FCC Won't Punish Stephen Colbert For Controversial Trump Insult (slashdot.org) 305
Earlier this month, the FCC said it would look into complaints made against The Late Show host Stephen Colbert over a homophobic joke he made about President Donald Trump. Well, it turns out the FCC is not going to levy a fine against the comedian for using the word "cock" on late-night network television, reports The Verge. From the report: "Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was the subject of these complaints," reads the FCC's statement, according to Variety. "The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules." Helping Colbert's case was the fact that the broadcast, time delayed for incidents like these, bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it. The FCC has broad authority to regulate what can and cannot be broadcast based on legal precedent regarding obscenity laws. Yet looser rules apply during the hours of 10PM and 6AM ET, when Colbert's show airs. So it would appear that the ample self-censorship on behalf of CBS saved the program from a guilty verdict in this case.
If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock holster (Score:5, Insightful)
Then it isn't America.
Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols (Score:5, Informative)
Well, whatever the limits are/were, as TFS says: "bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it.
So, we can argue about what should or shouldn't be acceptable on "public broadcast TV," but since CBS didn't even BROADCAST the supposedly offensive word... I'm not sure why this was ever a thing in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
well trump would argue that it's the thought that counts ;).
coincidentally, trump didn't ask the fbi boss to drop the investigation to russia ties, he merely expressed hope that he could drop it without hassle.
so yeah, do the actual words matter or the thought?
(of course colbert should be able to say a blurred cock on his show).
Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols (Score:4, Insightful)
The "thing" was a complaint, which they have to investigate. They got the complaint, they investigated, and they didn't find anything worthy of a fine.
Some people are simply confused about why they were investigating. But if you get the details, it is hard to claim it is bad for the government to investigate complaints about rule violations. They didn't even get it wrong!
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point was that those staunch defenders of Trump's freedom to say anything he damn well pleases seem to get their free-speech-panties in a knot as soon as someone else says something not nice about Trump. The complaint should never have been submitted to the FCC in the first place, but apparently there were a lot of Trump supporters who couldn't stand the fact that someone might criticise their Dear Leader.
Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols (Score:4, Interesting)
We can also see boobs.
Re: (Score:3)
For Fucks Sake America... Here in England and other civilised countries we can say "cock" on daytime TV.
Can you say bloody?
We can also see boobs.
I am reminded that the Puritans left England to come to what became the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we can. I recall hearing Ben Elton say the word cunt in 1990 too.
Films such as Pulp Fiction get broadcast uncut.
There are some limits though, primarily around nudity. The stuff I watched on German TV as I went through my puberty wouldn't be broadcast even now in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
I am reminded that the Puritans left England to come to what became the US.
Except that they didn't. They tried to settle on the other side of the North Sea,where the locals were not happy with their extremist religion. They got kicked out and *then* went to the Colonies, where there weren't any (European) folk to get in their way.
Re: (Score:3)
The cock is my family crest, you insensitive clod!
Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.
Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
he just made a crude unfunny joke
Actually, it wasn't intended to be that much of a joke. A little, sure, but the only source of humor was the shock value.
His real point, and his reason for using such a surprisingly crude phrase, was a very serious one. He was making the point that in America one can say the nastiest things possible about the most powerful government officials without fear of consequences. His rant was about free speech, about how crucial it is and about how Trump has absolutely no respect for it... but in spite of Trump's lack of respect for the principle, the principle holds, and Trump's power can do nothing about it.
When you understand the whole context, this FCC ruling is an important victory for all Americans, even those who found it offensive. Which, to be honest, included me, though I understood the point and appreciated the value of the point and the fact that the very offensiveness of the comment was what made the point forceful.
Re: (Score:2)
We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head. My guess would be something simpler -- Colbert is angry that Trump is President, and he profits from venting his anger (see what happened to Jimmy Fallon), which is a powerful combo. Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.
Re: (Score:3)
We can only guess his reasons since we don't know what was going on in his head.
You haven't watched the monologue. He explained his rationale very clearly. There was no ambiguity, and no need for guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
Then swillden is completely correct about you after all -- you made an assumption/guess...
Re: (Score:2)
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
The state of mind that you "see" is irrelevant to the content from that monologue (and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)
You were so imbued into the emotion you saw in Colbert (projecting much?) that you missed important pieces in it. In doing so, you made... brace yourself... an assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Anger makes people not funny as they lose detachment necessary for humor.
Completely untrue. Lenny Bruce and Bill Hicks (for example) were both angry and funny.
Going back to Roman times, satire stems from anger, not detachment.
Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, forgot to respond to this part:
Also, I thought the issue with Colbert's comment was that he tried to insult Trump by claiming that he performs homosexual acts as if that were something to be ashamed of.
Nope. That's how Trump's partisans tried to spin it, but that's not at all what Colbert was doing. Watch the monologue. There isn't really any doubt about the intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Actually, I thought the joke was pretty funny, and an apt description of the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should hate speech be punishable? Do you mean just on network television or in general? If you mean on network television, you have a case but I do find the FCC's claim to be able so censor the airwaves to be dubious. If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.
Also, why is Colbert a hypocrite? I don't understand that comment. Is it because he criticizes the president for being crass while being crass himself? I don't buy that as hypocrisy be
Re: (Score:2)
Why should hate speech be punishable? ... If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.
In general, speech that carries a threat is not protected by the Constitution. "Canadians are greedy assholes" might be considered hate speech by some people, but it certainly wouldn't be punishable. "Canadians are greedy assholes, and I wish someone would kill them all" would be arguable, since you're intentionally encouraging violence against a group of people. "Canadians are greedy assholes, and I'm going to shoot them if I see them" will probably get you into trouble, since you are clearly threatening a
Re: (Score:2)
Post below sums it up well re hate speech. I believe speech that carries the threat of physical harm is hate speech and it should be punishable -- you know it when you hear it -- and Colbert's clearly wasn't that.
Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -- which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump. Hypocrisy is defined as "the pra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, that's bullshit. It may be the far left view that no person deserves being demeaned, but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deservi
Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole claim that it is "homophobic" is silly, because the clear purpose of the joke was to offend Putin because Putin is believed to be homophobic.
If Putin isn't homophobic, then the homosexual nature of it is irrelevant anyways. There is no "phobia" there at all, it just becomes an accusation that they're too close, even personally close.
If somebody wants it to be phobic, it is merely homophobaphobic.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.
I agree but the Snowflake generation has a very different opinion about that.
Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.
Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does.
Holstering?
Hate speech is easy to comprehend. (Score:2)
The USA already has something very similar for decades: fighting words.
If your words are intended to rile people up to violence against another, it's hate speech.
Yelling "GET THE FAGGOT!" is hate speech, saying "you're a fag" isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, he has a point. There's a reason why the KKK, as well as other white supremacist organizations and neo-Nazi groups overwhelmingly support conservative politicians. It's because they like what they see. When a neo-Nazi terrorist organization comes out in support of Bernie Sanders, you might have a point.
Until that happens, you should probably just shut the fuck up and quit embarrassing yourself.
The Left's KKK (Score:2)
>>When a neo-Nazi terrorist organization comes out in support of Bernie Sanders, you might have a point.
They're already out, and they're everywhere. They call themselves "Antifa." They cover themselves in black, KKK covered themselves in white, but otherwise their tactics, vitriol and collective IQ are about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.
So when (to take an obvious example) the Nazis were whipping up hatred against Jews, that wasn't hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't much point on spending time coming up with clever retorts to conservative remarks. It would be like reading Proust to a reptile.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
conservative AC unable to identify hate speech, news at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Its not hate speech when it comes from a liberal, and there should be no accountability.
Wait, are you saying that Trump is actually in a homosexual relationship with Putin?
Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "conservatives," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Republican party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely conservative about their key views anymore. The label "conservative" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey anonymous coward, you're a lying little bitch. You are a hard core Trump supporter pretending to not be one, and you pile the lies on. The only question is whether you are being paid to post this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody on the left has ever called for anything offensive to be banned or restricted.
What utter fucking nonsense. Exhibit A: Milo Yiannoupolos.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. Milo DISPROVES your claim !
Where exactly has anybody called for Milo to be jailed ? Where has anybody called for him to be arrested, or for government to censor his columns ?
That he got himself fired by saying stupid shit isn't anybody's fault but his own.
Nobody tried to ban Milo. Some people protested against him. That's not censorship. That IS free speech and it's AS PROTECTED as his speech is.
And that was the ONLY thing that ever happened to him. He was protested against. Boohoo. Poor little
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody tried to ban Milo
https://www.change.org/p/ban-m... [change.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/... [spectator.co.uk]
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/... [breitbart.com]
http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion... [dailyuw.com]
Look, I could keep going but I think that presents extensive proof that you're full of shit.
But since you apparently stopped reading after my first sentence, you don't know how your post actually PROVED my point.
I didn't stop reading. I merely went back and highlighted that you lied in your opening sentence, and since the rest of your illogical rant ridden with falsehoods was based on that lie I couldn't be arsed to go through and point out where you're full of
Re: (Score:2)
You are so right.
Trust me on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
If it doesn't make you laugh, your soul is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
When can I get my soul buried?
That was meant to be funny? Fucking hell, I could list 7 jokes about Manchester on a Monday evening that made me laugh more than that.
Any media retractions? (Score:2)
Remember when Slashdot trolled us with [slashdot.org] this story about it: FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke [rollingstone.com]?
Turns out, there was nothing actionable and the review was pro forma. Oh well. Guess we got trolled. Just like most OMG! FCC and OMG! Trump stories.
Fucked (Score:2)
This is all sorts of fucked.
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds.
But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
It was certainly "homophobic" if you're the type to use such a label. Sane people (gay or not) could see it as a offensive without having to resort to a dumb label.
But there's nothing wrong with being offensive.
The FCC should have fined him to be consistent with all the other shit they've issued fines over.
But the FCC really ha
Re:Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it wasn't a joke involving homosexuality at all -- at least not the whole phenomenon. It's about one thing that homosexuals happen to do.
Fellatio is sometimes performed between men who do not identify as homosexual -- e.g. in prison, boarding schools and other male-only situations -- and who don't take part in same sex relations outside those circumstances [wikipedia.org]. In such situations it often denotes a dominance/submission relationship, which is what the joke is alluding to.
Of course you could argue that
Re:Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase "cock holster" itself very strongly denotes a dominant-submissive relationship, whether it refers to two men or a man and a woman, a mouth, a vagina, a whole person, whatever.
Colbert wasn't in any way calling Trump a bad person for being homosexual. He was calling Trump a bad person for being Russia's cock holster.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say it is a lazy joke, and in bad taste, which are more or less the same thing. But it's not homophobic.
Re:Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)
You're arguing with a scenario that you created in your own mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, if Clinton had won, could you see Limbaugh, say, describing her as a "cock-holster"?
If she was acting like Putin's little sex slave, then why not?
Re: (Score:3)
I say if it doesn't reflect fear and actual aversion of a thing, then it's not "*-phobic".
So you're saying the joke was homophobic then because clearly it was the "ha ha faggot" kind of derogatory joke that presupposes that homosexuals are subhuman scum.
Re: Fucked (Score:4, Informative)
In trying to say the most insulting, offensive thing he could think of to paint Donald Trump with, he thought of an act of love between two men.
With all respect, I don't think the phrase "cock holster" implies any sort of love, regardless of the genders involved. It doesn't imply an act of giving pleasure, it implies use as a storage location.
Re: (Score:3)
If the insulting part is that he is gay, then it is homophobic, that isn't the case with this "joke."
Re: (Score:2)
It was a lazy, unfunny "joke", and I'm sure it took Colbert down a peg or two in some people's minds. But there's nothing wrong with being lazy or unfunny.
I thought it was a little funny, but I'm considering the context. The president regularly uses his position of power to intimidate the press. In this case, he dismissed the reporter simply for asking him 'what his opinion was'. He also stooped down to the level of grade-school insults, a level almost never reached by people in the respected position until now. Usually that type of thing is done by comics. So to approach an equal come-back in defense of the responsible reporter, Colbert had to go beyond
Re: (Score:2)
It really wasn't homophobic. It would have the same meaning and same offensiveness if Trump was a woman (removing the homosexual element).
As for the rest, as far as the FCC is concerned, it doesn't matter what he actually said, only what actually went over the air. *BEEP* isn't actionable.
Not homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being. I had to make the point that, while yes, I'm sure some people use that term for that purpose, I didn't and I didn't like that she jumped to that conclusion with me. The phrase "my wife" refers to my relationship to her, just like "my uncle" or "my brother" does not refer to ownership. In that conversation, was I being sexist because I was using words that could be construed as sexist if you tried really hard?
Homophobic refers to the attitude in which the comment was made, not the way it was received by you. Could someone uttering those words be trying to make disparaging remarks about the President by suggesting he was homosexual? Sure. But a person uttering those words could instead and equally likely be making a point about the subservient position the person doing the pleasing is in relative to the person getting serviced, without any consideration toward the genders involved.
Knowing the history of Colbert's advocacy, I am as certain as anyone can be that he was making the comment with the latter intent. He could just as easily have made the comment about Theresa May if she were as deeply in Putin's pocket as Trump and it would have the same meaning. His point is about Putin having his way with Trump, not about a male having his way with another male.
Re: (Score:2)
If it takes that much explanation to get around the label "homophobic" you have already lost the argument. No one wants to listen to reason these days. Its all "You offended me and those people over there who can't help themselves so I will stand up for them and protect those poor helpless defenseless inadequate deficient worthless people who I care about but who are so oppressed and intrinsically incapable of doing anything worthwhile on their own that they need me and my like minded friends to interdict
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I introduce my wife as "my first wife." (we've never been divorced). I think it's funnier than she does, though.
Re:Not homophobic (Score:4, Interesting)
You're missing something very important. All the Putin/Trump homosexual jokes that have been going around for a long time (as well as Colbert's joke) are capitalizing on the fact that both Trump and Putin openly despise homosexuals, so calling them homosexual is in itself an insult, not because being homosexual is bad, but because they presumably can't stand the thought of being thought of as homosexual.
I don't think this was in any way intended to insult homosexuals. The homophobic assholes crying to fire Colbert for his "homophobia" clearly don't have a clue as to what constitutes homophobia.
Re:Not homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
like how all the tiny hands jokes aren't parvamanuphobic or actually suggesting that there's anything unusual about Trump's hands even, it's just a know sore spot with him, a hangup about being thought to have small hands, which makes it a good insult against him whether or not he really does and whether or not there'd be anything the matter if he did.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just part of an effort to make Trump look less "manly", for values of manly defined by the toxic masculinity that Trump buys into. Small hands = small dick, body shaming with that naked statue of him, that sort of thing.
I'm not really sure how much of a problem it is... On the one hand, those ideas about what it is to be a "real man" are really bad and I wouldn't promote them, but on the other they are only being used here because Trump buys into it. It's a really fine line between just pissing him off
Re: (Score:2)
Did this friend's partner happen to have thick-rimmed glasses and an irritating nasal voice?
Re: (Score:2)
One of my favorite sayings is "don't complain without having an alternative ready".
I'll agree that phrase is a bit awkward, but what's an alternative that doesn't introduce new forms of awkwardness and/or confusion? "The lady I'm married to" is long-winded: "That's a good idea, I'll run the plan by the lady I'm married to and get back to you."
Re: (Score:3)
One of my favorite sayings is "don't complain without having an alternative ready".
I'll agree that phrase is a bit awkward, but what's an alternative that doesn't introduce new forms of awkwardness and/or confusion? "The lady I'm married to" is long-winded: "That's a good idea, I'll run the plan by the lady I'm married to and get back to you."
If I called my wife "the lady I'm married to" I imagine she'd deck me.
Re: (Score:2)
This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.
If there was ever a time to roll your eyes and walk away, this would have been it. Regardless of how close a friend they were, do you really need that kind of idiocy in your life?
Re: (Score:2)
This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.
If there was ever a time to roll your eyes and walk away, this would have been it. Regardless of how close a friend they were, do you really need that kind of idiocy in your life?
It is not compulsory or even usual to be friends with your friends' partners.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being.
I am guessing that English is not her native tongue? It is rare for those who are English native speakers or are very familiar with the language to have the similar feeling toward the word "my" as she does. If English is her second or other language, then it explains why she does not feel comfortable using the possessive noun. Her native language may have different ways of use for English possessive nouns.
Imagine the opposite (Score:2)
I'd just like to imagine what would happen if Rush Limbaugh made that same statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not much. After all, Limbaugh got away with trying to smuggle a bunch of Viagra back into the US after visiting the Dominican Republic, which has become infamous as a sex tourist destination thanks to the "willingness" of its underage boys and girls.
Re: (Score:2)
Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
Colbert's remark was in no sense homophobic. It was about power and a non-reciprocal relationship. In fact, the only way it could be perceived as homophobic is by people with an agenda...people attempting to insulate themselves from charges of homophobia by falsely accusing others. Colbert's remark could only be considered homophobic by somebody who believes a submissive man fellating another man who is in a position of power is somehow worse than fellatio performed by a woman who is in a subservient position.
In either case, the remark is intended to insult a person, in this case Trump, who has voluntarily reduced themselves to nothing more than an appliance for the sexual gratification of their master. Referring to Trump's mouth as Vladimir Putin's "cock holster" is about Trump's fawning, servile obsequiousness with respect to Russia's dictator, not about homophobia.
Sorry to shoot down that simplistic, misleading right wing meme, but there ya go!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
somehow I doubt that kind of language would be tolerated against Hillary, no network would air it to begin with, but if came up Democrats and Republicans would call it "woman hating"
If Hillary had bragged about how she likes to grab men by the cock, had multiple accusers of sexual assault, and was more than sympathetic to the will of the leader of a rival nation, I'm pretty sure calling her a cock holster for that foreign leader would be fair game. You are forgetting that Trump went crass long before Colbert did.
Re: (Score:3)
You must have missed the buttons on sale at Trump campaign rallies calling her a "C^nt", and the ones saying she would "go down faster than her husband's pants".
Oh yeah? (Score:2)
I know all about the FCC. [youtube.com]
Federal Cock Censors (FCC) (Score:2)
I didn't realize FCC meant Federal Cock Censors.
I miss George Carlin: Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners [youtube.com]
--
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away regardless of how many times Politcal Censorship, aka PC, is tried.
69 (Score:2)
...blurred his mouth... (Score:2)
Wow, I am SO happy that CBS not only bleeped "cock", but also blurred Stephen's mouth while uttering the word "cock", just in case I was a lip-reader. My my, how considerate.
Cock-holster.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's. I stopped watching Colbert myself after he left Comedy Central, it seems the writers didn't make it either to CBS or the Daily Show with Jon Stewart/Colbert Report replacements which made the entire shows very flat and unfunny. The only thing that's still somewhat good from that era is John Oliver's web episodes IMHO.
Re:US censorship? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's.
Bullshit. It was a homophobic joke according to Fox commentards.
Someone gave Fox'n'Friends a copy of Saul Alinsky's book and it's been nothing but ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, at least O'Reilly wasn't an empty shirt with a bow-tie or a (publically) raving lunatic like Hannity.
Just a shame he couldn't keep it in his pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a homophobic joke according to right wing propaganda organs.
Please stop lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's
It was only homophobic to people who assume that oral sex is only for homosexuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It was a homophobic 'joke' according to SJW's
It was only homophobic to people who assume that oral sex is only for homosexuals.
Isn't a man receiving oral sex from another man pretty much homosexual by definition?
The reason it's funny is that Trump, and even more Putin, would be offended at being called gay.
Re:US censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The real reason (Score:2)
I don't believe this was the real reason at all. The FCC was very consistent here with the regulation. Colbert was crude and inappropriate and there is no place for that in responsible broadcasting or anywhere else. However the FCC regulation which is available for all to read is very clear and he didn't run afoul of it.
Re: (Score:2)
How about freedom of fucking speech? It's in the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have room in prison for both Senator H.R. Clinton and President Trump. We shouldn't limit ourselves to this being an either-or position.
Unfortunately for Trump, the men's federal prison is not as easy as the women's prison.
Re: (Score:2)
it boils down to the bottom in anal being described as somehow subservient or weaker than the top
Quite what that has to do with Putin sticking his dick in Trump's mouth I'm not sure.