FCC Lays Down the Law On Decency 204
Sarcasmo writes: "The FCC has taken a break from it's normal routine of censorship and, uhhhh.......censorship, to remind everyone what it wants to protect us from. The full 28 page report will tell you what words are acceptable, and what words are naughty." A quick guide: Howard Stern - BAD, Monty Python - BAD, Schindler's List - GOOD.
uhh.. (Score:1)
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.
Gee, I guess they are reading a different Bill of Rights than the one I learned all about in elementary school.
Naked people okay, as long as they die (Score:1)
I guess context is everything.
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:1)
Wooooooo (Score:2)
I'm titillated AND pandered!
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
For example, just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say?
Since when is television an inalienable right? You're right, it is like opt-out marketing. You opted in when you bought a TV.
You buy a television, knowing full well the kind of programming is on it, and then complain that some of the things are bad for your children, and therefore it should be censored from any home? Basically...
For example, just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say?
Yes. You should assume that anything in your house will be opened up, prodded, played with, and possibly broken, whether you want it to be or not, including the television. Children are curious. They'll find that dirty magazine you have in your bureau. They'll turn on the cable you subscribed to (and you didn't bother with parental locks) and find nudity. They'll more than likely see violence. They could also see them in real life. The censorship way out of exposing your children to anything that could possibly be harmful is to lock them in a closet.
If you teach them properly, they will know how to judge those things you consider inappropriate, and file it away in the "bad" category. Sure, they may not always listen, they may try to test your limits; then you punish them and set the record straight. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not a parent, you just happen to be genetically related. There are plenty of people who *want* kids who are physically unable.
So, there are cheap child locks, DirecTV "family only" packages, numerous parental lock systems, watching only video tapes, or *gasp* not watching at all -- you can make your blinders as big as you want. Or you can have personal standards and know when to turn something off. Government censorship is by far the most expensive way out, in rights, in time, and in money.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Boy, you certainly make parenting sound simple.
I didn't mean to. I meant to make it sound like the responsibility it is. =)
So your argument is that people who don't want to risk being exposed to the most vile atrocities at any time of the day or night shouldn't buy TVs?
No, I'm saying that you make it sound like the only 2 choices are to have no gun in the house, or to have one loaded, cocked, and taped to a chair pointing at your kid with a string going from your dog to the trigger. (Apologies to the Road Warrior.) There are ways to limit your children's TV choices without the government stepping in and saying "ass" is a bad word. Especially when, for the most part, "dirty" language is only dirty because we all say it is.
Precisely. So I don't leave armed hand grenades near my children. Do you think it's ok for broadcasters to make televisions equally dangerous, psychologically?
But that's entirely my point. If you've taught your children right and wrong, there's very little on TV that's (in my opinion) even close to "equally dangerous, psychologically" as a gun. You won't let a gun near your child, but you think TV is just as bad, and you *don't* limit their exposure?
Now, I probably come off more argumentative than I really should, but I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate. Regardless, the majority of consumers want the trash we have on TV. That's why it's there -- they wouldn't do it if people didn't tune in. If, you're concerned about your children seeing it, it's your job as a parent to not let them see it, or to tell them why it's bad when they do.
Don't expect the government to make it magically OK, because there are way more content creators than there are government censors, something will always get through. It's up to you to teach your children to make the right choices. If they can, then it doesn't matter if something "slips through" because they'll be able to make the decision that it's worthless. And it's *not* up to anyone else to dictate what I can or can't see.
Re:Two Kinds... (Score:2)
You've got a... limited view of what being human is. That's fine, but it doesn't qualify you to make rules or even suggestions...
Re:Two Kinds... (Score:2)
I don't see a legitimate rationale for not having sexual prurience on the air, unless it's part of a more general attempt to prohibit harmful behavior. As such, prohibiting depictions of violence would be _necessary_- and to my mind it would be perfectly legitimate to also prohibit depictions of cheating and stealing and conning and lying while you're at it.
If you're going to 'clean up' airwaves, do it for real or don't do it at all. If you're trying to purify society, do it for real or don't do it at all. It's positively insulting to be told that it's evil and corrupting to view two consenting people fucking each other, but it's peachy keen to watch them torturing each other to death or shooting each other in the head. That is _real_ moral corruption, and I personally don't feel I can stand for it.
Geez... (Score:3)
The one bright spot is, with a bit of luck Britney Spears will be made illegal :D but damn, that's too high a price to pay, to give up:
Assuming the FCC is not simply joking... perhaps this is a sign of the approaching final death of broadcast radio? Not only are they playing only about 20 songs over and over and over, but they cannot be 'suggestive' and intentionally prurient through suggestiveness? But gangsta rap should be okay!
I guess the major thing is to make sure radio is not the ONLY way to disseminate information...
Satellite Radio? (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:1)
Re:on Monday's Howard Stern show... (Score:1)
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Yes, the goatse.cx image is unappealing. Yes, most people would rather not see it. So why would broadcasters choose to put such things on the air? They certainly don't want to lose viewers. On the other hand, the sort of things quoted in the FCC's document are things which, while some people find them to be offensive, have some sort of value to enough people that the stations are willing to broadcast it. I find it hard to believe that anything which has a wide enough appeal to be broadcast over the air would be so "psychologically damaging" as to warrant its forced removal by the government. Even in the case of goatse.cx, what real harm would it do other than possibly inducing nausea for a little while?
Besides, there are lots of other things that a parent might not want an impressionable child to hear. Fundamentalist religious groups don't want their children hearing anything than might make them question the religion. Some people might want their children to be "protected" from idiots promoting racism. Personally, I feel ill whenever the media glamorizes oppressive government actions such as the drug war, civil asset forfeiture, etc. Should all of this be banned as well? If you banned everything that someone found offensive, you'd soon end up with nothing *but* Sesame Street on the TV, and probably not even that.
Wrong priorities (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:2)
In France, they seem to have a thing against sales against certain kinds of artifacts comming from post WWI to WWII Germany.
Heck, Germany as a whole seems pretty happy to try to forget its own past rather than stare it down and truly fix the problems that are still comming up as a result.
The former states of the USSR are in significant political and economic chaos.
Sooo, how long does the average Italian government hold power?
A lot of Asian countries have some more xenophobic tendencies and are at times more racist, and several are very conformist to the point of making outcasts a lot quicker than you see elsewhere.
Let's all face it, every country is different and has its own little quirks. America looks like it has the sum of all those quirks because it has decendants that come from those originating in just about every country on earth. Every group has its own ideas about what is good and what is bad, it's difficult to objectively put one culture above another because many people are blind to possible problems in their own culture.
Re:So long as fleeting obscenity is ok. (Score:2)
It's interesting that you compare the FCC's indecency provisons to the MPAA's rating regime, as I was just reading an article [washingtonpost.com] in this morning's Washington Post which claimed that the ratings methodology was flawed-- concentrating on isolated utterances or imagery, rather than on a appreciation of the total context of the film.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1)
I guess it may have affected me adversely, though: I hate Babylon 5 and like Voyager.
Re:I feel sorry for you (Score:2)
"On American TV:
Nasty words = BAD
Sex = BAD
Explicit violence = GOOD"
First off, that must mean that loud sex is REALLY BAD
From this information, we can determine that the powers that be/the government do not want us to reproduce, or be noisy, but would rather have us kill/severely injure each other quietly.
I would like to propose the following hypothesis which these simple facts help validate:
The "powers that be" are trying to brainwash us to kill ourselves off so that they can usurp control of the planet for their own purposes. I would also like to propose that it is most likely an alien species from "the 5th dimension"... Did anybody see Stargate last week?
The truth is out there. The paranoia is what keeps me sane.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1)
Can't do that--it's the government's job to protect our kids, right? Uh, I mean, right? Anyone? Anyone?
What I find most disturbing is the FCC's English (Score:5)
What is disturbing, however, is that these self-appointed guardians of public decency are under the impression that motherfucker is hyphenated. For at least thirty or forty years now, motherfucker has been a non-hyphenated compound word, and can, in fact, be found in most dictionaries these days. I wonder what company's spell-checker these FCC goons proofed their document with?
--
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Raising children does not require unlimited time or patience. You are correct, however, that it requires conscientious parents who will:
A) instill a sense of values/limits in their children;
B) monitor their children to insure that they comply with the limits set before them, and;
C) correct/punish them when they do not, and reward/praise them when they do.
I submit that if there are parents who have neither the time nor the inclination to devote themselves to these (necessary, but not sufficient) requirements for raising children, then perhaps they ought not to be parents in the first place.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
After all, who wants to be seen as anti-children? And that's what it's all about. You support (for example - I don't know if you actually do or not) filters in libraries - "it's for the children," you say. So, when I oppose filters, I must be, logically, anti-children. And if I'm anti-children, what other horrors do I indulge in? It is conviction by implication - I am anti-child, therefore I am (by implication) a monster, wandering the streets looking for children to molest and puppies to kick.
But this is not a rational defense of restrictions to speech. The whole point of saying "it's for the children" is to PREVENT rational discourse on the subject and thereby impose a political agenda, by appealing to emotion, that which cannot survive the light of probing examination.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5)
I know the notion of personal responsibility is somewhat passé these days, but I reiterate - if parents are unwilling to take responsibility for children that they (presumably voluntarily) produced, why should I? Believe me, my hands are full raising my own two children without taking on others that don't belong to me.
I don't ask that the government decide what my children should and shouldn't watch - I can and will do that myself. Many of the things I enjoy doing are completely unsuitable for my six-year-old son, but it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water to create a society where only those things suitable for a six-year-old were permissible.
We are, IMO, far too fixated on "the children" these days. Society and civilization exist for the benefit of all their members, not solely the next generation. We do children a disservice when we overprotect them - it renders them incapable of dealing with the wider world when they are released into it. We do children a disservice when we attempt to twist society to fit them, rather than gradually exposing them to, and preparing them to deal with the world as it exists, rather than as we think it ideally ought to be.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
--
Re:What the dilly yo? (Score:1)
Makes me wonder which radio show will be the first to read excerpts from the report, naturally all in the name of reporting the news.
Cheers,
Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:2)
Come off it and don't even try to pretend that Europe (or anywhere else in the Universe) is better about this. Anybody can come up with a story where freedoms are curtailed depending on which country you're talking about. Have fun writing a book about the royal family in the UK, or selling WWII collectibles on the Internet as long as France is connected to it, or good luck going to the store and picking up a copy of Mein Kampf when you're in Germany.
The only truly interesting thing about this article was the following phrase from the report: "God, my testicles are like down to the floor . . you could really have a party with these . . . Use them like Bocci balls."
And lest we forget, good ol' Slashdot itself has removed some posts here. Not to mention some users that it didn't particularly care for, eh?
Cheers,
Re:on Monday's Howard Stern show... (Score:2)
Was this government document beamed into people's homes without their consent? If not, then the FCC's rules shouldn't apply to it.
---
Time of Day (Score:2)
I wonder when they're going to expand it to cover all 24 hours. In post-VCR age of Tivo, Replay, etc, timeshifting is so easy, that it doesn't really matter what time of day something is on anymore. For almost half the shows I watch, I don't even know off the top of my head when they're on.
---
Thank you George Carlin... (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Tristani's right though, "...this policy statement will likely become instead a "how-to" manual for those licensees who wish to tread the line drawn by our cases." In essense, in her dissent, she's saying that the FCC shouldn't have released the policy statement because doing so would have given broadcasters the information they need to know to keep themselves from getting into trouble. The FCC must not be making enough off money from fines if they want to keep policy too vague to understand.
I'm GLAD that the FCC finally released this policy statement. I've been waiting years to actually see what THEY view as indecent. It's funny, though, that even though some of it might be offensive to me, I can always just TURN OFF the radio or TV!
That's the beauty of freedom. Nobody's forcing me to listen to those offensive programs, and I have the freedom to stop listening. I make the decisions, not the goddamned FCC. 18 USC 1464 and the right-wing Supreme Court we have are jokes.
The poster below that says protecting children and society from so-called indecent and obscene speech like this weakens society is right. When government makes the decisions for us, our freedom is diminished. I hate to sound like the shrub, but that's not what America is all about.
--B
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
And given how many restrictions to free speech are proposed in the name of "protecting the children",
that's just the point. it's all said and done in the name of the children, but they're very selective of how they help the children. it's just more puritanical witchhunting. now spewing toxins into the atmosphere isn't generally a topic covered when churches decide what needs to be abolished as sinful, so that can continue.
just as long as the children don't see anyone naked.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
as i recall, if you just randomly stumble across something that you find horribly objectionable, then, legally, you've just fallen victim to a subtle form of assault. it's completely assinine, but that's the way it is. apparently the supreme court has decided that the freedom to not be offended is more valuable than the freedom of speech. so i couldn't put porn on a billboard, and i can't say "fuck" over broadcast channels, because *gasp* i might offend someone, and somehow that would violate their rights. but i'm pretty sure i'm allowed to stand in a public place and yell "fuck" at the top of my lungs. (hell, i did it the other day.) the whole system is just a big, puritanical mess.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
that's what i was getting at. they're selective "protection of the children" indicates that their agenda isn't really to protect the children, but more a direct manifestation of their own puritanical ideas, using the chidren only as an excuse.
(and for the record, i don't like the idea of filtering in libraries. not that it's bad in theory to limit people to sites related to academic pursuits, but in practice, it's impossible.)
Re:A list of words (Score:2)
-J
Re:The Jim Bell article was more interesting (Score:1)
...and then the government computers got attacked. (Score:1)
I wondering if Wired were intentionally sarcastic when they followed their description of FCC's painful stupidity with the following news:
=D
Yeah, those rascally Americans! (Score:1)
Second, many european countries *are* bettern than the US with regard to censorship. Especially if you consider this "indecency" nonsense. The "Parental advisory" and bleeping songs for radio or music videos seems especially stupid, as it sometimes reaches all the way over the atlantic. (ie a TV show host makes an apology for the record company apparently sending them the "US version" of a video with all the naughty words bleeped out and she says something like "so you'll have to sing the words yourself, they are fuck, weed, motheryfucker...")
Just remember... (Score:2)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5)
Except even with a TV and a Radio you have the right not to listen. Just use the free device known as the On/Off switch. That's right just turn the damn thing off. If you can't even take the time to teach your kids right from wrong, good from bad, reality from make believe, having the FCC tell media companies what should or should not be on TV is the least of your consern. Because your childern aren't prepared at all for the real world where everything isn't nice, homoginized, and safe. Unlimited time and unlimited patiencs is not needed. This is just an excuse because someone is wrapped up in the wrong things. Taking away someone's rights just because you haven't done your job or because you just don't think it's the correct thing to say on TV is no excuse.
Ever wondered why material like this is always on and broadcasters keep wanting to show it? Because it sells and gets viewers. If it didn't sell at all it wouldn't be on TV at all. The best way you can stop this stuff is to just boycott those stations that brodcast this material.
FCC has/is overstepping thier bounds. They are too conserned about regulating what is on TV/Radio and not conserned enough about doing their real job, making sure the spectrum is used efficently and that telecom companies aren't screwing the little guy by intentionally delaying access to their networks and stalling on the deployment of new technologies like DSL and HDTV. What is broadcast should not be their consern. Let the free market decided what is and isn't on TV. Censorship is never the answer.
And Canada laughs and laughs and laughs.... (Score:1)
Anyway, if we weren't so overloaded with American culture it would be a lot better, but we still get the pre-edited for export versions of things from the US, which sucks ass. But we still laugh at you. Puritans, what a wacky bunch.
Ironic? (Score:1)
(With apologies to George Carlin)
actual policy statement (Score:2)
Re:this prohibits most old Blues music (Score:1)
I am a backdoor man
Well the men don't know
But the little girls understand
can't get any more direct than that
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:2)
I did. The point is not the regulation. The point is that it is enshrined in law. It is not part of the licence agreement between the broadcaster and the government (as it is in the UK) but the LAW.
And to say that the FCC is regulating religious content is insane.
Again I did (how else did I get the quote "obscene, indecent, or profane" - it's near the start). Now, go to a dictionary and have a look at the meaning of profane: "to treat something sacred with abuse, irreverence, or contempt". This is where the thin end of the wedge comes in - the word sacred brings in religion. That could be a powerful lever in the wrong hands. The fact the the FCC is not yet regualting religion does not mean that it does not have the power under the law to do so.
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:4)
Europe is better about "this". The article was talking about "offensive speech" being censored - specifically anything "obscene, indecent, or profane". Even in the UK (you know, the repressed country) plenty of obscene, indecent, and profane stuff gets aired and nobody bothers. On the Graham Norton Show last week, for example, Rikki Lake was happily saying "fuck" just because she could. There are guidelines, but after 9pm ("the watershed") more or less anything goes language wise. Same in the rest of Europe.
When ever I go over I am always bemused that a country that trumpets free speech has such bland television. At first I thought it was the advertisers. Eventually I found out it was the Government - you actually have a law prohibiting naughty words on TV and Radio. Except it doesn't just say that - "profane" brings religion into it. Thin end of the wedge (although via the Supreme Court thin ends have been driven much further than you would think possible - Abortion is based on the right to privacy??? I'm not saying it is right or wrong, merely weird) but you actually have a law that says "You can't be naughty, you can't be rude, and you can't diss God".
Have fun writing a book about the royal family in the UK
You should have a quick visit to news.bbc.co.uk and have a read about Sophie to see just how incredibly wrong this comment is. Writing about the Royals (in books, magazines, and newspapers) is very common, and most of the comments are negative. On the TV it is not unusual - after all it was on TV that Diana accused Charles of adultery.
Re:What is the point? (Score:1)
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:1)
Can't there be some compromise on this? Do we have to lean completely toward the rights of the broadcasters?
That is not the only alternative to a total lack of control. My point is that censorship is a spectrum, and neither extreme is very appealing.--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:1)
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
To me, it makes sense that there is material which we should not assume people want to be exposed to unless they make an explicit choice to do so. (goatsecx? rotten.com?) Allowing any and all material to be publicly broadcast where people might see it acidentally, or where unattended children might see it, seems to be going a little too far in the direction of free speech.
The first amendment says you have the right to say things, but you never have the right to make someone else listen. Applied properly, censorship could even amount to a protection of our right to choose what we listen to. AFAIK, the FCC rules only apply to public broadcasts; if you really want to hear some censored material, there are plenty of ways to do that.
Now, as for who should be in charge of the censorship, and what the rules should be, that's another ball game. The point is, I don't think there are any simple answers to this question.
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
I didn't say the government should raise our kids. I just think the view that parents have the responsibility to shield their kids from an unlimited barrage of obscenities isn't fair to parents or to kids.
Look at it the other way: can you explain why I should be forced actively and explicitly, day in and day out, to keep all manner of filth out of my own home? It is much like opt-out marketing: why should I be forced to say "no" to everything anyone could possibly want to send my way? For example, just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say? I don't think so. OTOH, if I order certain cable stations which are known to do this sort of thing, then that's up to me, and I'll take the responsibility of protecting my kids.
My point is that (a) you can still see whatever you want, no matter what the FCC does, and (b) the extreme solution of abandoning all controls is as harmful as any other extreme solution.
The issue is not that simple.
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
So your argument is that people who don't want to risk being exposed to the most vile atrocities at any time of the day or night shouldn't buy TVs?
Can't I buy a TV so my kids can watch Sesame Street without devoting my life to making sure they don't switch the channel to some talk show host having a frank pictorial discussion of the goatsecx guy? I don't care how conscientiously you teach your four-year-old son; that's going to be disturbing.
And what exactly was the benefit of this again?
Precisely. So I don't leave armed hand grenades near my children. Do you think it's ok for broadcasters to make televisions equally dangerous, psychologically?
Remember, I'm only arguing against the absolute lack of control over the contents of the most readily available media. I'm only saying it's not such a simple subject that we can afford to go to that extreme.
I don't have the answers; I'm only challenging those who think the answer is to stop all censorship of all media.
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Parents today have a tough job, and you seem to have no problem making it much tougher just to protect broadcasters' absolute right to free speech. Well, I don't buy it.
The broadcaster's right to swing his arm ends where parent's nose begins.
--
Patrick Doyle
Re:What is the point? (Score:3)
--
Patrick Doyle
I found it pretty level headed.... (Score:2)
When you think about it, it's all in how you say the word "fuck" and if the FCC was just hung up on a few words, you end up banning a statement like "Fuck the FCC" which is not offensive in and of itself while letting the milk duds skit go by.
I think they are doing a good job by the looks of the full report (meaning, if the will of the people of the United States is to keep sexually explicit material off the public airwaves, then this is a far better approach than just banning seven naughty words).
Hint: Don't get hung up on my post too much. I'm not expressing any opinion on whether or not the laws against indencent material are laudible. My opinion above is referencing the enforcement and interpretation of that law only.
Yes, there is nudity (Score:2)
Society shows no signs of falling apart for it.
USA - the Iran of the western world (Score:5)
You should travel more! In most civilized countries, the treatment of sex and "indecency" in the media is way more relaxed, and they typically have none of the problems the americans think must ensue if these "necessary evil" regulations were not enforced with an iron fist.
Fun example: In the country where they try to hide sex from the kids as much as possible, teenage pregnancies are much higher than the rest of the rich world.
The real problem is the huge and very powerful fundamentalist christian lobby in the US.
Re:Wrong target as usual (Score:2)
Re:Wrong target as usual (Score:2)
... note: being a fairly open-minded Christian, I find it quite ignorant of the FCC to decide what is acceptable and what is not. I also find it ignorant of the average Slashdot user to believe (as has been stated in previous threads) that Christian values and views shouldn't be acceptable in classrooms or in the government because somehow that would be state-sponsored religion which is obviously much worse than the right to express one's beliefs whether one is a government employee or not (sarcasm).
Re:on Monday's Howard Stern show... (Score:2)
Damn... (oops). That's the problem. Anyone know of a government agency that we can contact so that we can tattle on the FCC for their document?
"Following are examples of decisions where the explicit/graphic nature of the description of sexual/excretory organs or activities played a central role in the determination that the broadcast was indecent: 'God my testicles are like down to the floor...you could really have a party with these...Use them like Bocci balls.'; 'I mean to go around porking other girls with vibrating rubber products'..."
Not indecent - The text was used solely to illustrate examples of speech that the FCC feels are unacceptable. Blah blah... newspeak... blah blah duckspeak blah blah...
That document made me wanna vomit. It was just so clinical. If those songs/shows/etc offend people, maybe they should just turn them off. Hell (oops), I remember hearing about my Granpa getting all offended when the Beatles came on Ed Sullivan because they had long(?) hair. I mean my god. He'd die if he saw korn.
Come to think of it, the more and more I go on, I wonder what this reply has to do with your post. Oh well. Sorry.
Mike
Re:What is the point? (Score:3)
Shoot the bastards (Score:2)
Children should not be let out to run around the big bad world unescorted. You don't like the radio, or TV, or the internet, don't buy a TV, a radio, or a computer. Don't let your children play with kids whose parents have them. I'm very sorry, but if you want to raise sheltered children, that's your responsibility, not mine. And don't give me that bullshit about you can't watch them all the time. If you aren't wasting money on TV, radio, computers, books, movies, and so on, you got the money to have one parent stay home. You want to pretend the world has the same values you do, you have to go to some trouble.
If it's too much trouble, well, that's just tough shit. It's not my responsibility to listen to bad jokes and circuitous discussions of sex because *you're* a prude. My favorite advice column is Dan Savage. Imagine if someone were to read this over the radio:
Point 6 of the report: the courts have approved regulation of broadcast indecency to further the compelling government interests in supporting parental supervision of children, and more generally its concern for children's well being.
Now someone please show me the line in the constitution that says "congress shall have the power to take any actions necessary and proper to providing for children's well being"? Or am I right and all these fucking traitors should be taken out and shot for violating their oaths of office?
Why is it that the FCC thinks sex and shitting are potential areas of speech which may be indecent? Maybe I find the idea of governments blatantly ignoring the law indecent, but don't have a problem with people humorous songs about politicians having sex with 15 year olds (see page 8 of the report). Maybe I think graphic descriptions of war are unsuitable for children, but these standards don't even touch on that. Sorry, not covered, by the underwear, not covered by our taboos.
You gotta love the language of the report too: "our enforcement requires" instead of "we decided". In fact, it's never "we", but rather "the commission". Or maybe "the Commision."
Little shit fascists like you should be sent over to China for a while, where they just go ahead and shoot people for saying stuff they don't like (but not before matching them up with people waiting for the organs!).
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Hearing the word "fuck" does nothing to harm a child. Neither does seeing naked men having gay orgies.
The real problem here is that people refuse to give up on the worthless moral standards imposed by their religions. This leads to shame when discussing such topics, especially when discussing them with children. When the FCC censors television, it is only because Americans are too stupid to think for themselves.
Read the document! (Score:2)
I suspect that most slashdot readers are generally against censorship. However, informed arguments are much more effective than uninformed flamings. If you care about censorship, go and read the thoughts of one organization whose job it is to implement censorship before posting all the "censorship sucks" replies. (The full policy statement is linked to from the second page above, or you can jump straight to the pdf file using this link [fcc.gov].)
The FCC explains why they're in the business of censorship (ans: because there's a federal law that the FCC is not in control of, and Congress instructs FCC to enforce this law), gives examples of the court cases involving the FCC's censorship, and summarizes how the FCC decides if broadcast material violates the federal law.
In a bonus section at the end, two FCC commissioners explain why they support issuing this new policy statement, and a third commissioner explains why she thinks the statement should not be issued.
It's definitely worth reading, if you care about censorship.
(As an example of what's in the document; do you know exactly what the definition of "obscene" is? The definition used by the FCC is that material must satisfy all three of the following:
- an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest;
- the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by applicable law; and
- the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.
)Actually, it doesn't say much at all (Score:2)
"It is not sufficient, for example, to know that explicit sexual terms or descriptions were used, just as it is not sufficient to know that no such terms were used."
Is it just me, or is there very little informational content here at all? So what is sufficient? As near as I can tell, all this offers is vague generalities, so what was the point of publishing it at all. Surely the true mark of free speech is that everything is tolerated, at least as speech. Perhaps you might restrict what minors can see, to the extent you don't consider them to truly be "people" yet. But other than that, surely anything goes if you truly have free speech. Crimes involved in generating the speech might be sanctioned (e.g. paedophilia), but the speech itself should not be restricted.
It's where euphemisms come from (Score:4)
When they become common enough they aren't euphemisms anymore, and the law will be revised to include them. Then a bunch of new euphemisms will pop up.
What a cycle. I'm expecting the size of slang dictionaries to double or triple in a few years.
Re:Why it's better to live in the U.S. (Score:2)
Re:I feel sorry for you (Score:2)
Interesting that the UK moderation board are getting less and less strict
No kidding. Watch Channel 4 on Saturday night/Sunday morning (the 4 Later segment).
Karaoke fishtank
Pets
Vids
They are all swear-fests (funny though).
Re:I feel sorry for you (Score:3)
Arguably, the censorship (or in this case, FCC's guideline for decency in broadcasting) seem like the lesser of two evil only in the sense that they are going after the broadcasters - we have the wonderful thing we called the Internet now that prevents us from being censored, so your average citizens aren't affected.
The camera thing is already there and is affecting the average citizen. Of course, it should be noted that only criminals who commit crimes in public places need to worry.
Isn't technology great? Too bad they don't yet have technology that will prevent you from commiting crimes instead of punishing you afterwards for commiting crimes. Perhaps embedded chips that shocks you when you are about to commit a crime, even if it is as low tech as people watching cameras and manually press a button to shock criminals in the middle of committing a crime (as opposed to a chip that can sense your brain wave patterns and knows you are thinking evil thoughts and zap you accordingly).
Perhaps a different technology will come along, say artificial genetic selection - the DNA would be modified such that all people with violent and criminal dispositions will be prevented from being born, so that all through the world, there would be a flock of docile, obedient, and possibly intelligence reduced people, except for a handful of wealthy powerful people that pay to enhance their own abilities. These people would control the world through the money and the power that they wield as a minority elite (oh, wait...).
:-)
Wasn't it (Score:2)
Rich
Re:on Monday's Howard Stern show... (Score:2)
What WOULD be funny (and very likely!) is if that document or the entire FCC.gov domain was blocked by library filtering software!
Research my friends, Research (Score:2)
Legislation by examples (Score:2)
That so-called "FCC policy statement" is nothing but a set of examples that they considered unacceptable. How is one supposed to extrapolate from there? Where is the thin line drawn over which broadcasters should not pass?
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Ever wondered why material like this is always on and broadcasters keep wanting to show it? Because it sells and gets viewers. If it didn't sell at all it wouldn't be on TV at all. The best way you can stop this stuff is to just boycott those stations that brodcast this material.
Good argument, but lets look at the other end of it. The airwaves are a public property. They have to be regulated. The government must be involved in this. By using this public property, you are forced to follow the government's rules, which as long as they are applied consistently so as to avoid censorship, seems like a reasonable requirement to me.
But on to your argument: the best way to stop this censorship is to refuse to watch or listen to programs which cater to it. Watch cable. Watch PBS (they broadcast "fuck" regularly). The fact of the matter is that most people in the US want censorship, so if you plan to live here, you should get used to that fact. The free market already does decide what is and isn't on TV. Most people just happen to choose commercial filled, fake laugh track, censored nonsense.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Apparantly Killing, Violence, Blood & Gore are OK! (Score:4)
Paragraph 3 states that obscene speech is never allowed, and the footnote on page 2 gives a three-part test, and part 2 requires "depict or describe ... sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law".
Paragraph 7 limits the scope of indecent material (which is only banned from 6 AM to 10 PM) to only "describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities".
Ok, admittedly from the examples this thing is targeted at radio broadcast, but having just read through it, I can't see any reason why it doesn't apply equally to television (and several of the case law citations are regarding television standards).
The FCC was right on one case (Score:2)
on Monday's Howard Stern show... (Score:5)
"Following are examples of decisions where the explicit/graphic nature of the description of sexual/excretory organs or activities played a central role in the determination that the broadcast was indecent: 'God my testicles are like down to the floor...you could really have a party with these...Use them like Bocci balls.'; 'I mean to go around porking other girls with vibrating rubber products'..."
Hm. Now a government document wouldn't possibly be indecent would it?...
(oh, and if this DOES happen, you heard it here first! =})
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Response: I'll give you beneifit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware that "filth" gets broadcast on TV when you bought your TV set. Well then... you are free to sell your TV or get a parental lock. (I won't even ask if you pay for cable TV filth.)
You asked: just because I own a television, does that mean I have agreed to have my children potentially exposed to anything anybody might want to say?
Response: Yes, it means you paid for and brought a potentially harmful influence into the house. You are trying to absolve yourself of the inherent responsibility that comes with TV ownership and of raising children. That's sad.
When I have children (about two years from now) I'll have my own solution... a TV set used to display child video tapes and watch adult news reports (locked down at all other times). If I'm still addicted to "my favorite shows" maybe I'll use a digital video recorder to record whatever and watch after the kids are asleep. God forbid I should spend 5-8 p.m. every evening doing non-TV activities with my family.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3)
Response: Too darn bad. It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. The same logic that believes censoring TV makes sense directly applies to censoring the Internet.
Growing up, half my friends had parents who used child locks on their TVs (via cable box). That was fifteen years ago. Today a parent doesn't have to exert much effort to be responsible.
Why doesn't the FCC teach parenting classes instead? It makes as much sense as their current course of action.
In order to teach children good from bad. . . (Score:3)
KFG
Re:Let it all hang out (Score:2)
Don't think that this is something new.
In fact, IIRC in the early/middle 19th century a school teacher in newengland bombed the school he taught at and killed several dozen of his own students.
I don't think that was MTV's fault.
--
The Jim Bell article was more interesting (Score:2)
Read the Jim Bell article next to this...it was much more interesting, anyway.
What I don't understand is how the swine in the federal govt can find any kind of excuse at all for someone advocating the assasination of unethical government employees, as well as giving information on how to do it.
After all, Americans don't have a right to kill unethical government officers...they have a duty to do so. Anyone that doesn't have a religious objection to killing should do it, it is part of being a good citizen.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Can you explain why I should be forced to watch (ie, I want to watch TV and it's the only thing available) programming that has been censored for other people? I'm 21 years old; I'm not mortally offended when I see tits on TV or watch the Howard Stern show. Why should what you don't want your kids to watch influence what I can see?
It is much like opt-out marketing
Perhaps, but with the slight difference that with government censorship, there's no corresponding opt-in for those channels. Not having censorship gives you more options (ie, you can watch it or not) than giving the FCC free reign over the airwaves (ie, you cannot watch it).
Now you say "Well I can just get some of the premium channels". Fantastic. I have to pay out extra money just to keep government influence out of a few channels.
--
Re:maybe that's a good thing (Score:2)
That'd be nice, but it's more likely that the FCC'll just use these nice vague laws to go after anyone they don't like. That's the nasty side of selectively applied legality. Witness the Scientologists demanding /. remove that post when the exact same stuff was available in a million other places. Witness the Schwartz case just recently seen here; they have a law that saws that any unintended use of a computer is illegal, yet it's only been used 3 times in a decade.
Imagine that Congress passes a law that allows feds to arrest anyone for, I dunno, jaywalking and hold them indefinitely. It's a safe bet that they'd never actually use it, but someone comes along that they don't like; whammo! they're found guilty of jaywalking. And it'd even be legal, since what person always crosses the streeet at intersections? Vague laws give governments the freedom to do interpret them however they want and thus do whatever they want.
--
"For these reasons, I dissent." (Score:2)
Holy schlamoley...big politics happening in the offices of the FCC. Here's the last paragraph of Tristani's statement [slashdot.org] (emphasis added):
Good to know there are still a few people kicking about D.C. that actually give a rat's ass about what's going on around them, rather than simply following the party line.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Censorship - Is there anything more useless? (Score:2)
Two Kinds... (Score:3)
After reading the passages in the FCC document (highly entertaining!), can anyone really defend their airing on the public airwaves? Those of us who are old enough to appreciate the content can obtain it readily from other sources, and I maintain that it is in the best interests of our society that we protect the children (do it for the little children!!! Of course, who else do we do these things for?) from being exposed to this information. Ironically, the same moralists are the ones who applauded the release of the Starr Report in our local newspaper. The Ends do not justify the Means, but apparently they do for Them.
Now as to my reasoning as to why this information is harmful. I am against most of the methods employed by the Christian Right, as I believe they
are neither Christian nor Right, but I had to figure out for myself what constituted the reasoning behind the Laws of God, if only to figure out my own morality. What I came up with is this: the brand of Love that is portrayed to children between mutually consenting adults is important to their understanding of what is Right and Wrong. I think that a perfectly idealized love* is almost non-sexual in nature. In this idealized Love of, say a Man for a Woman, he cherishes her and holds her more important than his own life. In any case, the object of his love is her soul, her essence. This sort of Love is self-renewing and always fulfilling. It is the sort of love that grows with time in a deeper intimacy and abiding trust. The heart and the soul of the lover become filled with Joy and Life takes on a meaning that transcends the ordinary day-to-day events.
In contrast, the sort of attraction a Man has for a Woman as portrayed by these shock jocks totally denies the soul of the person, and objectifies
her as mere flesh. The problem here is that the object of desire is the flesh itself, which has no soul, so there is nothing further to do once the
object has been er, conquered. This leads to immense dissatisfaction in the psyche, as one realizes that what one thinks he has been searching for is found, and then it's done. It then becomes like a drug, it's all about one's own sexual needs, not about any joining of souls, and the problem becomes one of maintaining the excitement and the impetus for continuing pursuit of this inner drive. The only way to maintain That kind of high, is, like a drug, to increase the dosage - you must next have two partners, or use vibrators, whips, chains, multiple partners. You cheat, you tomcat around, you pay money for it. It is very much like the current climate in radio. Once advertisers learned that titillation turns heads (walk through any video store and count the number of times a big ol'
But that of course is the nature of evil, to consume your soul. You learn that the hard way at your own peril.
So we as a society should continue to punish those who, in their own misguided notion of fun and need to create an allegience among our youth, would teach them to be titillated by such porn. Because there is a much more important way to Love. Because our Children need to learn that first. This will save them when they are exposed to the various genitalia flouted at them over the course of their lives.
Yes. Do it... for the children.
(*- By the way. In a perfectly idealized love? The sex is Great!)
Wrong target as usual (Score:2)
As the piece on the FCC shows, government censorship is at worse high comedy. So please give us a break with these false alarms.
A list of words (Score:2)
I mean it is the last few months that I learned dick, pussy and cunt are swear words.
I have never heard the word cunt in my life.
I used to say pussy in elementary school
"You're a pussy"
"No I am not, you're a pussy"
"You don't even know what that word means"
"Yes I do"
"Well what does it mean?"
"I know what it means, you don't know what it means"
"I do too"
"do not"
Of course I know what the word means now. Really I do.
Dick? People are named Dick there is a movie named Dick. We had a Dick for president. The current vice-president is a Dick. This is a censored word?
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:2)
I feel sorry for you (Score:2)
Fortunately, we don't have anything like that in the UK. I mean, take a look at what's on Channel 5 tonight... Erm, yeah, breaks every rule there.
Interesting that the UK moderation board are getting less and less strict.
So long as fleeting obscenity is ok. (Score:2)
"The 'news announcer's use of single expletive' does not 'warrant further Commision consideration in light of the isolated and accidental nature of the broadcast.'"
This makes sense, and to DISALLOW most of the other things listed is completely accetpable.
Why? Because anyone can turn on a radio. Broadcasters have to cater to the lowest common denominator (perhaps not the lowest, but reasonably low).
To cry "cencorship" in this situation is the same as crying "cencorship" when a movie is given an R-rating. How many would feel that it is acceptable to walk up to an eight-year-old girl and say, "You know, the best part about screwing you would be hearing your pelvis crack." (this is an example from the document put into perspective)
Since the listener base of radio is unrestricted, the content must be.
I do agree that society lacks a medium comperable to radio that can broadcast adult-intended content. Society might see this soon with the increasing popularity of internet radio (when our cars get hooked up, I am guessing it will explode). For now, deal with it.
My favorite: (Score:2)
My favorite line out of the document, referring to the above:
"Notwithstanding the use of candy bar names to symbolize sexual activities, the titillating and pandering nature of the song makes any thought of candy bars peripheral at best".
What is the point? (Score:3)
I will concede the point that filtering in Public Libraries becuase of kids, etc. I know that people will bitch and whine and complain until that happens.
I say let the individual decide what they want to see and what they dont. Individual freedoms are what make this country great. I know people will say we need to protect our kids, etc, why dont you WATCH your kids and PAY ATTENTION to them and then maybe you wont have to install that piece of software that your kid can crack anyway.
Arathres
I love my iBook. I use it to run Linux!
The 'Sit on My Face' song... (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, those rascally Americans (Score:2)
So, slashdot removed the scientology articles, understandable in a panty-waste kind of way. Everything2 removed an article that I posted there about Chris Kuivenhoven [mailto], who has on a number of occasions offered to host peoples machines then run away with the hardware.
They also removed the article where I said that everything2 was bowdlerized because they removed the entry about Chris Kuivenhoven. It wasn't moderated down, I didn't get email asking for proof, it was removed.
Slashdot itself removed the article I posted pointing out that everything2 was censored as well as a reply to it commenting on the URL.
This is where the message, were it not deleted, would be [slashdot.org].
money talks (Score:5)
Last I saw NYPD Blue upped their show to include the word asshole, yet they don't get fined, but should Howard say it, the fines would roll in.
Thats the problem with American media (television, radio), they're (the FCC) so strung out on typical bullshit, freedom of speech is equivalent to "Freedom to Pay for your Speech Should it Offend Us". At least Euro television doesn't have anal intentions of fining anyone that uses a word, no matter if people like it or not.
Ghost in the Shell [antioffline.com] (updated crypto/stegano series)
redefine indencency (Score:2)