Slashdot Mirror
FCC Lays Down the Law On Decency
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.
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?
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The problem with this is that the notional "right" that children have to be raised in an obscenity-free environment rather quickly devolves into becoming MY responsibility to raise someone else's children in an obscenity-free environment.
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.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
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.
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.
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.
I see all these Americans discussing this as if it were an obvious and necessary aspect of any civilized country, but perhaps the FCC has gotten some details wrong.
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.
When these become the law (it will), then people will start using words not in the list but suggest the meanings anyway. It's where all euphemisms come from - censorship.
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.
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).
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
"The following is a news broadcast. On April 6, the FCC has released a statement on what is too indecent for broadcasting. We present for your listening pleasure and edification some segments of this publicly-available government publication:
"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! =})
// zyqqh
If you look at some of the fines levied against some parties (mainly Howard Stern), you would know the FCC is mainly targeting companies that can dish out money for the hefty fines.
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 (updated crypto/stegano series)
360 degrees of Karma