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."
may I be the first to say (Score:4, Funny)
holy fucking shit
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:4, Funny)
FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Interesting)
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:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Interesting)
If you take away my ability to say curse words, then I want to take away your ability to say religious words.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Literal translation:
Actual meaning - something along the lines of:
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 notRe: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.
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
I know Washington DC is full of idiots. What will it take to make you a true believer?
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:4, Funny)
When they stop letting new idiots in because the place is full.
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:4, Informative)
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Ooops, too late ;-)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:may I be the first to say (Score:3, Informative)
Come to think of it, maybe we should get them to ban the whole Bible. It's one big piece of hate literature - "You're going to Hell unless you believe in Jesus!"
As an atheist, I find this particularly offensive.
I think agnostics and followers of other religions would agree.
So, since the air waves are state-controlled, and we have a doctrine of separation of church and state, religious beliefs have no more place on the public airwaves than the ten commandments or a cross or public prayer have in a scho
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.
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'.
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Major problems ahead.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And as you point out, the average American watches total crap.
my new profane word of choice (Score:5, Funny)
Here's an example: "This is FCCing brilliant!"
I'll let you guess the exact pronunciation.
-
Re:my new profane word of choice (Score:5, Funny)
Defend the First Amendment... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Defend the First Amendment... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
I'm all out of rhetoric to spew on this one. (Score:4, Funny)
Crap [obligatory swearword in title - CHECK!] (Score:5, Informative)
Over here in the UK, the thinking seems to be leaning to more leniency rather than more crackdown. There's an article [bbc.co.uk] on the BBC site asking 'Has swearing lost its power to outrage' talking about on-screen profanity...
Simon.
Bloody sods! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bloody sods! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Battle Rages On (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh* A struggle more eternal than Linux and SCO...
Re:The Battle Rages On (Score:3, Interesting)
As an European I find this view quite perplexing : you object to swearing and naked breasts on
Re:The Battle Rages On (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
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.
Re:Overreaching their charter (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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 stat
Re:Damn it! (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Damn it! (Score:3, Flamebait)
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: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:Damn it! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Damn it! (Score:4, Informative)
It's easy to say that, but the shame of it is it's flat out wrong. Michael Powell was appointed to the FCC in 1997 by President Bill Clinton. Bush made him the chairman, but Clinton put him there in the first place.
Support Howard (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Support Howard (Score:5, Informative)
Amidst all the indecency crackdowns, and the FCC's announcements yesterday, nobody seems to be pointing out the fact that the ruling against Infinity was for a Howard Stern show that aired in 2001. It's not for anything Howard has said or done recently, and as I understand it, it's more due to what a caller said.
Howard's been playing this game for a long time. He knows the rules, and he knows them well; perhaps even better than most people who work for the FCC. Howard has always voiced his contempt for the rules, but he's (generally) always played within the rules, as well. So why is Howard getting attacked all of a sudden?
For the majority of Bush's presidency, Howard has been a staunch supporter. On September 11 2001, he was on the air telling everyone that it was bin Laden, and that we ought to do something about it. Howard supported the Afghanistan strikes 100%. As time wore on and people grew critical of Bush, Howard stood his ground, even supporting the war in Iraq.
After the Janet Jackson fiasco, when it was obvious that the FCC was gearing up to make some heads roll, Howard suddenly shifted gears. For the past few weeks, his (on-air) political leanings have done an abrupt 180. He's been decrying the FCC and its crackdown, and more importantly, he's been urging listeners to vote Bush out of office.
ClearChannel dropped Stern from 6 stations. It wasn't for anything "indecent." It was because of Howard's recent political about-face.
ClearChannel is owned by a guy named Lowry Mays. Mays is a Texan, and he's got ties to the oil industry. OK, so these days it seems like everyone is from Texas and is an oil baron. How about the fact that GWB sold his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team to a guy named Tom Hicks. Tom Hicks was, at the time, CEO of a company called AMFM. Guess what business a company named "AMFM" was in? That's right, the radio business. AMFM was bought out by ClearChannel, and Tom Hicks is now Vice Chairman of ClearChannel.
Howard Stern had a surprisingly good ride, in terms of FCC scrutiny, under the Bush administration until the past couple of weeks. I think it's because - and only because - Howard had, until that time, been an unapologetic supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq, even to the point where it conflicted with his own liberal interests in terms of broadcasting.
A timeline:
1) AMFM CEO buys GWB's share in Texas Rangers
2) AMFM acquired by ClearChannel
3) Janet Jackson bares areola
4) FCC launches witch-hunt
4a) FCC Chairman Powell is Secretary of State Colin's son, for those who aren't paying attention
5) ClearChannel dumps Stern like a bag of bricks
6) FCC fines Infinity (but not ClearChannel, even though they aired it) for a Stern episode from 2001
Mod me troll if you want, but this is the politics of things. Howard Stern isn't being sought out because he was "indecent." He's being sought out because he jumped the fence, he's being sought out because he's telling 8+ million people a day to vote Bush out of office.
Here in Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
In Sweden... (Score:3, Interesting)
You're wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
The only exception is the things you're not allowed to say. But such a limitation is a small price to pay for unlimited freedom of speech!
Definitions? (Score:3, Insightful)
Profane! (Score:4, Funny)
> My analysis
BZZZZZZT!!!
The word "analysis" contains ANAL.
Therefore the word "analysis", "analyst" and derivatives have been declared indecent & profane and shall be removed from the English language forthwith.
- by Ruling of the FCC
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
Dyslexic Mind (Score:3, Funny)
Britney (Score:3, 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.
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.
This could actually be good... (Score:3, Interesting)
If life breaks some eggs, make lemonade...
er..wait.
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.
Is anyone else concerned... (Score:3, Interesting)
This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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:This'll get some knees jerking. (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone else see the alternative meaning there? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The FCC is unconstitutional (Score:3, Informative)
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
I have 50,000$ riding on this (Score:3, Interesting)
FCC - stern and sirius 1 [yahoo.com]
FCC - Stern & Sirius 2 [yahoo.com]
FCC - Stern and Sirius 3 [yahoo.com]
All right children (Score:4, Funny)
I don't have a problem with people swearing if they really want to emphasize their point. Even if it's part of their language. But fucking swearing at every stupid goddamn line just to fucking prove their shitty point sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
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?
Howard Stern's Required Reading (Score:5, Informative)
This is a problem for several reasons:
1) Our freedom of speech is killed because we can be fined into bankruptcy for talking edgy, so obviously people will be more careful of anything that they say
2) freedom of speech is completely killed because the FCC can decide months later if what you said was profane, so the feedback mechanism is completely messed up.
3) initial rulings on profanity can be "overruled" by the FCC, meaning that political agendas can be enforced through the FCC now
For a listing of required reading go directly to Howard Stern's [howardstern.com] web site.
Killing is still in I'll bet. (Score:4, Informative)
Bad news for Comedy Central (Score:5, Funny)
KYLE: Shut-up, fatboy!
CARTMAN: Hey! Don't call me fat, you fuckin' Jew!
MR. GARRISON: Eric! Did you just say the F-word?
CARTMAN: "Jew"?
KYLE: No, he's talkin' about "fuck." You can't say "fuck" in school, you fuckin' fatass.
MR. GARRISON: Kyle!
CARTMAN: Why the fuck not?
MR. GARRISON: Eric!
STAN: Dude, you just said "fuck" again!
MR. GARRISON: Stanley!
KENNY: Fuck.
MR. GARRISON: Kenny!
CARTMAN: What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
MR. GARRISON: How would you like to go see the school counselor?
CARTMAN: How would you like to suck my balls?
KIDS: [gasping]
MR. GARRISON: What did you say?
CARTMAN: Oh, I-I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Actually, what I said was: [speaking through bullhorn] "How would you like, to suck my balls, Mr. Garrison?"
KYLE: Holy shit, dude.
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.
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.
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:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Funny)
[note: this is NOT called irony.]
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ob
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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.
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Interesting)
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/
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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).
Re:Long overdue FCC! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
T
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: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: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: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: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
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.
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: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:This does not lead to censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Public does not own the airwaves. (Score:3, Informative)
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....