Senate Committee Passes FCC Indecency Bill 507
An anonymous reader writes "US Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for slip of the tongue expletives, negating a ruling by federal appeals court in New York that commission's policy on 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious. 'A mandate by Congress that a "fleeting expletive" can now be found indecent will create a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech, the advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology claims. CDT points out that prior to this bill and the FCC's policy change, the FCC exercised discretion in determining which utterances were indecent, and consistently found that one-time uses of curse words were not indecent.'"
Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
It's necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Bono says "fuck" on the Grammy awards and CBS foots the bill. If anything, this will help kill off what's left of "live" media coverage in favor of the rolling five or ten minute delay a lot of broadcasters use to catch and scrub things like this.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
All any of these congress people need to do is get on Google and search for "sex" and you will find so much pr0n that you could have a TV channel that played the word "FUCK" over and over 24/7 for a year and it could never match the "indecency" that you can find on the internet in 30 seconds.
These guys really are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Enough (Score:1, Insightful)
The FCC should NEVER have the power to define what is and is not decent. That is fucking unbelievable. The fact that they've had this power for so long, and now it is tightening... is disturbing to say the least.
America is a fucking shit hole. I know i live here in NY. I wouldnt want to live anywhere in the US other than NY and CA at this point. But really i'd rather just live somewhere else where tits aren't deemed scary and offensive by the uptight people and a government that panders to them.
Dick Cheney can say fuck you on the floor of the senate... but if you say it, you're being fined. The FCC would never dare fine King Dick Cheney. But Fuck Opie and Anthony, Don Imus, and Janet Jackson's titty.
I suggest you all join the PAC movement at http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/ [peopleagai...orship.org]
I want this country to burn the fuck down to the ground and i dont give a shit anymore about it. We lost it a long time ago. Just let the fucking horse die, or shoot it in the head. There is nothing we can do at this point.
WE NOW all live in that same corporate bullshit world they make you sign into at work... except its in your fucking living room now.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
perhaps it's because we dont use these words casually that they have so much more of an effect, and if we stopped giving them special emotional status the problem would resolve itself.
Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Was there something in TFA that I didn't read?
If the parent is trying to say something, they need to back it up with proof and not just some vague insinuation.
Even now, this policy change will only allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for one word utterances, it won't mandate it. The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.
If nobody complains, nothing happens.
Re:Fucking Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
See, it's not the inappropriate words that are the problem, it's the inappropriate behaviour. There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'. Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:2, Insightful)
That has very little to do with television, as shitty and monotonous as it is. The fault is squarely on the parents for not realizing their kid is acting like a douche-bag, and punishing him/her accordingly. Hell, it's probably something you enabled!
Oh but I forgot, in this day and age, we blame everyone but ourselves, right? DISCIPLINE YOUR KID AND STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.
Stupid parents, I swear, 75% - 85% of them are complete failures as role models.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a kid who has been allowed to cuss at home since he was like six. He's never had a public cussing problem because he was explicitly taught by his mother when it is and is not appropriate, and the instruction was approached from a position of respect and reason, and above all responsibility, rather than by treating the child like a slave and instructing them as to what they will do (from my own experience I can tell you that the "orders" approach is very hit and miss. certainly it did not work at all on me.)
This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you! Most parents swear inappropriately and so their children learn to do so as well. And most parents use fear, not respect, to keep children in line. They use an appeal to authority, not one to respect, to guide their behavior.
Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children". Yet I seem to have better results dealing with children than most people do. I talk to them like humans, not like we talk to animals (actually, in most cases that's a disservice to the animal, let alone what it's like when we do it to a child) and the results are typically positive. Children are more willing to listen to you when you're not treating them like a monkey. (Even if they're acting like one.)
I never really had the issue addressed for me at all, except having my mouth washed out with soap at a day care once because before I even understood it I used the word "hump", no joke. This mountain of a woman named Jennifer ran (or runs) a day care across the street from Mar Vista elementary school. She had two or three spoiled kids and decided to add a bunch of others to the mix. One kid accused me of humping one of the others, so I told him he did it, and I got a mouthful of palmolive as a reward. Guess how I reacted to her henceforth? Dumb bitch. (They did instruct me to swallow the soap, but I spit it out. Even as a kid I wasn't an idiot. It says right on the bottle not to drink it.) This event taught me that stupid people are offended by certain words, but I cuss up a storm today. And I enjoy it.
Bottom line: Parenting from a position of respect and responsibility makes more sense than parenting from fear.
Postscript: Most parents seem to treat Walmart as a children's play area anyway. I don't think most of them give a shit if they start cussing. Walmart is the least classy place on earth.
A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
This will cause "a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech"? Oh, please.
Is it so bad to learn a little self control?
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
p.s. My youngest son used the word "fucking" correctly and in context at the age of 5. I was proud, not horrified. At 12 he still asks sometimes if the word he wishes to use is appropriate for the situation and context before saying something.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:2, Insightful)
Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.
Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal.
You had the kids, you fucking deal with them. The TV turns off and if you're really that concerned about dirty words then your problems are legion and will not be solved by merely giving massively overreaching powers to yet another fucked up nanny state government agency.
You go and be a parent and quit expecting the TV to do it for you. Don't deny that that is exactly what you are doing, becasue if you weren't, then this couldn't possibly be an issue.
You should have taken care to grow up yourself before having kids you weak willed, cowardly, nanny state fuck.
This is so stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
The tighter you control, the more your kids will try to get away with. Everyone knows that from their own childhood, but forgets that when they become parents themselves!
My personal philosophy: Assume kids have access to every bad thing out there. Give them the tools to deal with it so they don't wind up killing themselves or doing something stupid. At the same time, tolerate a little bit of abnormal behavior. Any other control you try to impose is just going to turn them into a social retard or push them away from you.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Hating blacks and minorities? that comes from daddy and mommy.
a 7 year old that says "fuck off" I'll bet you $80.00 that daddy says it on a regular basis.
The faults lie directly in the hands of the parents.
Yes you parents, your kids behavior is YOUR FAULT. you TEACH THEM TO ACT THAT WAY. Dont act suprised when little stevie says "fuck you" to someone when you say it daily. The guy that wears the "let's go fuck some whores" T shirt out with his kids and scolds them for swearing blows my mind.
now teenagers, all bets are off, children become mentally insane from age 13 to age 25 and should be treated as special needs, specifically girls. good god the drama..... save me from the drama.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?
commitee? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
What SHOULD happen is that on the off chance your kid is watching TV well past his bed time, and on the off chance someone swears on TV, and on the off chance that kid decides to repeat that one word, act like a fucking parent. Tell your kid that that word is not acceptable and discipline the kid if he continues to say it. This is absolutely no different from any other wrong behavior from flinging feces, pushing other kids, or screaming in a high shrill voice because you didn't buy more candy. The only difference is that, god forbid, if the kid hears someone swear on TV the federal fucking government steps in like it is a matter of national security that somewhere some child might of overhead an obscenity.
Hey, maybe we should make swearing in public illegal to. I mean shit, god save the mother fucking children. In fact, I think any website that allows someone to fucking curse like a mother fucker should have an 18+ ID check.
Bah. Fuck the parents for pushing politicians to censor because they can't contemplate parenting, fuck the politicians for being so self serving that they would piss on the 1st amendment in pursuit of political gain, and fuck the FCC.
Re:Decency Smeshency (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as there are people cutting other people off in traffic, there'll be a search for something to yell at them. Language is funny like that.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "Bad" words are only bad becaus they are bad. The idea that there are "bad" words follows the most innane circular logic since "The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again. If noone cared and noone was offended then noone would use the word to be offensive eh?
2. The more you censor "Bad" words, the more "Bad" they become. The more "Bad" they become the more likely someone is going to use the "Bad" word to attempt to be offensive. Their level of offensiveness was amplified by the stupid attempt to censor said "Bad" word.
3. Any of these fools that support this crap obviously have spent very little time around children (not to say they don't have them, but I imagine most career politicians are probably too busy getting handjobs from hookers on business trips paid for by lobbyists to spend much time bothering to raise their kids). You tell a kid "You can't do X" and the first thing they do when you aren't looking is what exactly? Same goes for "You can't say Y". Good job, you just made it more attractive for them to say "bad" words.
4. An earlier poster had it exactly right, while the verbage may be less offensive (again only made offensive by silly attempts to declare it offensive and taboo), the real problem is rudeness. I don't care what my children say to me, if its a real "bad" word, if its a made up word, or if its normal language, if they are being rude about it they are going to be dealt with swiftly and severely (no not beating, but a good quick barked command will make any kid jump out of his skin). The words used themselves are irrelevant it is about what the intent was when they said them.
"Go hork yourself you sheeprag" and "Go fuck yourself you whore" are going to get equally punished in my book, and only one of them used "bad" words.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?
Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers? Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards? Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in any way shape or form. It's definitely you.
If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV.
Exactly. It is that simple. Try being a parent instead of letting the TV do it for you. It's called personal responsibility. Try it some time.
Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't?
Exactly. Of course I doubt many parents would like that, so they wouldn't let their kids watch Sesame street so it would get pulled since it has no audience. Simple, clean, and none of your whiny nanny state bullshit needed.
Why can't Darby blow his boyfriend in his front yard?
Let me see if I understand what you're saying:
You're an ignorant cunt. You have nothing except your own cowardly delusions to back up your position therefore I must be one of the evil gays.
Apart from the fact that that would be quite a surprise to both my wife and I it's as nonsensical as pretty much everything else you say.
You routinely actively support torturing and murdering innocent people and anyone who actually does stand up for freedom is a "fag".
Yep, par for the course.
There's a reason that decent people do not want cunts, like yourself, who clearly have no concept of morality deciding what is or isn't decent.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though:What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is important for kids to learn to act on their own initiative, it is also important that they learn that respect for authority when respect is due is a necessary life skill. It takes a variety of tactics to encourage and develop good behavior patterns in kids.
You are absolutely right that instilling a sense of respect for others is important, and that a lot of parents fail to do so in favor of a more autocratic approach. But it is possible to constructively wield authority without being autocratic.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult.
Actually, *you* clearly intended it as an insult. I don't take it that way...merely as yet another indication of your small minded ignorance.
Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV.
Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in a channel that has decided to air content which *you* find offensive. More to the point, you have to actively decide to prop your sprog up in front of something you've already decided is offensive. None of that has any relation to fucking in your front lawn in full view of the street.
As far as your disgusting attempt to trivialize raping 5 year olds, you've already demonstrated your total lack of anything approaching an understanding of decency or morality so I'll just have to say I'm unsurprised but utterly contemptuous of you.
Re:Many assaults on free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong, Sir. The Constitution should not be defended by only one branch of government, but by all *four*. There are three active branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The inactive branch is the People. We are the authority by which Congress enacts laws, the authority by which the President enforces those laws, and the authority by which SCOTUS interprets the laws.
Running to SCOTUS every time something unconstitutional happens is a hack. It has allowed the American People to become complacent with their obligation to ensure effective government. It has allowed Congress to enact laws that are sloppy and lets the judicial branch take the heat when something unpopular happens (SCOTUS said it, so it must be Constitutional). I hate to tell you this, but just because SCOTUS said it, does not make it Constitutional---look at the "Life of Mickey Mouse+90year" rule for copyright. SCOTUS is the non-political branch, so resorting to them is resorting to an anti-democratic solution.
What is required is for the American people to focus on the real issue in this country: of rampant bad governance. We're split into left-and-right factions and so don't notice how we're getting screwed. We need to supplant all the bozos---establish term limits with a requirement that a Congressman cannot serve as a lobbyist for as many years as he served in Congress. Maximum time served is 12 years.
Re:Are the Dems in Charge now? (Score:3, Insightful)
I said to myself... You've been there for almost a year.. and you're still complaining that you cant vote. Give me a fucking break. I hate both parties, and i generally know them all by name but i cant remember who it was that night... but i just have no faith in any of thse morons. They represent the same interests, the only difference is the voters they pander to. Thats it. The result is the same no matter who is in office.
Third parties only. End this fucking cycle of corruption.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cannot differentiate between the two things, and the "inherent badness" between them, then you simply are one step away from advocating for thought police.
Taboo subjects are really nothing more than inhibitions and neurotic reactions to unpleasant topics. The sooner we dispense with the knee-jerk "That made me feel bad, so you're bad for saying it", the better. And that's what it boils down to. Personally, it makes ME feel bad when people talk about shooting "towelheads", and I would consider such language taboo in my household, for instance. But that doesn't make it right for me to make it illegal to say such things on TV or in public conversation. Even if most of america agrees with me.
At best, you can make an arguement that using such language is likely to cause someone else discomfort and is therefor rude. Then the question becomes, how far do you bend to accomodate neurotic people's tendencies to be easily offended? That's not so cut and dry.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd definitely agree with other posters with the sentiment being more important than the actual words used. I don't know why we're stuck on the student-teacher dynamic, but it works there too. I can definitely say that I've never used a 'vulgar' word as an insult to a teacher (or any elder), but I'd be lying if I said I've never had my mouth washed out with soup for mouthing off to one. Just take sarcasm for instance: if someone does something stupid and you call him a genius for it, the insult is clear and yet no foul words were used--quite the opposite in fact.
Behavior really is the most important thing to correct. If you have a respectful child, he's going to know when it is not appropriate to use certain words, even if he has no objection to any of them. I have no studies or evidence to back it up, but I'd definitely put money on the argument that the children you see crying, carrying on, and generally just being disrespectful to their parents and elders are also the ones that are going to use vulgar language. Even more so if they know that it will get them more attention because it is offensive.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading several of your posts I've determined that I'm morally opposed to most of your opinions, however, I'm going to try to provide what advice I can in a reasonable and logical fashion.
If you're concerned that your child will have access to TV content you don't approve of, then the TV probably shouldn't be in the childes bedroom, and if it is, you may want to invest in one of those timer power switches that shuts an appliance off between certain hours (although the child could probably bypass this easily, but then again, they will gain access to virtually anything they want to anyway, not much point censoring really). Most current appliances also have parental lock codes (that can't be disabled in some cases much to my annoyance) that will restrict certain content. Finally, maybe you should look into some sort of media PC, or maybe put together a MythBox. Doing that you could load up all the movies you approve of, and maybe schedule certain approved television shows to be recorded regularly, allowing the child to view approved content whenever he or she wishes.
As someone else pointed out, it's not societies job to approve what your child can see, but there are resources out there to help you perform that task yourself. It's up to you to use them.
Re:Umm, hello? (Score:2, Insightful)
They have no place in the censorship business, but insist on using their licensing powers as leverage to push the personal agendas of the commission members.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
There are local laws against cursing in public, here and there, often dating back to the 1800s. Enforced? Rarely, if ever. You'd have to arrest everyone, sooner or later.
As you note, these words exist for a reason, and if banned or deprecated, something else takes their place.
And for those who say "I don't NEED to curse", they apparently don't understand nuances
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a rational response. I likewise, have some irrational responses myself, to racist or violent language towards women. But that, likewise, isn't really rational unless I have some reason to think that a person is serious about committing or condoning such acts. And so unless I do think there is some REAL taboo.. that against violence actually being committed.. about to be breached, then it would be ridiculous of me to make everyone else censor their behaviour for my own irrational knee-jerk bullshit.
Just because a lot of people happen to share some of those irrational knee-jerk reactions to LANGUAGE that is simply ASSOCIATED with bad things doesn't make it any more rational or any more morally defensible. It's just as ridiculous, it's just common AND ridiculous.
Words can't hurt you.. even five year olds repeat that mantra. You'd think by adulthood people would have enough awareness to understand that it's true. Worry about sticks and stones.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
If my child hears me say "shit" about twice a year when I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer or zap myself with an ignition coil, he will possibly use the word when in a similar situation. Fine. But if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.
That being said, I don't think broadcasters should have to worry about the occasional swear during live interviews and such. However, if they are doing an interview with somebody with a dirty mouth who has cursed 3 times in the last minute, they should stop the interview or warn the guy that they will stop the interview if he doesn't cut it out.
I don't think broadcasters should be allowed to show Pulp Fiction at 4 in the afternoon. I would also argue that they shouldn't be allowed to show content with bleeps every 15 seconds. Every 7 year old knows what they are bleeping out, and that they hear "bleep" instead of "shit" isn't going to have any less of a negative impact on their functional language.
BTW, has anybody seen the episode of Arthur with the bleeps? Hilarious.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment, emphasis mine:
There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment. Therefore, this law is illegitimate. Because it is illegitimate, it is also without authority — no authority is provided by the constitution, therefore no authority transfers to the law. Consequently it is a law of coercion, using only force and the threat of force as the means to accomplish its goal, which is specifically abridging freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either.
Note that there is a path that could make this kind of action legitimate; that would require amendment of the constitution. Without such amendment, the federal government is not legally authorized to make a law of this type. Amendment is a procedure that is defined in Article Five of the constitution.
One more ironclad example of our federal government wildly out of control.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all...the market will provide programs with appropriate content for all ages/interests. That is there today, you're kids can happily watch sesame street, blues clues or whatever today.
"No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?"
No, but, what about the reverse question, are you too incompetent to learn to use the V chip on your tv?
Why is your right to censor all the free OTA channels trumping everyone elses to have uncensored content on the free OTA channels? Not everyone can afford cable.
I'm not talking porn here either...but, language and content. Again, this is an adult world, we should be free to see open content on open airwaves. You are the special case, with children that need to me monitored..it is up to you to decide and filter their viewing.
There is no reason to filter everything to the lowest level...let the content flow out there, and let the individual viewer decide what is appropriate viewing for himself.
Speaking of BEEP (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, yes, free speech is good. But part of me feels that arguing for the right to scream "fuck" in a crowded movie theater sort of dilutes the argument in favor of free speech in general. Saying "fuck" really isn't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Yeah, yeah, if you start banning one kind of sentence then it's only a matter of time before some other kind of sentence gets banned -- I get that. But forget thinking about the children, some grown adults would like to live in a society where they aren't subjected to people cursing like sailors all day.
Re:Speaking of BEEP (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for carlin's list to make a comeback
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow a set a fucking balls and get the fuck over the fucking F word. While your at it, stop shitting yourself about the S world also.
*YOU* have control of your TV / radio / . You don't need the FCC to babysit your kid for you. *I* certainly do not want the FCC baby sitting mine. I am quite capable of telling my son that when (not if) he should use the FUCK word.
Example:
We are driving down the road and some dick head is protesting that the FCC isn't tight enough on foul language: "FUCK you dick head!" would be perfectly acceptable.
Oh, in case I didn't get my point across -- FUCK YOU!
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Either that or they will just have a massive "failure to recall" when questioned on the point.
Mal-2
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)