Supreme Court to Hear FCC Indecency Case 453
MachineShedFred writes "The Supreme Court of the United States has announced that it will be hearing the FCC's appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the FCC has changed its policy on fleeting expletives without adequate explanation. It's now on the FCC to explain to the Supreme Court why its policy has changed. This is also the first time the Supreme Court has heard a major 'broadcast indecency' case in 30 years."
I think... (Score:4, Interesting)
Where does it stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
On a related note( possibly straying offtopic) this was a big issue in L.A. and elsewhere across the US with Spanish-language radio stations that were getting away with their equivalent [puertorico-herald.org] of uncensored Howard Stern. How will the FCC go after them? What about Korean radio curses? When does it end? Hopefully the FCC will be so swamped with complaints that they'll be unable to investigate them all, and then they'll quit being our mommy and focus their efforts towards the future of spectral management.
I'm optimistic. (Score:4, Interesting)
My bet is that, while the basic principle that the FCC can regulate public airwaves won't be challenged, the court will chastise them for inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement and their unclear guidelines.
Re:Self censorship (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or you could just do like us (Score:3, Interesting)
I would much rather have my child playing video games for 20 hours a week than watching TV for 20 hours a week. At least by playing video games, they are learning hand-eye coordination, problem solving, strategic thinking, and awareness of their surroundings. Granted, there is the whole "violent video games" argument, but that's neither here nor there insofar as what I think of TV.
I don't object to TV because it's violent or anything like that...I object to it because you are doing literally nothing while sitting in front of it. Try beating Ninja Gaiden Black on Master Ninja difficulty and tell me you weren't just doing something involved.
Re:In other news (Score:2, Interesting)
The V-Chip is a powerful tool for allowing families to take control of their own censorship, for parents who bother to use it. It doesn't require as much tech-savviness as a logging solution does, and fails "locked" (i.e. if you don't take special measures, it blocks the show) like a good security solution should. Unfortunately, only about a quarter of parents have ever touched a V-Chip, and such self-management techniques are currently falling in the "failure" bucket for lack of interest.
Who [the fuck] are you? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
But, the rating is also in the show's broadcast, buried in the signal. It's how the v-chip understands wether or not to block the show. You want control? Simply TURN ON THE V-CHIP.
I also want it set so that foul language (f-bombs) are blocked by default (if I don't specify otherwise), but such that they're still broadcast, and so I can set it so that when I'm watching TV, I don't have to hear bleeps, or cheesy voice-overs. Have you ever tried watching "Casino" on TNT??? It's a joke! Why even other if every 3rd word is silenced or bleeped!?!?!?
The V-Chip 2, as I hope comes out, should be able to tell me each time I change chanels what the rating of the show is, the rating of any item being blocked and why, be able to tell who I am based on a keyed in code or bimetric scan, and remember my preferences, allow me override priveladges at will, and more. heck, you want a REAL system??? Lets integrate a small camera in the TV, and allow it basic facial recognition so it know's who's using the TV and what restrictions I've set for them all by itself. Someone new comes over and it should ask what settings to use or default to my children's preference level unless they know an override code. What's really cool about that is if I'm watching some TV-MA rated show and my 5 year old walks in, the TV can automatically downshift it's ratings on the fly, and block content as necessary.
If I'm the kind of parent who approves of my 14 year old watching porn, that's my choice. If I don't want him playing rated R video games like Silent Hill, the game station's chip should understand the game's rating and refuse to pay it if I've specified that. It can do that for movies, why not games?
The real trick is sporting events and live TV. We can generally rate a football game as PG, and Americal Idol as G, but occasionally someone slips up, a mic is on at the wrong time and a player curses (happens almost every game), or a kid on Idol sings a curse in a Pearl Jam song (happened last season). How do you control that? Well, a 5 second loop like the do for radio seems to work well enough, why not one for TV, as long as the "bleep" is just a signal to the v-chip to do or not do it's thing and not an actual "bleep"? As for the boob slipage... Nudity, accidental or otherwise, in my opinion is completely natural, and should NEVER be censored, only sexual acts should be censored, so accidental nudity on television, in my world, needs no censorship and would not be a concern for a v-chip technology for live TV. I don't expect too many people will get away with stripping down and fucking on a live broadcast of an awards show... At the same time, even kissing should trigger censoship at some level if a parent chooses. Some of the teen and pre-teen programming on TV has FAR more PDA than I would approve of for a 10 year old, yet a lot of it is rated PG...
I want granular control. A rating of 0-9 for sexual content (kissing on lips=1, tounge=2, heavy petting=3, in bed=4, etc... all the way up to Skin-a-max late night soft core porn...) A rating of 0-9 for violence, one for adult situations, toggles for "show blood" "allow smoking" "profane language" Oh, yea, and I want these things to apply to COMMERCIALS too! I don't need questions like "What's erotic mean?" coming from a 6 year old who's watched a G rated program at 3 in the afternoon....
Need to replace the FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC's power has grown far beyond it's original intention (regulating airwaves frequencies in the U.S.). Apparently they only do things in response to complaints. Or at least that's how it once was. But the really fucked up thing is 99% of complaints come from one organization [arstechnica.com].
So essentially this one single organization is responsible for most of the - detrimental in my opinion - changes to what is allowed to be broadcast or not.
It's not the popular decision. People just think it is because this one fucked up organization has such broad powers and people just assume that it's the popular opinion. It is not.
The organization responsible for all this? The Parent's Television Council [parentstv.org]. The sick thing is they're proud to be the nation's most influential advocacy organization [parentstv.org] yet have barely a million members [parentstv.org]. That's right one million uptight fucks are responsible for 99.8-99.9% of all FCC regulation that affects 303 million people [census.gov].
And the FCC allows it.
To other countries: The US is not up tight! Most of us love a good nipple on TV. It's this one organization that has been acting via the screwed up joke that is our FCC that has watered down our TV, not popular opinion.
Bad words (Score:5, Interesting)
- Intercourse (blowjob, cock, cooter, cum, cunt, dick, dong, fuck, jizz, pussy, screw). This brings VD [wikipedia.org] and extra mouths to feed [wikipedia.org].
- Elimination of waste material from the body (ass, fart, peter, piss, shit, turd). These spread disease.
- Religion (damn, god, hell). Names referring to spirits considered good are said to cheapen the name; names referring to spirits considered evil are said to make them more powerful.
Restrictions apply much less strictly to words in Childish (e.g. call the stork, poop, wee, etc.) because children have to have some name for their own parts and functions. They also apply less strictly to words in Medicalese (e.g. feces, flatulence, intercourse, penis, urine, vagina) which symbolize intent to apply a serious tone to the discussion of serious business.Re:In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
When the detective thinks the suspect is a dick, of course.
Law & Order does now, and always has dealt with some very controversial topics, and as such you're going to find examples of heightened emotions and when there are emotions present you're going to get emotional (re)actions from the characters.
n.b. Expletives are so prevalent in high school because it makes the students feel more like the adults they're impersonating.
Well, if one is homophobic, I suppose this would disturb them. But then again if someone is racist I'd posit they object to seeing blacks depicted in roles other than Toby or Uncle Tom.
Evening news is damn close enough.
It's interesting that you equate homosexuality, murder, bestiality and incest together. Incidentally; do you consider male/male or female/female incest more, or less damaging?
Or a Quentin Terrentino movie?
I can't speak for the OP, but I don't ever plan on imposing my morals on anybody. But I guess that makes you and I different, doesn't it?
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. But in modern American society, most people, in casual conversation amongst equals, do not take offense at mere profanity which is not uttered with the intent to offend. To compare this with modems, there is a kind of handshaking that goes on in which people beginning to converse with one another work out what is mutually acceptable. The thing is, you're talking about an old protocol in which profanity is not used until both sides are clearly comfortable with it, and I'm pointing out that the new protocol is one in which profanity often is used on the rebuttable assumption that both sides are comfortable with it already.
On the public airwaves, we don't have the opportunity to weigh idiom. Therefore a denominator that eschews initial offense and considers sensibilities is in order.
No.
On the public airwaves there is no conversation at all; the broadcaster speaks, and we either listen or don't. You want him to speak to the lowest common denominator, and offer us pablum. Furthermore, you intend to force the broadcaster to do so or else to muzzle him altogether! Censorship is never in keeping with our values as a society or a polity. Free speech for all is one of our most cherished and central values. And we deliberately protect not merely the inoffensive nothings you like and which no one objects to, because they don't need protecting anyway, but the offensive speech that no one likes at all, but which nevertheless is essential.
Let the broadcaster speak whatever he likes. It may have wide appeal, or it may offend everyone. The audience may choose to listen, or may choose not to.
To do otherwise, to follow your proposal -- that is the most deeply offensive, senseless thing of all.
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to.
So you're Humpty Dumpty now?
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to. People will use the word 'fuck' to do the same thing. In my case, it has nothing to do with a euphemism regarding the sex act. Why the sex act must be used to banally emphasis is only part of that word-- it's a negative exclamatory. Bad word. Conveys negative meaning at best. There are better choices.
No. You've disproven your own argument, I think. If the word is of arbitrary meaning, and you don't object to the meaning, and if the word isn't used in reference to sex, then all you're left to object to is a mere sound: fk. You cannot credibly say that the sound itself, regardless of meaning, is offensive enough for anyone to take notice or care. And there's nothing even slightly wrong in English with negative exclamatory words or sentences. It's not even as bad a split infinitive, and those aren't actually bad either.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:3, Interesting)
The example is terrible and contrived but that's not surprising because there is no realistic way you can argue that overhearing a swear can cause anyone any harm.