PBS Feels FCC Chill On Censorship 1037
Shadow Wrought writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on PBS censoring one of its upcoming drama shows, Cop Shop, due to the chilling effect of the most recent FCC rulings on indecency. Star Richard Dreyfuss offered these choice words as part of a prepared statement, 'It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.'"
Here we go .... (Score:4, Insightful)
The slippery slope my homeland is heading down ...
- Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual
images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are
actually harmful.)
- Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from
scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern.
- Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must
protect children from terrorist attack.
- Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must
protect children from policies we do not agree with.
sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once.Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Funny)
[with everyone in Bart's class there, and many adults]
Mrs. Lovejoy: "Don't talk about S-E-X in front of the C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N!"
Krusty: "Sex Cauldron!? I thought that place closed down!"
It takes a brit... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Insightful)
> is ba, because we must protect
> children from policies we do not agree with.
Apparently it's not too bad, since you just did it. For real censorship, see China or, perhaps, Syria.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two problems with this.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If Bush and Company had a press conference where they all twirled their thick black mustaches and laughed, "MUAHahahahaha!", everyone would know they were the bad guys.
Instead, they tell us that we need to be defend against terrorism, or that they're protecting children, or so on. They start by attacking unsympathetic people, advocates of the most radical changes, the most overtly threatening speakers. For instance, those people who worked with Iraq or Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo without access to counsel, or political radicals, or pornographers. They have the right to counsel under US law and US legal tradition. But they're working with the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way just a little bit on this whole due process concept, right?
Over time censorship goes up and free speech goes down. A little at a time, a little here, a little there... they sneak it in, so it only offends the strongest free speech advocates, also known as "next on our list". Eventually you can't criticize at all without risking jail time or worse.
And if you think that the current administration thinks of censorship as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis, remember this: when Bill Maher called US pilots "cowards", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "... they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Emphasis added.)
Second... China or Syria? "Oh, hey, sure we're less free, but look at China and Syria! They're way worse than us!" is not the smartest way to approach this issue. The United States is dedicated to being the most open and most free society ever created. We're supposed to work for something more than "better than these other guys". We're supposed to strive to embody in concrete reality our highest abstract aspirations.
The idea that we can get away with a barely passing grade on free expression is profoundly unpatriotic. It is an abandonment of the rights that were held sacred by the founders of this country.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Interesting)
But back to censorship, two of the original infamous "seven" dirty words, the phrase "blow job", and the FCC...
What it comes down to (and this has been batted around so many times that I'm not sure why this latest PBS concession is news), is that public broadcasting stations have different standards that they have to adhere to than private (cable, scrambled satellite) broadcasters do. There are 2 main reasons for it: anybody can watch/listen, and no two communities have quite the same standards for what constitutes indecency as far as speech is concerned.
The reason that the FCC came out with the guidelines that they just about never have to enforce is so people in the more modest of these communities can watch television or listen to the radio during a certain timeframe without having to worry too much about seeing something that they might find offensive. Later at night (when most kids are sleeping), the rules relax, and there have been a number of similar concessions made over the years that have slowly allowed what would traditionally be considered risqe' words, apparel, or behavior to show up on public broadcasts.
It seems to fly in the face of the first amendment, but it is a long standing concession to the problems that decency standards and country-wide media programming have when they butt heads. I personally have no problem with the fact that boobs or other body parts may show up on TV, but I'd rather know about it ahead of time...that's me. I also have no particular problem with swear words (and the phrase "blow job"...whoever bleeped that one was a plain and simple asshat) on TV, although, again, advance warning would be nice. The system is there to protect those at the lower end of the tolerance-for-what-they-call-indecency spectrum. Yes, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, but should they *expect* to see some boobie with their superbowl? I know I didn't.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Some people think that's silly and uneccesary, and that's okay. Some people think it's too lax and irresponsible, and that's okay, too. Us disagreeing is fine with me.
So, since the f-word and the s-word are traditionally not heard on the airwaves (for various reasons), why is there so much commotion over the bleeping?
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently it's not too bad, since you just did it. For real censorship, see China or, perhaps, Syria.
This all-too-common response is congenitally stupid.
Yes, censorship is worse in China and Syria. That doesn't mean that censorship doesn't happen in the U.S., that it isn't a bad thing, and that we shouldn't do what we can to stop it. Or are your highest aspirations for the U.S., when it comes to free speech and censorship, really only to be better than China and Syria?
Every time I read a reply like this, saying "you think X is bad here? Just look at country Y! It's really bad there!" I imagine someone shrugging off spousal abuse by saying "in Afghanistan, they cut off women's heads!!!" Yes, that's true; now can we get back to the subject, and discuss how we make things better here?
Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that many people feel that they haven't "done anything" about this yet because there's no particularly alarming censorship taking place. When they start censoring political messages (like yours) then I'll start "doing something" about it.
Seriously though, Clear Channel wa
Re:Free speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes, I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on this one.
Patriot Act II: The Clampdown (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the broadcast media went back to a 1950 'standard of decency' there are plenty of other mediums that are virtually uncensored (pay cable) and even totally uncensored (the internet). I think free speech is safer than it ever was. Think about it: instantaneous, worldwide communication is now available to just about anyone. Plus, it's very hard to stop- plenty of countries are trying, with very mixed success.
People int his country have often tried to restrict free speech in the past. It is safe to say that this is harder now than at any time in human history. Sometimes people think they are being censored just because no one listens to them. Free speech also means that if you think someone is a total crackpot, you don't have to put them on your TV show. You can still say anything you want to, but it doesn't mean anyone has an obligation to listen.
Re:Free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, lets assume that they will never stop people from getting up a soapbox on the corner.
However, when you can control the mass media to convince the public that X is crazy, stupid, obscene, "wrong", unsafe, bad for children, etc, that puts an end to free speech.
To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (Score:5, Funny)
Oh yeah big shot? (Score:4, Funny)
What does ' replace in
John's bike
Jill's bike
3M's new product?
Take THAT bad-natured grammar naziry!
"e" (Score:5, Interesting)
Boobs bad, violence is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boobs bad, violence is good (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond stupid...
Re:Boobs bad, violence is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boobs bad, violence is good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all well-known and undisputed. The problem described in the article is that the current FCC administration is applying their vague standards of "decency" inconsistently and in apparently politically-motivated ways. This does not serve the public good. It therefore should be stopped.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:4, Insightful)
When, by the way, did we have an America where boobs and swear words were on TV? I don't remember it.
Chapter 243 of my new book, Things We All Fricking Know But Like To Pretend We Don't For Some Reason covers the obvious reality that maybe children should get some scope on the universe before they engage in activities that make them parents. Of course, this inhibits pleasure, so a Slashdotter cannot conceive of it.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Interesting)
But we can't deal with sexuality like adults because we're so hung up on appearing to be liberated. Who wants to appear to be repressed? The second you mention that maybe having having anal sex broadcast twenty four hours a day in Times Square is a bad idea, you're tarred as if you've just proposed mandatory ankle length bathing suits.
To put it smartly, we have a culture which pressures the sixteen year old boy to have sex in the backseat rather than hang on a few years until he has some vague chances of dealing with it in a capable way.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
...or rather than have sex in his bedroom, in his parents house, with condoms that they offered to provide him if he wanted them, and with the education provided by parents that are willing to discuss things rationally.
You see, there is nothing wrong with many sixteen year-olds having sex, as long as they have safe sex and understand the consequences. The problem is that our culture attaches a stigma and negative consequences to honesty about sexuality. This forces the sixteen year-olds (even more so with girls) into ignorant secrecy and likely unsafe sex.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, there is nothing wrong with many sixteen year-olds having sex, as long as they have safe sex and understand the consequences
How many 16 year-olds do you know who are really capable of understanding the consequences (which go far, far beyond pregnancy)? For that matter, IMO, there are many, many adults in our society today that don't think much beyond their own short-term pleasure. A very small percentage of 16 year-old girls may be mature enough to understand the significance of sex, and next to no 16 year-old boys could do it. I know I sure as hell couldn't.
You're probably going to take this next bit as an ad hominem attack, but really it's not, any more than if I were to ask why I should accept a first year physics student's answer to a problem in celestial mechanics over that of a PhD candidate in physics.
Judging by your e-mail address and the slant.net link, I assume you're a college student, which means you're probably young, single, and don't have children. Given that, I ask you: What qualifies you to make judgements about the consequences of sex in the real world, given your extreme lack of life experience? You haven't had any long-term relationships with women (other than relatives, etc.), you haven't had the experience of raising children and seeing what does and does not seem to affect them, and you haven't had the crushing *responsibility* of turning them into worthwhile adults.
I'm not trying to tell you that your opinions or thoughts are worthless, but I do want to point out that you *are* significantly less-informed on the subjects than the majority of the people you're criticizing. That's normal behavior for a 17 year-old (who, of course, knows everything about everything), but you're probably in your early 20s and have actually begun to get a glimpse of the scope and complexity of the real world, albeit in its simplified academic version. Surely you've learned to recognize how much there is that you do not know (that being the primary function of an undergraduate education, IMNSHO).
In any case, if you're interested in convincing *me* (not that there's any reason you should be) you're going to have to come up with something better than bald assertions ("there is nothing wrong with..."). You see, I'm a father who will be facing these issues in a very few years, and I'm not in a position to glibly brush the concerns under the rug, because I have to make real decisions that will really affect the lives of my four very real children (did I mention this is real?).
In any case, you certainly shouldn't be surprised to hear that I'm inclined to give more weight to the opinion of someone who has been in a committed relationship for at least 20 years and has actually raised teenagers than to yours. Frankly, I'm more likely to listen to your father than to you.
Please excuse me if my suppositions about your situation in life are off base. If you have, in fact, been in a relationship for 20+ years and do have adult children who are a credit to you and to society, then by all means share the knowledge and wisdom you've gleaned from your experience.
Otherwise, consider that it's just possible that all of those people who have been adults for longer than you've been alive just might know a thing or two that (a) can't be found in books or by simple logical inference and (b) you don't. That doesn't mean you should blindly follow authority, by all means question. But *question*, don't assert.
Re:Good point (Score:5, Insightful)
This harms no one.
I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech.
Unlike this.
People who are offended by certain words are offended by them because they were taught to be and for no other reason. It is an irrational, entirely emotional response. They are offended by the words themselves and not the ideas they convey.
Proof:
1) There are other words which mean the same exact thing which are not considered offensive (fuck == sex, coitus, intercourse; shit == feces, crap, dung).
2) They are still offended by the words even when they are not used to convey the supposedly offensive ideas ("That's fucking brilliant!" == "That's absolutely brilliant", "Oh shit, I fucked up." == "Rats, I made a mistake.").
These people are holding others responsible for their inability to deal with the reactions they have to these words (strictly, the specific sequence of letters). To take your example, writing "f__k" is okay but typing out the word "fuck" is not even though the first is readily recognizable as the second.
It's blind superstition and people refuse to recognize it as such. It's time to grow up.
Re:Here we go .... again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems likely that most here would declare themselves to be anti-censorship ..... until their own particular threshold is crossed. And if one indeed has such a threshold (and most do, somewhere), then moral indignation at someone else's more restrictive threshold seems hard to come by.
Re:Here we go .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, language is important enough to give careful consideration. Language is the basis of our views on the world... it gives a direct connection between a concept and a physical item.
Most importantly, the value of the thing is usually directly associated with the value connected to a word.
Do you get a different sense of respect/importance from these two sentences:
I'm going to go pick up my girlfriend.
I'm going to go pick up my bitch.
Hate to say it, but the latter is becoming synonymous with the former in many urban areas.
I think it is important that we carefully use words around children so they can learn their appropriate imporance in the world.
On a related note, this was a major point of Orwell's "1984." If you can control the language of a people, you can also control the thoughts. Mostly by making "governmentally unpopular" ideas impossible to express because the language for them would no longer exist.
The real worry is that the powers that be are trying to implement that idea using the first point I've made as the "excuse."
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
# Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
When have we NOT held that public nudity and swearing in public are a bad thing? Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?
"# Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack.
# Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
One, what the fuck does either of these issues have to do with this show? And two, when has the press ever been NOT free to question the adequecy of national security, except during wartime? We're in a war right now (whether some people want to admit it or not), and none one has ever been censored for questioning national security. No press freedoms have been curtailed at ALL, unlike WW II, where official censors got to look at everything the press did before it was published.
And not allowed to speak ill of the power structure? What??? Michael Moore's movie is proof that's bullshit. And the news networks don't seem to have any problem criticizing officials, elected and otherwise.
"sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once."
You can pine for a never-existant utopia all you want, but for the most part, we have as much freedom as we've ever had. With the exceptions of some things like the DMCA, tell me what freedom's we've lost that used to be written in law? Even the Patriot Act doesn't affect the vast majority of people in this country.
PBS took prudent steps to obey the law and accepted public standards (which are far more lax now than they've ever been). There's no chilling effect here, just the whine of some people that want to scream oppression and censorship to get publicity.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is there an exception to wartime? Since the govt can declare war anytime it wants for whatever reason it wants can't it simply declare a perpetual war in order to stifle press? Has it done that already?
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
No argument there.
Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?
Before 1978, when the Supreme Court found [firstamendmentcenter.org] that the government had the right to regulate the obscene material in broadcasting.
Re:Howard Stern (Score:5, Insightful)
I have 2 kids. I watch what they watch to make sure it's appropriate, regardless of what the FCC or Walt Disney say. If *I* think a show is too violent, they will not watch it - bottom line. When my kids hear a "bad" word, I explain to them why they shouldn't use that word. I don't rely on our wonderful (note sarcasm) government to raise my children.
As the article says, "let the people vote with their remotes." Leave the shows uncensored - if people don't like it, they won't watch it which will force the networks to tame down their content.
Wrong poster child (Score:3, Interesting)
3 no-nos bleeped from new crime drama -- Richard Dreyfuss blasts government censorship
And further down the article:
The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV critics here on Friday.
Tonight on PBS: the world's smallest violin plays "My Heart Bleeds For You".
I'm no fan of corporate-owned media, and the whoring of the airwaves by the likes of FOX. Today's "Reality shows" remind me of the government-run pornography industry in Orwell's 1984 -- a handy way to distract the masses from reality (election? what election?).
But I doubt that "Cop Shop" is going to be the poster boy for government interference with free speech. I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings. They had a prepared statement -- the press release crying "censorship" was composed before the show was even screened. That tells me that the show needs propping up by the controversy, because it's likely to fall down under its own pompous weight.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Re:Wrong poster child (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings.
Yeah, so they could charge more for the commercials. Greedy opportunistic PBS bastards! Money grubbing wh... ummm, commercials... PBS...?, uh, nevermind.
Whipping 'em out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong poster child (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you that they're taking advantage of the free publicity, but if you attack their argument on that basis, what you have in an "ad hominem" falacy, which means YOUR argument holds no water.
One person might be motivated to make an argument for any given reason (it does take time and effort to think things through), but you still have to evaluate the argument based on the content, not on perceived motives. Who cares what their goal was? Is the argument consistent or not? That's all that matters.
Second that! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all about "he's just out to sell his book/movie", "get attention" or "to further his/her career". Either that or it's about who they hung around with 30 years ago. Or who they've had sex with. Or if they've ever used drugs. Or how they used to feel differently, and therefore must be hypocrites.
From following the so-called debate, you wouldn't think anyone ever said anything just because they actually believed in it. Or that it could actually be, that someone with personal faults could actually be right, and that a person with a spotless reputation could be wrong about something?
It just makes me sick. And anyone thinks this posting is itself partisan in any way*, they need to seriously start thinking about what democracy is supposed to be about.
* Not counting people who truly advocate totalitarian systems, of course
Re:Wrong poster child (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, one day, the fanatics and freaks got control of congress. They complained about money being spent on the PBS and said it was used to promote non-US values. They insisted that the US was a Christian country, which is news to the Jews and Muslims and Buddhist and Atheists and Taoists and you get the idea, and proceeded to gut the funding for PBS and used the money to increase funding to their personal religious projects.
Now, for many, the fact that PBS no longer has cultural freedom is a small thing. One might think it means that a word can't be said, or a breast can't be shown, or certain political conversations cannot occur. Many would cheer the day when we no longer had to hear about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy. But, as someone that was, as we say, raised on TV, and particularly on PBS, I can tell you the change is chilling. PBS is one place for a kid stuck in the inner city to attain a wider culture, a sense that the world is more than the streets. I consider this good, but clearly many think inner city kids are just another brick on the wall, and need no more culture than what is needed to die in a the street or a war, or, perhaps, to slave away on an assembly line.
Everyone was good until the pompous assholes starting imposing their beliefs on everyone.
Re:America is a Christian country (Score:4, Informative)
The Federalist Papers, the DoI, and the Bible, while very important documents, do not have the force of law in this country. The Constitution, however, does. In God We Trust isn't a Christian saying, rather it was an anti-godless-Communism, McCarthy-era addition to our currency.
Christianity is not now, nor has ever been, a requirement for citizenship in the USA.
And I'd like to quote:
Re:Wrong poster child (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously. The very fact that they felt they had to bleep out anything indicates the problem. The Constitution doesn't say, "Freedom of speech unless it is a bad word."
I can't speak for others, but I want to be the one to decide what is and isn't right for me instead of some jerk off (oops, is that censored?) that doesn't share the same beliefs as me.
Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Insightful)
With the excising of three not-so-little terms -- "s --
Ok, now I'm confused. They're censoring "Fuck", "Shit" and "Blow job". Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now. Really, this whole thing is absolute crap. "Chilling censorship" my ass.
It's also really "surprising" that PBS doesn't like conservatives (who cut their funding again?). And that there's an article in the SF Chronicle about it (strange...). And, this might surprise you, a hollywood actor is also upset about this. This is really a new low for slashdot that'd they post such a ridiculously idiotic article.
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of months ago, definitely post-Janet-Nipple, an episode of NYPD Blue used the word "bullshit." This was the hyped up episode which was supposedly going to feature a steamy love scene at the end, where they toned down the love scene, but didn't bother to edit out "bullshit."
Bullshit is right. One quote from the article that gave me a hearty laugh:
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Insightful)
PBS programming has never been censored until now. Profanity and nudity were not uncommon in primetime. Frontline, POV and even NOVA would not censor the audio of interviewees. Now and then a BBC drama would have a nipple-peek. No longer.
How long before political dissent is pursued with the same zeal? If Bush-Cheney prevail in November I would guess the answer is sometime in 2005.
But what do you care? As long as you have your cable TV you're fat, dumb and happy, right?
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:3, Informative)
The difference is that those are news and documentary-type shows, whereas this is fiction, drama, acting, whatever. The FCC has always been easier on news and informational-type programming than in drama, but in any case "fuck" has never been permitted, your memory notwithstanding. This is not new, nor is it news - PBS and Dreyfuss are simply, cynically spinning this into it someh
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:3, Insightful)
In the article, they mention other shows, aired in the past on PBS, that did not feel the need to bleep colorful language. The implication is that the new & improved FCC policies can only be fought by large, well-financed corporations. PBS, a non-profit funded partially by the federal government, but primarily by private donors & corporate sponsors, does not have the spare cash to spend on FCC fines.
Of course, the easy criticism is that the SF Gate leans a little left (true), PBS leans left (no
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the great thing about PBS. They don't censor themselves; they don't have to watch their fucking mouth. The reason you haven't seen swearing and nudity on private channels is because folks sue when they find nudity or profanity. No lawyer, no matter how slimy he is, is going to take the case of suing PBS. It's like suing Habitat for Humanity or the Salvation Army.
On TV, we can show somebody having their fucking brains blown out and show the grey goop dripping off the wall. That's fine for kids to see. Yet somehow, it's not okay to say "blow job" and a naked person. I don't know about you, but I'd rather my daughter be more comfortable with nudity and be willing to talk about sex than have her be comfortable with ultra-violence. If you honestly think that violence is better than nudity, you have a serious flaw in your brain.
As for the leftwards slant, I've got good karma and I'll not burn it on the likes of you.
Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (Score:5, Funny)
>Why not - look what it did for Michael Moore.
Yeah, the war in Iraq wasn't at all controversial until Michael Moore came along.
just so you know (Score:5, Funny)
Hope that helps.
Another Public Broadcasting Landmark Threatened.. (Score:5, Funny)
And you should hear Elmo go when you piss him off!
Temporary Power? (Score:3, Informative)
Not if they can help it! The US presidential election, evidently, is optional [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Temporary Power? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the article states, elections have been postponed in the past due to terrorist attacks. It's just never done at the federal level because there are no agencies that can do such a thing.
We're talking about laws that'd have to be passed and such.
More censorship from Clear Channel, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Pay attention... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Clear Channel doesn't want to display an advertisement because they believe it will negatively affect their business, that's their decision. If they have a choice between listening to a few
Ignorant libertarian nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
You are defining censorship as a subset of itself: government censorship. There are numerous kinds of censorship, including a few that are appropriate (parental censorship being one) and many, many which are not, including political censorship (by anyone in a public role), corporate censorship of the public airways, and government censorship.
Clear channel's actions certainly fall in the category of political censorship, which to virtuall all Americans of the non-neoconservative and a fair number of even that ever-more radical group, is considered unamerican. It also falls into the category of corporate censorship, which may be appropriate within the walls of a corporate office, but certainly is not appropriate when applied to the public airwaves.
In this case we are dealing with politically motivated censorship of the public airwaves by a corporation in an effort to silence political dissent. This is an aggregious violation of American values and political tradition (kind of like the last stolen election, and like the quite possibly soon-to-be "postponed"
The fact that it is a private company violating and actively suppressing our freedom of speech (whether as a proxy for those currently in the government, or as a misguided private policy dictated by simple greed, or a toxic political agenda), rather than the government directly, is immaterial to the fact that our rights as a people have been suppressed, and political dialog silenced as a result.
This is unamerican in the truest sense of the word, and should absolutely not be tolerated, much less touted as appropriate because one assumes the motiviation to be nothing more than banal greed.
Richard Dreyfuss (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you, thank you.
Since when is (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no love for the current administration, but I also am aware that Mr Dreyfuss could probably pay these fines and call it the cost of doing business if he so chose. Since we have the freedom to bitch about our gov't in the US, he has every right to complain, but I don't think he is "in the right."
Re:Since when is (Score:3, Interesting)
1). That's the point... the rules have gotten so harsh now that people are going to start fighting it by going to the other end of the spectrum, it's the way you make a point...
2). Richard wouldn't have to pay... as the law is right now, each seperate PBS station would have to pay if it aired it un-edited.
3). PBS generally had a sort of "pass" when it came to the FCC, hence the reason they were able to air unedited version of Monty Python back in the 80's and 90's, including nudity and sw
Re:Since when is (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta agree with you there, but there is another phrase that was bleeped: blow job.
Neither "blow" (which admittedly has four letters) nor "job" is inherently offensive in the same manner that the other two words are. Why, then, the bleep? Because the FCC determined that the IDEA of "blow job" is offensive. This is what is so "chilling" about this action.
When a movie hits TV, usually "offensive" words are dubbed--"a--hole" becomes "jerk," etc. But what do you do with a phrase like "blow job"? You can't really find a euphamism for it because it's not the words that are offensive but rather the subject matter, the idea, the action it represents. You could dub it over and change it so the cops aren't talking about blow jobs but about something else... but that's censorship at its essence. Stop people from talking about something and force them to talk about something else.
There's GOT to be a better way to "protect children". Maybe... don't let them watch the show? Or maybe this isn't really about protecting the children but rather about saving Americans' souls, or protecting the sensitive ears of fundamentalist Christians who never watch PBS anyway because it's a hotbed of liberalism?
Re:Since when is (Score:3, Insightful)
Comedy Central is not a broadcast network.
"un-American" (Score:5, Insightful)
That seems to be the trend nowadays - label anybody or anything who/which is anti-war, anti-administration or anti-corporation as "unAmerican" and get done with it. It's right up there with the "Axis of Evil" and "Freedom".
Let me see if I get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me see if I get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a serious issue: The FCC is essentially defining moral standards for the country. While the FCC reports to Congress, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and the chair is also selected by the President. Thus, the FCC is largely an implementor of the President's policies while being subject to Congressional oversight.
Either way, the five members of the FCC should not define moral codes for the entire country, deciding which words and ideas are fit for consumers and which are not.
Yes, ideas: The words "blow" and "job" are not inherently offensive in the way that "f---" and "sh--" are. Why bleep them when combined, then? Because the idea is inherently offensive and immoral, according to the commission.
This is a scary thought, that five people appointed by the President can essentially kill free speech through certain mass media for the five years they are in office.
The next step of course is for the FCC to declare certain unpatriotic words as inappropriate and offensive, or non-Christian ideas as offensive. Honest broadcasters like PBS would be unable to air things that were out of favor with the current administration (yes, the Big Bad Bush administration) because they would not be able to pay the fines.
Publicity stunt, or another battle in the war on free speech terrorists (oh, did I say that out loud)?
Two Appropriate Quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home: but unlike charity, it should end there. - Claire Booth Luce
To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. - Claude Adrien Helvetius
And so it begins.... (Score:4, Funny)
Thank goodness for cable!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... (Score:4, Funny)
Fictive Learning (Score:4, Insightful)
Fiction is the ideal place to expose new ideas that aren't taught in school (profanity, sex, violence). Simply declaring that all bad words are "bleeped" and all nudity is blocked is doing a severe disservice to the (yes, real) humans watching television.
Re:Fictive Learning (Score:4, Insightful)
Emotional, yeah, sure.
But it was NOT broadcast on television. As much as I admire Richard Dryfuss, he's full of shit. This isn't censorship. Thankfully, most people seem to be recognizing that, and are calling him on it.
Neo-Victorians (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone here on
It's also germane to note that Mr. Limbaugh is NOT part of the Bush administration, so taking his views as though Bush said them is a mistake. You could say the same about Kerry and Al Franken. He's a bit of a nutjob, and everyone knows it.
Hamster
Re:Fictive Learning (Score:4, Informative)
Leahy has been relentless in his attacks. Recently, he blamed the intelligence failures on President Bush while the senate committed determined in a bipartisan manner that the failures had nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with practices at the CIA.
Leahy has been a thorn in the administration's side because he keeps spreading false rumors and unsubstantiable claims. It is rumored that Sen. Leahy said something to Cheney before Cheney's outburst.
If anybody is responsible for the degrading tone of politics, it is obviously Leahy. This still does not excuse Cheney's outburst.
Re:Fictive Learning (Score:4, Informative)
Not precisely [talkingpointsmemo.com]. In fact, "The very structure of the investigation... necessarily pushed any discussion of the administration's responsibility for or role in the debacle back until after the November election."
True. According to The Washington Times [washingtontimes.com], the conversaiton went something like this:
Cheney: "Hey, Leahy. How about you lay off accusing me of impropriety with the Halliburton contracts [nytimes.com]?"
Leahy: "Hey, I've got an idea. How about you stop calling me a bad Catholic [motherjones.com]?"
Cheney: "Go fuck yourself."
Wow. I can certainly see how Cheney would be unable to contain his righteous anger after such an exchange.
Comedic (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, this reads like a publicity stunt. No one watches PBS all that much.
BBC reporting about Dick Cheney (Score:5, Informative)
Re:BBC reporting about Dick Cheney (Score:5, Funny)
Sad to see PBS go the Cop Show route. (Score:4, Insightful)
Like many here, I spent my time with Sesame Street and Electric Company, and then of course Monty Python, Nova, Sagan's Cosmos, Dr. Who, and many more.
These days Nova is like "Science For Dummies", and PBS has its own versions of Reality Shows. Thank god for Red Green reruns combined with British Comedy reruns. The occaisional Nature show is still allright, but its getting more and more where I can't tell where the music video stops and the science is supposed to begin. Even that miniseries on String Theory started out good and then petered out.
Now we top it off with the need for "gritty" cop shows that use realistically foul language.
To me the decline of PBS is a much more sad affair then whether or not the FCC will let them curse.
Who pays for this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this straight:
A government-funded station is currenctly experienceing a chilling effect because government regulations that have been in place for years prevent said government-funded station from broadcasting certain words over airwaves allocated to it by the government.
Egads!
Re:Who pays for this? (Score:4, Informative)
Standards, not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is being oppressed, suppressed, whatever. The standards that dictate the bleeps have been in place for years. Dreyfuss knew this going into the project. What changed is the cost of breaking the standards, so he's complaining it's now too expensive for PBS to allow him to violate the standards. Perhaps he should have chosen a more appropriate venue for his work.
Also, the article linked to was a columnist's take on it. I don't know if I'd consider it "reporting" as columnists tend to skew things according to their opinions.
I Don't Believe the /. Reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that you slashdot people should enjoy PBS's science programs (as a child I lived and breathed their animal documentaries, and I still find the birds series a joy to watch) and perhaps their history (their documentaries on the Prophet Muhammed and Islam the last few years were great).
If PBS is mad at conservatives, it should be. America had a chance to have something as brilliant and deep as the BBC. That NPR and PBS aren't is the fault of the conservatives who seem hell bent on funding idiots like Rupert Murdoch and their "news."
Re:I Don't Believe the /. Reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
No they shouldn't. The reason conservatives are mad at PBS is because they've always treated the conservative part of the country and the values they hold with contempt. And lets face it; look who holds all three branches of goverment. Look at the Red areas vs. the Blue areas. Can you seriously tell me that conservatives are a minority of the population? I would argue that there are more people right of center in America than left. So why does it make sense to ignore and/or marginalize that population? That's what PBS has been doing with a liberal tinged, elitist view. And those conservative politicians, representing ALL THOSE CONSERVATIVE VOTERS, were supposed to do nothing about it? That PBS was suprised at all that this happened shows just how out of touch they are. That they've largely cried "oppresion" and "censorship" further shows they still don't get it.
PBS has never had the support of Red america because of these attitudes. A PUBLIC network should be respresentative of the public as a whole. PBS is not.
"America had a chance to have something as brilliant and deep as the BBC"
God forbid.
The Beeb is neither brilliant nor deep. They have a long history coddling tyrants (it was hard to find any criticism of Stalin on the BBC. They never fired much criticism at Saddam either), and have always been openly supportive of the Labor Party, but never waste an opportunity to stick it to the Tories. Again, with a publicly funded network, this is a recipe for hostility from a very large chunk of your hoped-for audience.
During the Iraq war, Royal Navy ships more or less banned the BBC from their decks, because British sailors were tired of the unrelenting left-slanted news.
"That NPR and PBS aren't is the fault of the conservatives who seem hell bent on funding idiots like Rupert Murdoch and their "news.""
Again, you don't seem to understand. The reason why Fox News has become such a success (and Rush Limbaugh as well) is that Red states felt they didn't have an alternative to left-slanted news (and even Peter Jennings now admits most journalists are liberals). So when Fox came along, it took off like gangbusters. No conspiracy here, just pent up demand exploding on newly available supply.
Look, PBS does have some quality, non-partisan shows. The science stuff is a good example. And those shows will now suffer from lack of audience because of competition from cable. But PBS has no one to blame but themselves for driving potential viewers to their cable competitors. Had they tried to be, ahem, fair and balanced, they might have a bigger audience and more public support. Instead, they've made dedicated enemies that want to wipe them out.
I can't help but point out (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is a technology site for nerds (upper left, "News for Nerds"). We've got this subsection "Your Rights Online". Ok. This story is not about technology, nerds, my rights online... it's about what Hollywood can do on television.
You know what I have to say to Hollywood about censorship? Regime change begins at home. These are the same people who rallied in support of the movie industry to help pass the DMCA to limit the speech of computer programmers. Now they're upset that Christians have rallied in support of Bush to limit the speech of Hollywood. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I read that Richard Drewfus quote and I can't help but think "political grandstanding", from the lips of a man whose screen guild dues ingarguably went to promoting a law which makes my encryption research banned speech.
It's not right when anyone does it. Bah, humbug.
Both parties equally guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Moriarity told her what he thought about that in so many words, and was promptly fired from Law & Order.
Democrats won't protect your freedoms. If you think the Bush Adminstration is bad, do you really think Gore/Lieberman (two major advocates of censorship) would have been any better?
Re:News For Nerds??? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be conveniently sidestepping the real issue by pointing out that the FCC is in charge. Well, yes... but that doesn't make them automatically right.
Re:News For Nerds??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong - it's viewer supported television. Local PBS station viewers send in money to keep the stations running, In exchange for not running commercials for corporate sponsors every 8 minutes (they do run commercials for their sponsors before and after the shows, but not during). The government doesn't tell them what to show - the local stations just purchase the programs they can afford
News For Nerds, Stuff that MATTERS (Score:5, Insightful)
"What the hell does PBS and their boring shows have to do with 'News For Nerds' here? [
That seems an incredibly myopic viewpoint. Rights to privacy, free speech and freedom of information are core values here. The FCC has a broad reach, all the more reason to follow everything they do.
Or would you rather have the DMCA + FCC clamp down on the flow of all kinds of information? There is already quite a fight going on here in the States to preserve even basic requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Want jail time for that Xbox mod you installed, or for discussing a certain encryption algorithm online? Think it can't happen? Then by all means roll over and focus on "news for nerds" like the PS3 rollout. But if you ignore the "stuff that matters", you may not be around to see that PS3.
What stuns me is the number so-called "conservatives" who are watching an unprecedented assault on basic citizen rights here in America. What a bunch of pathetic posers. Wouldn't know the concepts of small government and personal liberties if it bit them on the leg. This administration has set the conservative movement back many decades, and the GOP will pay for it for decades to follow.
Let's moderate opposing viewpoints as troll (Score:3, Funny)
If this isn't censorship, then what is?
Re:Censorship is Appropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
What does sex outside of marrage have to do with pornography? Sex in public, whether between married people, or absolute strangers would still be porno.
The ONLY venu in which PBS could show a sexual context, would be in a true educational film dealing with a medical subject. This COULD be done in good taste (though there would always be someone objecting to even that).
Re:Censorship is Appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Many conservatives apply the word "pornography" to anything they "think" is offensive. One man's "pornography" is another man's art. Robert Mapplethorpe's photography is a good example of this. Some conservative religious fanatics in this area actually tried to get the producers of "The Vagina Monologues" to change the name of the play... because they thought the word "vagina" was indecent.
Conservative religious fanatics defaced many ancient Greek & Roman sculptures because they were offended by seeing a penis or a bare breast. Many conservatives consider Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue to be "pornographic".
Many conservatives also puff out their chests and talk about the right to free speech
Are you serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not talking about sex (which is forbidden in paces like Afghanistan and Iraq) leads to things like teen pregnancies and high STD transmission rates. My view is that not talking about sex is more offensive than talking about it.
Where did you learn about sex? Ever? Did you watch a film in grade six, or did you learn second-hand from your older brother?
"Lewd" talk has a place in public discourse. We have to tell our kids about pregnancy and disease or they're going to fuck up their lives (pun intended) I have a daughter. My job is to make sure that she uses protection every time she does anything sexual. (I have a lot of time to prepare!) To do less is to abandon her. It is our duty to make sure our kids know about AIDS, syphillis, ghonnorea, hepatitis, herpes, babies, and everything else that goes with sex. If not, then they will find out from a doctor when they get treated - if they are lucky enough to get a treatable disease.
As for your religious leanings, I think you have to review the history of your country. I'm not from the US, and even I know that you're wrong. The US was formed to get away from the tryanny of England. The US citizens were considered second-class to the British. That and the taxation-without-representation. Nothing else. The rest are amendments, which should be looked at with the same light as the 18th amendment. (Wherein a black man is worth 1/14 of the worth of a white man.) You do not get your rights from God. You get these rights from the legislature - other humans. That's right; everything you have in your country is from the work of other humans. If you don't get out there and kick the shit out of people who try to take away what other humans have worked towards, you get Afghanistan or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria.
You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you harm none. You have the right to free speech, including things like "I'm going to fuck you up the ass." You have a duty to protect my right to say that - as much as it offends you.
As for Bush, he's a war-monger. If he was serious about human rights violations, he'd invade China or Saudi Arabia. However, he's going after people with a connection to Oil that he doesn't have economic ties to. Nothing has changed in Afghanistan or Iraq, except now there are more people willing to take up the sword to kill Americans. If he wanted to prevent war and was serious, he would have landed thousands of troops in Iran after the earthquake to rebuild schools, mosques, and hospitals.
Remember, the "W" in George W Bush stands for "Wha' Happen?!?"