FCC to Regulate 'Profane' Speech

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

whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.'

holy fucking shit ;)

Re:may I be the first to say

Man, you come along and add religion to the mix on that one, excellent work!

Re:may I be the first to say

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.

Re:may I be the first to say

Do you believe Howard Stern should also be legally permitted to waggle his genitals in the face of a small child on the subway? Assuming your answer is no, that's just another degree of "legislation of morality".

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

Agreed. The most obscene speech lately is that coming out of Michael Powell's mouth. Instead of legilating and fining these things out of existence, parents should be teaching their children how to deal with it, typically by changing the station. This nation wants to blame society every time something goes wrong and then try to 'fix' society. It's always the wrong fix. If you're worried about what the children can see and be affected, start with the people who control those things--parents. And not by legislating the fix. By smacking them in the head every time they want the government to raise their kids for them.

Re:may I be the first to say

For a moment, I thought the article read "FCC are to regulate profound speech", but then I realized we already have such a system.

FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV.

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:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV.

Definetly agree.
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

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.

Re:may I be the first to say

Some context of this:

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm

Re:may I be the first to say

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:may I be the first to say

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

I think that Washington D.C. is full of idiots

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

I know Washington DC is full of idiots. What will it take to make you a true believer?

When they stop letting new idiots in because the place is full.

Re:may I be the first to say

I'd say that capitalizing God points at him respecting that people believe in a God and not wanting to insult them, but also not wanting to be force fed with their religious talk.

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

Considering the article talks about how the definition of profane is speech or conduct "irreverent to something held sacred" ... this comment makes total sense. Not only is it a shit (excretion) for fucking (sex), it is also a *holy* shit, and therefore a secred peice of sex-related excrement. To put your winky smily at the end, you are obviouisly treating this sacred poop of copulation with irreverence, and therefore you are being wholly profane. I condemn thee!

Re:may I be the first to say

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. Way to go. I'd call them a bunch of cock-sucking, mother-fucking piss-ant cunts who don't know shit about fuck-all, with the brains of a tit-mouse, except I don't want to be called profane for using George Carlin's 7 Words You Can Never Say On TV [centric.net]

Ooops, too late ;-)

Re:may I be the first to say

Good thing the FCC doesn't rule over the internet

Re:may I be the first to say

Why don't you move to China or N. Korea then? They very rigorously inforce these rules there. Nothing above the state after all, n'est pas? France might be up your alley too, but they aren't quite as disciplined as the other nations yet, but they're getting there.

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). ...but Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell can blame atheists for 9/11. TV Christians can scream at us and tell us we're going to hell. Our own leaders can tell us we don't deserve to be citizens because we don't buy the Buy-Bull(tm).

Seriously, get a grip. BTW, I'm somewhat of an agnostic and totally disagree with you if it wasn't obvious by now.

You're also apparently living in a cave. The parent poster has some very valid points, and some of us non-religious types are very fucking scared about the way our country is turning. Being an atheist outside of a few select areas is, in the US, a dangerous thing, and that goes tenfold if you're at all vocal.

Re:Long overdue FCC!

Lord forbid that YOU have to raise your little cracker spawn. That's what the TV's for right? Read my sig, it has a special relevance to people like you who expect the government to protect your children from your own bad parenting.

Re:Long overdue FCC!

Too fucking bad. Does the word fuck on slashdot bother you? Too fucking bad, don't fucking read slashdot :) [Don't like TV? Don't watch it. Loss of ad-revenue hurts the execs more than a fine for swearing. Let the market control language and profanity. Oh yeah, you have a god-given right to get whatever you want 100% of the time. Now I see...]

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!

I sort of agree wtih you. I dislike how the whole negative connotation that swearing has earned. I view the word fuck as any other word in the English dictionary... A fucking word! It has its general definition, regional variations in usage and context and what not. But that's it. I hate how this whole stipulation of "bad" words keeps on prevailing in America. The same goes for visual censorship. The word fuck is constantly used in everyday language by many people commonly, quite a few still not so commonly, and at least everyone once in their life. Personally, I view the US's energy to censor words and nudity as a weakness. Go to Europe, you'll see a lot more mature view about the human body, and a lot less of the "oh my! taboo" bullshit here. Censorship sucks :(

Re:Long overdue FCC!

Barney _is_ offensive, agreed. Barney is given a specific half hour slot that is planned in advance. To plan for your children to not be exposed to Barney (on T.V.), you can do so quite easily.

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!

You are confusing things a bit.

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!

God, I hope your children were never exposed to a nipple on TeeVee. It is bad enough that the babies' bottle tops are shaped like them. Someone ought to do something about that.

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!

As a citizen in allegedly one of the most "free" countries in the world I am appalled by the FCC's actions. I'm not sure what disturbs me more, the fact that the FCC is yet again trying regulate speech or the fact that this country is so fucking full of god damned prudes.

Re:Long overdue FCC!

you seem to be serious?!? so i'll bite. i'm also a father with children. that's beside the point.

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!

" 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!

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

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:Disagree with Slashdot, get modded down.

I [...] am glad that the FCC is FINALLY cracking down. If you want profanity, you've got satellite, cable, or the video/DVD market. If if goes out over public airwaves, there should be restrictions; it is the law, after all....

C'mon. Mod me down and the parent up. Take 7 points away from me, but don't censor people's viewpoints just because they differ from yours.

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:Long overdue FCC!

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.

Re:Long overdue FCC!

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).

Major problems ahead....

" any speech that is grossly offensive, whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.' "

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'.

my new profane word of choice

From now on, I will use the word FCC as my favourite swear word.

Here's an example: "This is FCCing brilliant!"

I'll let you guess the exact pronunciation.
-

Re:my new profane word of choice

In other news, the "fsck" Unix utility has been removed from Unix distributions due to similarity with profane vocabulary. A replacement called JesusLovesYourFilesystem is being developed.

Defend the First Amendment...

... 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.

Re:Defend the First Amendment...

"Only guy I knew who was a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA."

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.

I can't think of anything to say about this that hasn't been said million, billion times, so I'm just going to dump some Forrest Gump into it.

• Forrest: (voice-over) There was this man, giving a little talk. And for some reason, he was wearing an American flag for a shirt...
• Abbie Hoffman: Now, I'm going to bring up some soldiers that are going to talk about the war, man...
• Forrest: (voice-over) ... and he liked to say the "F" word. A lot. "F" this and "F" that. And every time...
• Abbie Hoffman: ... that war has come home, and we have to stop these politicians...
• Forrest: (voice-over) ... he said "F" word, people, for some reason, well, they'd cheer.

Crap [obligatory swearword in title - CHECK!]

I'd guess that NWA (Niggers With Attitude) will never be played again then, even their name probably breaks the rules; as for thier 'Fuck the motherfucking police', well, I doubt that'll ever see the light of day :-) Guess you guys won't get 'Roger Melly, the man on telly' any more either (if you ever did)

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!

Whose definition of "grossly offensive" are we going by, anyways?

Re:Bloody sods!

Well, if we go by my definition, I find said FCC ruling to be grossly offensive, as it clearly violates the constitution!

The Battle Rages On

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...

*sigh* A struggle more eternal than Linux and SCO...

Re:The Battle Rages On

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!

Overreaching their charter

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

They let their religious beliefs do that for them. Does your religion require you to not say things like fuck, damn, hell, bastard and bitch. Mine doesn't. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Damn it!

This is a serious blow against freedom of speech and expression. While the airwaves belong to the public and all, it is ludicrous to censor something because it is deemed to be "grossly offensive."

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!

Democrats voted for the bill, but the bill and this ruling are two different things. The FCC Comissioners are Republicans, appointed by Dubya, and the Chairman's position is an obvious case of nepotism.

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.

Re:Damn it!

So all Howard Stern has to do is go on XM, or cable (wait, he _did_ that.)

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! (religious right and Oprah)

The FCC's ruling is really, really fucking awful.

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!

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.

Support Howard

The Passion of the Stern lives on!

Re:Support Howard

Long-time listener, first-time caller.. ;)

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...

... almost anything goes. Maybe we're more open minded. Maybe we're a little less uptight. Maybe we watch a little too much American TV.

You're wrong!

The US has more freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world, ever. That's because the First Amendment to the Constitition guarantees it.

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?

Who defines what is "indecent" or "profane"? As the article hints at, these are highly subjective classifications. Are we going to end up with oversensitive people trying to outlaw every other thing said on television because it offends them personally?

Profane!

> 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

"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
-- Clare Booth Luce, American playwright and diplomat

Dyslexic Mind

I thought this was about "Propane Speech" and there was some bizarre Hank Hill linkage. Aw, well, too much toons in my life.

Britney

Does that mean that they will censor out Britney's "I'm a virgin"?? If so, I have nothing against it. (Plus the fact that swearing doesn't really reflect intelligence to me... Bash me out, but I find it teenagish...)

The FCC Must Be Abolished

The FCC is a failed entity. They had one simple task -- keep broadcasters from "stealing" or "leaking" onto bandwidths that they were not assigned to use. They failed so miserably new technologies were invented to do their job. They were about to go away when Nixon gave them the power of the Seven Dirty Words.

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.

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...

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.

Fine

The FCC has a mandate, and a responsibility to enforce a minimum standard of decency on PUBLIC AIRWAVES. VHF, UHF, FM and AM.

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...

...that the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, is the son of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell?

This'll get some knees jerking.

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.

Re:This'll get some knees jerking.

People should not be subjected to it or forced to listen to this stuff

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.

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.

So you mean, um like, you know, you can't, like, understand communications, when like the speaker totally overuses, like, colloquialisms? Because, like, it's not intelligent communication? Are you like totally for-sure that, like, the problem is really, like, profanity, and not something else, like, general stupidity and lack of, like, public speaking skill?

It is way out of control.

Like, um, does it, like, need to be in control? Is, like, communication performance really a matter for, like, government to be dealing with? I would, like, think that it's in everone's self-interest to, like, maximize their own speaking performance, purely for, like, selfish reasons. They don't, like, need government to give them incentive, ya know? And, like, if someone else, like, talks bad, doesn't that, like, give you a competitive advantage in getting, like, your message out? I say, like, don't worry about idiots being, like, out of control. Dude! Duuuuude!!

Anyone else see the alternative meaning there?

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.

The FCC is unconstitutional

The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, decided all by itself, that radio and televisions were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of the first amendment to the constitusion.

I'd like to repeat that because it sounds vaguely important.

The FCC, an appointed body - not elected, answerable only to the president, decided on its own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the first amenedment to the constitution.

And why did they decide that? Because they got a letter from a minister in Mississippi! A reverend Donald Wildman in Mississippi heard something on the radio that he didn't like. Well reverend - did anyone ever tell you there are two knobs on the radio? Two knobs on the radio.

Of course I'm sure the reverend isn't that comfortable with anything that has two knobs on it. But hey reverend - there are two knobs on the radio - one of them turns the radio off and the other one - changes the station! Imagine that reverend - you can actually change the station. It's called freedom of choice, and it's one of the priciples this country was founded upon - look it up in the library reverend, if you have any of them left when you're finished burning all the books!

George Carlin said it, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Can I sue my Cable Co ?

When I signed up for cable television, I purchased access to crash, abusive, violent, sexual, morbid, humerous, and offensive content. If I wanted to watch purple dinos and signing hand puppets I could get that with public television over the airwaves. I PAID for access to the offensive stuff. I LAUGH at kids getting ninja throwing stars stuck in their eyes.

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

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]

All right children

Mod me down if you wish... but why is everyone exaggeratedly swearing in their posts when the article is about censorship. You can say that you disagree without saying three hail maries in the same post while at the same time giving everyone a biology lesson... It just looks very childish to me. Someone expresses an opinion different from the norm and we start stonning him/her... Good example of censorship, right?

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

Unfortuantely, the FCC has responded to the ludicrous hype which has all stemmed from a split second shot of someone's breast. It was so fast it was over in the time it took me to look down to pop another taste piece of chicken breast (sweet irony, eh?) on my fork. They show far worse things on MTV, every single day but no one complained. Go figure.

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

What is so insane is that the rules for profanity are completely inconsistent. Oprah can have a show talking about "tossing salads" which include a detailed description of what that is, but if Howard Stern says it, he will get fined.

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.

Brit TV is poking fun at you...

sorry its only shockwave, but you might find this British TV commercial rather appropriate...

Swearing [channel4.com]

Enjoy :)

Killing is still in I'll bet.

Meanwhile, television and film can show graphic, glorified murder and only be rated PG13.

I can't define malfeasant abuse of power

but I know it when I see it.

Impeach Bush now. [votetoimpeach.org]

Your constitution is counting on you.

Bad news for Comedy Central

Guess that means we won't be seeing gems like this anymore....

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

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

Although I disagree terribly with any form on censorship, we should at least try to understand why so many people were upset about the Janet Jackson SuperBowl fiasco. Many Slashdotters are (rightfully) stating that parents should take charge of what their children are watching. This is precisely why people were so upset with the breast-baring SuperBowl. They were thinking that of all things on TV, their kids should be able to watch what is perhaps the most viewed annual sporting event in the world.

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

This is living proof that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.

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.

yeah...

I dunno about you guys, but this seems doubleplusgood to me!

At least the rich won't have to suffer

As long as they are combining church and state, I'm sure they will bring back indulgences. For those not in the know it just means you can pray for your sins, or pay for your sins to be forgiven.

It's a shame that it's the zealots that have the voice because they are so entertaining to watch. Most people I know are pretty tolerant, but it's kind of hard to be rabidly vocally tolerant so they get drowned out.

Re:This does not lead to censorship

It doesn't hurt kids to swear, or to hear swearing.

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

So who is protecting 5 year olds from parents who drop the F-bomb at home? Maybe we need to regulate speech there as well.

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:broadcast tv only?

The FCC can only regulate broadcast TV, but the impact is not minimal. There are still many, many people who do not have access to cable or satelite. What's worse, though, is the precedent that this sets. Perhaps it is more correct to say that the FCC can only regulate broadcast TV right now...

Once people get used to having the FCC take on a Comstockian role in censoring broadcast television, they are far less likely to protest if Congress expands the scope of the FCC to cover cable, satelite, and other mediums. Congress has already gone after the internet, after all....

Re:Public does not own the airwaves.

Actually, the public DOES own the airwaves. Those companies are licensed to use them, not own them. We subscribe to them for their content.

Re:This does not lead to censorship

The world as a whole is not 5 year old safe nor should it be. If you don't want your kid to hear it don't let him watch it, or maybe you should teach your kid about it, he's gonna hear it eventually.