Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Media Television United States Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC to Regulate 'Profane' Speech

Comments Filter:
  • What about visuals? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pranjal ( 624521 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:32PM (#8613914)
    ...or is it only speech? For example will the Janet super bowl fiasco be regulated?
  • by scrytch ( 9198 ) <chuck@myrealbox.com> on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:32PM (#8613918)
    ... with the Second.

    A housemate of mine used to love that expression. Only guy I knew who was a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.
  • Support Howard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fluke_finder ( 708045 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:34PM (#8613944) Homepage
    The Passion of the Stern lives on!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:34PM (#8613945)
    ah you've added religion to the mix! I personally think religious exclamations like "In God We Trust" or "under god" are profane. What if I dont believe in God, or at least your god? Why must I be forced to listen to religious nuts prattle on about God?

    If you take away my ability to say curse words, then I want to take away your ability to say religious words.

  • by fluxrad ( 125130 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:41PM (#8614077)
    Hear me out on this. If the FCC starts to go too far over the line, then sooner or later a censorship/profanity case is going to end up in the courts. I have no doubt that a court would easily rule that Bono's freedom of speech trumps Aunt Fannie's right not to hear the word "fuck." Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.

    If life breaks some eggs, make lemonade...

    er..wait.
  • Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:43PM (#8614128)
    I'll bite.

    This decision by the FCC is nothing but posturing. It won't stand a court challenge on the face of it. There will be a big hoo-ha, and then after the rule gets unceremoniously dumped by the courts, the FCC will be able to say "Hey, we tried, now lay off the irate phone calls and e-mails."
  • by Ricdude ( 4163 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:45PM (#8614160) Homepage
    ...that the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, is the son of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell?
  • In Sweden... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Brobock ( 226116 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:46PM (#8614173) Homepage
    Many radio channels (and Television) in Sweden are government controlled and profanity is 100% unmonitored both in English and in Swedish. There is more freedom of speech elsewhere than there is in the US.
  • by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:47PM (#8614198)
    I'm all for it!

    First Clear Channel gets fined [washingtontimes.com] for Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern and now this. I am glad to see that the FCC is finally taking steps to put a stop to it and I want to know where they have been fro the past several years.

    The trend of using profanity has been rolling for a very long time. But, it really shifted into high gear with the advent of the so called shock jocks. These guys have been pushing the edges of the envelope for years and, in my opinion, went way too far years ago.

    I'm no prude and I too am guilty of using far too much profanity but, I have never been able to condone its use in public and on the public airwaves. People should not be subjected to it or forced to listen to this stuff and for the past few years it has been unsafe to have the radio on while driving a child to school.

    But, the problem goes much deeper than all this. The fact is that the constant liberal use of profanity is eroding peoples ability to communicate intelligently. It may have been funny when Eddie Murphy took the stage and said the F-word as every other word out of his mouth, at the beginning of his career. But today, it is no longer funny and yet so many people speak like this normally. It is F-ing hard to F-ing talk to or F-ing understand someone's F-ing point when the F-word is F-ing well coming out of their F-ing mouth every other F-ing word. Then there is the whole rap lyrics argument. It is way out of control.

    Expand your vocabulary. learn to communicate. Try to go a whole day without using any profanity or expletives and I bet you will find that you too might have a problem.

  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:50PM (#8614255) Journal
    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.'

    Although I count as the last person to accuse a government agency of using logic, by that new definition, Bono's statement may not count as either indecent or profane...

    The new criterion includes "grossly offensive". I do not consider "this is fucking brilliant" the least bit offensive, nevermind "grossly".


    Of course, I find very little offensive enough to warrant complaining - I may not control the content, but I control the TV itself. I can change channels, or even just turn it off. IMO, the FCC needs such a major overhaul we may have an easier time just dissolving it and creating a new agency, perferable with control ONLY, over spectrum allocation, not content.

    I never did understand how limiting content fails to violate the 1st amendment, but hey, what do I know? "no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't include giving my tax dollars to the 700 club; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean people can have guns; "unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't include FBI backdoors into every ISP; "without due process of law", "in all criminal prosecutions", and "a speedy and public trial" doesn't include anyone accused of terrorism or "unlawful combatants"; "cruel and unusual punishments" doesn't include sleep deprivation, inedibly bland food, or blasting Bruce Springsteen at high volume; and "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" doesn't mean anything.
  • by Homology ( 639438 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:51PM (#8614287)
    I'm so torn on this subject. It's something that I think has so many valid points on either side. If I plan on watching something like the Grammy's or some other award shows (or the Super Bowl halftime show) I don't at all expect to be seeing or hearing some of the crap I have seen. With that, I can see how regulations and stricter rules are a must. But then I see how far government agencies can take things...

    As an European I find this view quite perplexing : you object to swearing and naked breasts on TV, but don't mind orgies in violence and killings.

  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) * on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:52PM (#8614292) Homepage Journal
    It was my understanding that they enforced decency regs, but could not define them.
    Yes, but they can define the definition. Change what "profane" means, and then they have new powers, under the old wording.

    I think it's funny that Congress will pass laws with all kinds of minutia and details in them, such as gun laws that list a bunch of specific models of guns, but then we also have laws like what gives the FCC its powers, with vague terms such as "indecent" so that we get to fight for years in courtrooms over what the terms mean.

  • Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by axis-techno-geek ( 70545 ) <rob@go[ ]o.ca ['shk' in gap]> on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:52PM (#8614298) Homepage
    Don't ever leave the comfy confines of your border then. Up here in the Great White North, when the Who sing "Who the fuck are you?" the radio station doesn't bleep it out, the DJ's can't sit around and swear (though numerous call in people have from time to time).

    What will the FCC do when they are sued via the DCMA by the RIAA for circumventing the DRM so they can altera digital recording to "bleep" out offensive language?

    So much for freedom of speach, now it is just freedom of speech as long as nobody/group/etc. is offended.

  • Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:53PM (#8614315) Journal
    I, for one, applaud the long overdue efforts of the FCC to crack down on this kind of thing. 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.

    I agree with one point you made - it is disturbing how society slides and degenerates. However, the government, in this case the FCC, is not the solution. Take the Janet Boobie incident - there was so much market outcry and complaints that it will be YEARS before CBS airs something like that - and that's how it should be. The issue was over when the marketplace rose up and complained. For this issue, the FCC was really not needed. Sure, CBSMTVVIACOM didn't like the fines, but the millions of extremely pissed off people is what scared them. People (the marketplace) rejected was CBS was offering as a halftime show. And no, it wasn't just the boobie that upset people, the lyrics and crotch grabbing weren't appreciated either.

    And actually, you can take that one step further - the FCC in general doesn't need to exist - if you don't like the content on Television or Radio - don't watch or listen. Yes, it's really that simple. And as a parent - it's *your* job to censor what your kids watch and listen to, not the government's.

    And finally, to whoever modded the parent as flamebait / troll, that wasn't fair - this guy had an honest opinion on the matter.

  • by agslashdot ( 574098 ) <sundararaman.kri ... il.com minus cat> on Friday March 19, 2004 @04:53PM (#8614319)
    The entire article failed to mention the implications of what would happen from here on. Here's what me & a million other shareholders are thinking - Howard Stern will ask Clear Channel to f*** off and sign on with Sirius. FCC can't regulate subscriber based sat radio, so Sirius would skyrocket, and so would I...my entire 50 grand portfolio is composed of 1 stock - SIRI. Yeah I know that's a boneheaded move, but I'm going to keep my fingers crossed...

    FCC - stern and sirius 1 [yahoo.com]

    FCC - Stern & Sirius 2 [yahoo.com]

    FCC - Stern and Sirius 3 [yahoo.com]

  • Re:Damn it! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arkanes ( 521690 ) <arkanes@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:05PM (#8614477) Homepage
    Then it's not really crossing the line, is it? It's entertainment. People are entertained by seeing what he'll do. If he's truly offensive, then he's not being entertaining, and people don't watch. Compare with, say, Faces of Death. Thats flat out offensive (to me, anyway), and very few people watch it more than once. Even people who hate him listen because they get a thrill out of hating him. Personally, I think that public opinion and the force of the free market (remember that?) should be in charge of regulating public performance. It's 100% true that this will cause plenty of lowest common denominator bullshit to be on the airwaves - but it's got every right to be there, and it's only what we as a public deserve.
  • Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lax-goalie ( 730970 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:05PM (#8614486)

    Think about this for a second -- the only place the FCC's "cracking down" is on publicly-regulated airwaves.

    The issue isn't about parents letting the TV raise them. My business partner has a six year old, who's huge into football. She and her husband carefully control what their kids are allowed to watch. When he wanted to watch the Super Bowl, the expectation was that she was letting her son watch a football game, not some washed-up "musician's" saggy boob. That's the whole point of the FCC's action.

    There are plenty of other outlets for all sorts of creative expression. Nobody would have noticed if the JJ incident happened on MTV. All the FCC is doing is keeping the public airwaves broadly "public".

  • by Wun Hung Lo ( 702718 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:06PM (#8614503)
    Speaking of religion and the FCC...can anyone believe Howard Stern comparing himself to Jesus? I can see it now..."Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto me the lesbians." I know even juvenile morons have a right to free speech, but does he really take himself that seriously?
  • by mcheu ( 646116 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:09PM (#8614536)
    Considering the article talks about how the definition of profane is speech or conduct "irreverent to something held sacred"

    So now the FCC is violating the constitutional seperation of church and state.

    Not necessarily. Sacred doesn't have to have anything to do with religion. To hold something sacred, it means that it's something that everybody (or at least the official everybody) considers revered and untouchable.

    For example, I think most people would consider free speech to be sacred. Of course, that would mean that the FCC ruling on the matter might be considered profane under the FCC ruling.

  • by amembrane ( 571154 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:15PM (#8614620)
    Yes, I can believe that Howard Stern is willing to exaggerate the extent to which he is being persecuted for his speech to that level. It's part of something called humor, which is what makes him popular. I do also believe that he is being persecuted, thank you legislation of morality.
  • by iSwitched ( 609716 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:16PM (#8614632)
    Let me tell you, it's not just Europeans that are perplexed by this. I'm living in, and a citizen of the U.S. and not only am I perplexed by this attitude, I am frustrated, and if I may be allowed to violate the rules of my own government agencies a moment, fucking pissed off about it!

    As the father of two small children, I would much rather answer the question "daddy, what are that man and woman doing?" than, "daddy, why is that man hurting that other man?".

    Perhaps I am all alone in seeing that it is much easier to explain the process of procreating, which all animals engage in and is a good and understandable process even to the fairly young, than trying to explain random, senseless violence that has no perpose and is engaged in only by 'humans'. The attitude of my own goverment, and by default, a majority of my fellow citizens are absolutely inexplicable!

  • Wasn't this... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hangareighteen ( 31788 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:16PM (#8614635) Homepage
    The whole FUCKING point of the V-Chip. I thought broadcasters were supposed to put stupid little tags in their broadcast that announced exactly what the current program contains. Don't like references to drugs, fine.. your TV can filter that out for you. Don't like swearing, fine.. deal with it. Otherwise, get your grubby hands off of my television programming, I don't need some highly subjective entity deciding exactly what is "fit" for broadcast or consuption by the public.

    Democracy is a scary scary thing.

  • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:17PM (#8614640) Homepage
    Why must I be forced to listen to religious nuts prattle on about God?

    If you do not live in Saudi Arabia, Britanistan, US or any of the like - you do not.

    Saudi is selfexplanatory. So are its lookalikes

    Britain - oh well, what do you expect from a deranged droid which prays together with another deranged droid before delcaring wars on other countries or on scientific education in his own country by restoring creationism.

    US... Hmm... Open methinks the Novermber Issue of 1989 (+/- a few months, too long ago do not remember now) American Atheist and read the interview with George Bush (senior, president at the time). More specifically the section where he says: I trully believe that an atheist cannot be a cittizen of the United States of America .

  • Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jrockway ( 229604 ) * <jon-nospam@jrock.us> on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:17PM (#8614654) Homepage Journal
    Well, I'm a person, a member of the public. And nipples and sayingn "fuck" don't bother me. To be honest, I don't really care to see it on TV, but I respect the right for other people to see that if they want to :)

    If you don't like what a network broadcasts, don't buy products from the advertisers. That should fix the network's "ideals" up quite quickly.

    But not everyone wants to live in a Christian bubble*. I love God, but I also love the right to free expression. Those can go hand in hand.

    * Hell, not everyone's Christian. All of these "morals" might even OFFEND some other taxpaper. Too bad we're not all drones :)
  • by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:17PM (#8614655) Journal
    but I know it when I see it.

    Impeach Bush now. [votetoimpeach.org]

    Your constitution is counting on you.
  • by cxreg ( 44671 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:24PM (#8614782) Homepage Journal
    Good thing the FCC doesn't rule over the internet
  • by freuddot ( 162409 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:26PM (#8614821)
    The poster uses "fucking" all over his analysis on his website. The fact that fucking is censored in the slashdot post is only an indication that the editor ( at /. ) censored it.

    Why ? Ask Michael, or Michael's boss.

    J.
  • Re:Damn it! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by carpe_noctem ( 457178 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:30PM (#8614899) Homepage Journal

    I DJ college radio, mostly hardcore and punk. I am not a "shock jock", and most of what I play and say on the air is not intended to get a rise out of people. However, I have almost been kicked off the air multiple times because of the lameass obscenity rules imposed by the FCC. Songs such as this [lyricsfreak.com], this [azlyrics.com], this [lyricsondemand.com], and this [musicsonglyrics.com] have cost me much grief in the past.

    None of these songs are terribly obscene, and really, the use of this language is really commonplace in our culture now. The reason that blanket laws like this trigger kneejerk, eye-rolling reactions is because it's silly. In the same way that nobody is particularly shocked or taken aback to hear about someone smoking pot or drinking underage, these milquetoast rules dilute the force of the law because nobody takes them seriously.

    Likewise, none of the songs that I posted up there are really that offensive; you'd have to be living under a rock to be offended by that. On the other hand, "obscenity" is a really slippery slope. For instance, none of these songs have any bad words.

    This song will probably offend you [metrolyrics.com]
    But what about this one? It's only kind of bad, I guess.... [metrolyrics.com]
    And what about this one? [metrolyrics.com]

    Where do you wanna draw the line?

  • Re:Damn it! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by njdj ( 458173 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:38PM (#8615030)
    Republicans are "ultra-moralistic" in their own minds, impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual relationship

    Clinton was impeached for perjury - lying under oath while giving evidence to a court. In common-law countries, this is a serious offense because it strikes at the integrity of the legal process. In Britain, for example, Jonathan Aitken - a former Government minister - was imprisoned for 2 years for a similar crime. Lord Archer, a former Chairman of the Conservative party and a member (at the time) of the House of Lords, was also sent to jail for perjury in a civil case.


    Persuading the American public that it was all about sex, not perjury, was a brilliant propaganda achievement by Clinton.

  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <[moc.nosduh-arab ... [nosduh.arabrab]> on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:41PM (#8615069) Journal
    If you take away my ability to say curse words, then I want to take away your ability to say religious words.

    Considering that in french, almost every "holy" word is a curse word, this could be funny.

    Trust me, the bablefish doesn't begin to convey the gist of this.

    "Mon hostie de colise de gros tabernac, ciboire, christ, sainte-sacrement de sainte-esprit, segnieur!"

    Literal translation:

    My host of the chalice of the big tabernacle, ciborium, christ, holy sacrement of the holy spirit, lord!

    Actual meaning - something along the lines of:

    My fucking god, what the hell, etc etc etc....
    Please keep in mind that phrases such as "C'est tout fucke" (slashdot eats my html entity for the e-acute - sorry) which is "it's completely fucked" are actually not swearing, because fuck is an anglicism. "Ah, merde!" is swearing, "Ah, shit!" (pronounced more like "sheet") is not :-)
  • Re:Damn it! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Luminari ( 689987 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:43PM (#8615095)
    It always starts like this, something small. They take away part of your freedoms, and so you say "it's only under certain conditions". Then they gradually start adding conditions, until you look up and all your freedoms are gone. When your rights are concerned you can never give an inch.
  • by jasonsfa98 ( 648370 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @05:44PM (#8615102)
    you posted your opinion ... there is your freedom. Now it's ours to "stone you".

    At least we don't keep you from speaking.

    Put on your helmet.
  • Rather than outlawing consentual activities and perfectly legal activities, I'd rather they regulated showing all the illegal stuff that they show on TV.

    Why's it OK to show people getting shot, robbing banks, beating each other up, etc; while everyday ordanary dialog is being censored.

    I'd much rather my kid was exposed to a handful of swearwords and see the occasional brest, then be shown TV shows that makes them think everyone's a criminal so it must be OK.

    Movie dialog like threats like "I'm going to kill you" are far more harmful to kids than "oh shit".

    How about a law:

    • If a TV show, movie, etc has all legal content (consentual sex, non-threatening speach) it's OK.
    • If it has illegal content assaults including threats of violence (regardless of the language), unconsentual sex, murdor, etc, it's rated R at least.
  • Re:Here in Canada... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheTomcat ( 53158 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @06:19PM (#8615631) Homepage
    Yeah so long as n% of it is forced Canadian content.

    *sigh*

    S
  • by fcheslack ( 712576 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @06:22PM (#8615666)
    I'm told this is why the framers of the declaration of independence and the constitution used a lower case g for god. It is not "God" but a generic "god" Then again, maybe there was just a guy named Jesus that everyone trusted. (read with spanish pronunciation)
  • by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:05PM (#8616161) Homepage
    Nope. Rape can be seen on network TV during primetime or even earlier. It's not too explicit of course. However, it's obvious what's going on. At the time (mid 80's), I didn't even have cable.
  • Osho on Fuck (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, 2004 @07:56PM (#8616651)
    BELOVED MASTER,
    I FEEL SHOCKED WHEN YOU USE THE WORD 'FUCK'.
    WHAT TO DO?

    Sargamo, it is one of the most beautiful words. The English language should be proud of it. I don't think any other language has such a beautiful word. One Tom from California has done some great research on it. I think he must be the famous Tom of Tom, Dick and Harry fame.

    He says: One of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word 'fuck'. It is one magical word: just by its sound it can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.

    In language it falls into many grammatical categories. It can be used as a verb, both transitive (John fucked Mary) and intransitive (Mary was fucked by John), and as a noun (Mary is a fine fuck). It can be used as an adjective (Mary is fucking beautiful). As you can see there are not many words with the versatility of 'fuck'.

    Besides the sexual meaning, there are also the following uses:

    Fraud: I got fucked at the used car lot.
    Ignorance: Fucked if I know.
    Trouble: I guess I am fucked now!
    Aggression: Fuck you!
    Displeasure: What the fuck is going on here?
    Difficulty: I can't understand this fucking job.
    Incompetence: He is a fuck-off.
    Suspicion: What the fuck are you doing?
    Enjoyment: I had a fucking good time.
    Request: Get the fuck out of here!
    Hostility: I am going to knock your fucking head off!
    Greeting: How the fuck are you?
    Apathy: Who gives a fuck?
    Innovation: Get a bigger fucking hammer.
    Surprise: Fuck! You scared the shit out of me!
    Anxiety: Today is really fucked. And it is very healthy too.

    If every morning you do it as a Transcendental Meditation -- just when you get up, the first thing, repeat the mantra Fuck you! five times -- it clears the throat.

    That's how I keep my throat clear!

    Enough for today.

    http://www.otoons.com/osho/Fuck.html [otoons.com]

    I want to fuck you like an animal
    (Nine Inch Nails - Closer)
  • by ezzzD55J ( 697465 ) <slashdot5@scum.org> on Friday March 19, 2004 @09:33PM (#8617516) Homepage
    Ok, my question then becomes, would you rather explain to your child why the bad man shot someone or why the bad woman had a penis her mouth?
    Why is the nice woman bad for having a penis in her mouth?!
  • by damiam ( 409504 ) on Saturday March 20, 2004 @01:32AM (#8618826)
    This is a work friendly site

    Unless your boss is a) ultraconservative and b) constantly looking over your shoulder, I don't see how a "fuck" in size-12 Times is gonna hurt you.

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...