there isn't, but murder is always wrong.
Basically, the FCC needs to censor and rate less on content and more on themes. Murder seems to be ok if you don't show the actual murder scene, and that just doesn't make sense. It works the same way for drug use, robbery, arsen, you name it.
I'd much prefer to walk down the halls of a high school and hear "fuck, that test was hard" than "Darn, that was a hard test, I'd like to kill Mr. Smith for giving it to us."
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, Jesus didn't write no Bible (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for in context swearing on television when they stipulate a disclaimer in advance. The worst thing is when a regular show comes on, and the context suddenly slips into profanity without warning.
How cute is it when a 3-year-old says, "This is fucking great" - and repeats it because of the exciting reaction culled from both sides. Look at the polarity (and sheer number) of posts here. That three-year-old gets all of it from the teenager laughing, "that's cool!", to the old lady, "my WORD!".
So what context does that child have for the proper use of words that create such polarity? I, as a parent, struggle with that.
Further, in school (no choice here, all US children must go to school), the kids curse - to eachother. If your child thinks it is "just fine" to curse to a teacher, your child will be punished. Is this censorship, too? Yes, perhaps it is. It also teaches the lesson that there are appropriate times, places and situations where cursing is acceptable (which is true in school, business, the courtroom and government). So, until everything comes into perfect alignment and there is no inappropriate time and place, at least tell me before cursing to my kids.
For the Superbowl, my kids did watch, and they never saw the nipple. If they did, they didn't see the nipple. Sure as hell though, they were grossly effected by it the next day. Because of the polarized REACTION to it. So now nudity is just a little more "cool", and a little more "accepted" - but sure as hell, I don't want my kids mooning the teacher, or a football stadium.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
If Janet Jackson had pulled her little stunt here, people would have thought it interesting for like 5 minutes, maybe even a bit sad. There certainly wouldn't have been questions in the house.
We produced TV series like Queer as Folk, The Singing Detective and The Buddha of Suburbia. Basically, you can't show erections on TV, penetrative sex or details of female genitalia. The word "cunt" is considered pretty dangerous territory. But that's about it.
Saying that, I think Blair might send us in your direction if we're not careful.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. Better our leaders do anything they want in the 'name of God', rather than being accountable to the public. The original poster didn't say, "Gee, I want to move to a totalitarian country!", he said, "I'm fucking tired of all of these religious wackos pushing their views on me!"
Big difference. Yet, I'd say 90% of the time someone complains about the growing problem with religion in the US, they are told to go to China. Then again, this is consistent with my experiences in dealing with rabid Christians -- they're nice only to people just like them, and want everyone else dead. Anyone who disagrees with the way Americans do things should get the hell out.
BTW, if you want to stay in the US (if you're in the US in the first place), you've got a remote; use it for crying out loud!!
Can't use a remote to change judicial proceedings where you are forced to 'swear in' on a Bible. Can't use a remote to stop hate crimes against the non-religious. Can't use a remote to keep our government from throwing science out of schools in favor of old sheepherder fairy-tales.
This is a free country.
Tell that to a black man living in Alabama today. Tell that to the gays living in the bible belt who can't come out for fear of being beaten to death. Tell that to the 'war criminals' being held in secret because they had the wrong headgear.
if you've got some money, you can even start up your own athiest advocacy cabel and/or broadcast channel, do fund raisers, form stupid talk shows and advocate religous intolerance to your heart's content
There are atheist advocacy groups, only they don't get the same protection under the law as religious advocacy groups. They also don't get the favoritism shown towards religious groups; you'll find bible clubs in many high schools, but many 'alternative religion' or freethinker clubs aren't allowed because they're 'religious'.
(so long as it isn't blatently hateful speech).
Seriously, get a grip. BTW, I'm somewhat of an agnostic and totally disagree with you if it wasn't obvious by now.
You're also apparently living in a cave. The parent poster has some very valid points, and some of us non-religious types are very fucking scared about the way our country is turning. Being an atheist outside of a few select areas is, in the US, a dangerous thing, and that goes tenfold if you're at all vocal.
Re:This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are you making your kids listen to Howard Stern anyway? I'm not saying that show is for kids, it isn't.. but to say that you can't turn on the radio because of all the profanity...what planet are you living on? Why can't you turn the dial to NPR? Is working the dial too complicated?
I agree that profanity isn't funny anymore, but when did we get so sensitive that words could hurt us so much? Who made up the list of which words are taboo? Why are they taboo? Why should we perpetuate that? There will always be illiterate people, and there will always be snobs that look down on them. That has nothing to do with indecency or profanity.
There are some real problems on this planet that are worth solving. Get some perspective.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If it's not acceptable to say in the office -- (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one of the major problems in the US today. People think we're a democracy. True, we do run the country, more or less, democratically. However, the Constitution, it's amendments, and other works of Law are what rule this country. The executive branch enforces the law, the legislative branch makes new laws, and the judicial system rules whether these laws abide by the Constitution.
Didn't you pay attention at ALL in school? Freedom of Speech isn't an "added bonus"! It's a right as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Pure and simple, no argument can be made against this. I mean come on it's right their in the name "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Added Bonuses".
Regulating speech is not only silly, but very dangerous. Can't you understand that rolling over and just taking something like this sets up a precident for takeing away our other guaranteed rights? You think freespeech is an added bonus. What if the FCC decideds that things on Slashdot are offensive. I know I get offended by alot of things on here. In fact, your comment offends me a pretty good bit. By your reasoning, if a majority of people get offended by your comment, you shouldn't be able to post it. Can you see how this is dangerous?
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Grow up? Would that include maturing enough to realize that it doesn't take a four letter word to make a point? Yelling or profanity are no substitutes for eloquence.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about not even reading my post. When did I say we needed to get of religious broadcasting? Hm? I just don't want non-religious broadcasting to be actively discriminated against, which it is.
On top of that, the entire reason our government is structured the way it is, is to prevent something called a 'tyranny of the majority'. Basically, the Founding Fathers, idiots that they were, wanted a government where no large group could easily take rights away from a smaller group. Ergo, they set up a system of indirect representation, e.g. a republic, by which elected officials would stand between mob rule and the rights of minorities.
Why on earth would an athiest advocacy group expect the benefits of a religous group? They could only receive those benefits if they admitted that they were, in fact, also a religion which is the last thing any athiest I know would want to do.
Nice non sequitur. Freethinking atheists want the same legal protections for their institutions that religions get precisely because their institutions are non-religious. By showing favor to religious institutions over secular ones, the government is violating the Lemon test, and fostering excessive entanglement with religion. In short, as long as religious institutions receive preferential treatment over any other non- (or for-, in the case of Scientology) profit group, there is a problem in this country.
At least the rich won't have to suffer (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a shame that it's the zealots that have the voice because they are so entertaining to watch. Most people I know are pretty tolerant, but it's kind of hard to be rabidly vocally tolerant so they get drowned out.
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the choice, I take explaining the blowjob, any time.
As a new parent, I know I'll have to explain both eventually. Oral sex (or any kind of non-violent sex, for that matter) is quite easy to explain rationally. Some things are disgusting (shit, I remembered the goatse guy now), and there's the health issue that must be absolutely clear, but all in all it's quite harmless. I don't foresee major difficulties.
Murder, on the other hand, and any kind of violent and dishonest behaviour, are the real ugly subjects. It gives me the creeps to think that I may screw up there. I have not the slightest idea on how to convey with enough strictness, with zero room for misunderstanding or negotiability, that such things are always shameful and regrettable, very seldomly justifiable, and absolutely never cool. Even though the TV and the movies, and the goddamn kids at school, all say and show otherwise.
And I'm not saying that violence and dishonesty should be banned from the media. Mass censorship is stupid. But to portray such things as cool, or, for the love of root, as fun, that is criminal. Remember that scene from Pulp Fiction, when Travolta accidentally shoots the guy's head off? The whole theather bursted out with laughter on that one. I shuddered.
Really, I'd not particularly like it, but I'd much rather see my daughter becoming a porn star, than thief or a murderer.
Re:Damn it! (Score:1, Insightful)
For the record, I don't actually like Howard Stern's show, but I think people who want to listen to it should be free to.
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, so the law is always right, and our kids never need to learn about the consequences of their actions. See, the bad guys always get caught, or the ratings get fucked up. To please their audience and their advertisers, the bad guys always lose. So they do all these illegal things, and then get in trouble. Many of the bad guys don't do anything illegal. So much for trying to make 'good kids' by not showing 'illegal stuff'.
Hell, how many shows do you see where they show some idiot with a drug habit screw over his life, quit the drugs, and then straighten himself out to live happily ever after? Can't tell that story anymore without somehow depicting an illegal act.
Fact is, you can't teach your kids about a lot of unpleasant things without talking about it, and if you don't teach your kids about all these unpleasant things, they'll go out and learn all about it themselves. Is that the future you want for your kids? That they go out and learn all about prostitution, murder, drugs, bank robberies, rape, and so forth on their own? Send your kids out into the world ignorant. Go ahead. But don't ever tell them you love them, 'cause you'll be lying. The only way to protect your kids is to arm them with knowledge so that they can protect themselves. Once they leave your house, their lives aren't in your hands anymore. Think about that, seriously.
When law is perfect, then you might have a case. When psychologists have learned all the secrets of the human mind, then you might be able to prove your point.
In the meantime, if you don't like all the crap they show on tv, throw your fucking tv away. That's what I did. I don't mind all the murder-death-kills on tv. I mind all the stupid conditioning and the guilt-laden advertising.
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like that? Well, yes I have two intact balls. I'm sorry about yours. The reason why is that it's easier for a child to grasp concepts like "it's wrong to hurt people" than it is to understand why "Sex is for people older than you. One day you'll probably do it, but 7 is too young"
It's how you have kids, and my kids love babies.
I have no children of my own, I am helping my GF raise hers. Please keep your little harlot away from the boys. You've misinformed her, females are maturing reproductively faster than ever before. It is entirely possible that she COULD get pregnant before she has breasts. But if you don't understand that, why should she?
LK
Re:The Battle Rages On (Score:2, Insightful)
Show me one animal species who engages in that kind of violence and *maybe* I might give you your point.
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
I stand by my statement: citizens (which every military, law enforcement, elected, and appointed person is) have uses for fully automatic weapons. The government is not a super class of people, they make mistakes and have lapses in control just like everyone else. They should not have a monopoly on defense.