Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Regulate 'Profane' Speech
The Importance of writes "The FCC has been regulating 'indecent' speech on the airwaves for quite some time, but have been getting a lot more attention recently. For example, during last year's Golden Globe Awards U2's Bono said 'This is really, really f-ing brilliant.' Last October the FCC ruled that was ok. Yesterday, under political pressure, the FCC overruled that decision. However, for the first time, the FCC also ruled that the f-word is not only 'indecent' but also 'profane.' According to this new decision by the FCC, any speech that is grossly offensive, whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.' This is a major step forward (backward?) for FCC censors. My analysis is here."
whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.'
;)
holy fucking shit
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I, for one, applaud the long overdue efforts of the FCC to crack down on this kind of thing. As a father with children, or just a human being for that matter, it's disturbing how society continues to slide towards being more disrespectful and crass toward each other.
I hope the FCC+FBI doesn't start monitoring my IM conversations... With my typing... they need to censor everything I say! Shit... stupid FCC FBI fuckers!
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)... oops
shit damn fuck bitch cock cunt george bush slut bitch whore cunt damn fuck shit
:)
now, of those words, which one is REALLY vulgar? [not to mention, a bit daft]
Anything anyone can say is offensive to someone. Expect to see this used against all sorts of things that no sane person would think of as 'profane'.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
From now on, I will use the word FCC as my favourite swear word.
Here's an example: "This is FCCing brilliant!"
I'll let you guess the exact pronunciation.
-
...or is it only speech? For example will the Janet super bowl fiasco be regulated?
... with the Second.
A housemate of mine used to love that expression. Only guy I knew who was a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I'd guess that NWA (Niggers With Attitude) will never be played again then, even their name probably breaks the rules; as for thier 'Fuck the motherfucking police', well, I doubt that'll ever see the light of day :-) Guess you guys won't get 'Roger Melly, the man on telly' any more either (if you ever did)
Over here in the UK, the thinking seems to be leaning to more leniency rather than more crackdown. There's an article on the BBC site asking 'Has swearing lost its power to outrage' talking about on-screen profanity...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Whose definition of "grossly offensive" are we going by, anyways?
I'm so torn on this subject. It's something that I think has so many valid points on either side. If I plan on watching something like the Grammy's or some other award shows (or the Super Bowl halftime show) I don't at all expect to be seeing or hearing some of the crap I have seen. With that, I can see how regulations and stricter rules are a must. But then I see how far government agencies can take things...
*sigh* A struggle more eternal than Linux and SCO...
because I live nowhere near America.
Do the FCC even have the right to add new things to the list of what they regulate? It was my understanding that they enforced decency regs, but could not define them.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Many people find Howard Stern's show to be grossly offensive, however many other people love it. If Stern's show really stepped over the line, people would stop listening to it. If people stopped listening to it, the show would be canceled, and he would be off the air.
I don't understand how Republicans get away with this level of hypocrisy. They are in favor of privitization and less Government regulation of businesses, except when it comes to what can be said in the media. Republicans are in favor of states' rights, except when it comes to a state choosing to allow same-sex marraige. Republicans are "ultra-moralistic" in their own minds, impeaching President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual relationship, but when it comes to a Republican aide in the Senate hacking into sensitive Democrat files, only Orin Hatch has the honor to stand against it.
The FCC's ruling is really, really fucking awful.
~JISA
You just don't KNOW what the FCC will decide next. I mean, if it were anything else, this would be a big indicator that the current ruling body is worthless... when their whole course of direction... their whole idealism... can just change on a whim.
Plain and simple, the FCC needs to decide what its stance actually is, and evolve from there... NOT take back all of your progress because someone with money has a vested interest
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
OMG. How long until Kerry commercials are ruled obscene and banned from the airwaves? Everything is propaganda! Run for it. The cheerios commercials have subliminal ads in them! RRRRAAAAAAAASSSSKKKKKK!!!~~1
====
Crudely Drawn Games
The Passion of the Stern lives on!
... almost anything goes. Maybe we're more open minded. Maybe we're a little less uptight. Maybe we watch a little too much American TV.
Really, this is all about Howard Stern, who's trying his damnedest to get Bush out of office. Of course, the FCC is run by all of Bush's people, so Bush, who has never read our country's Constitution, is trying to get Stern shut down because he is a legitimate threat. Fuck Bush and Fuck the FCC. They're all fucking assholes.
Fucking fuckity fuck.
Shit fuck? Fuck!
Damn shit fuckers.
Im moving out of the US next chance I get and quicker if asshole gets re-elected
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't the fcc only regulate broadcast tv? AFAIK this doesn't affect cable or satelite. In which case the impact is rather minimal.
:(){
This does not lead to censorship. It merely states that we are protecting 5 year olds from profanity. I know, i know, the 'for the children argument', but in this case, it's being correctly applied.
Kids that age do not need to be asking their parents what words like that mean. They simply aren't mature enough. Little kids say things to get rises out of people...
The public owns the television airwaves, and their wishes are to be respected. This has been coming for a while, Janet Jackson or not.
Why do people want to push the envelope on profanity in public airwaves? The business is regulated as everyone knows, so play by the rules. Let Stern say whatever he wants on PPV, no one is going to regulate it. As long as it is a law, follow it. I see no reason for broadcasters to allow profane language in their broadcasts.
With the "solutions" that would legalize P2P by collecting a tax, and redistributing it to authors -- will they too exclude "offensive" work?
It strikes me as a pretty nasty freedom of speech issue.
Along those lines, I'm listening to Lenny Bruce's "To is a Preposition, Come is a Verb" right now. From All Music:
"Following Lenny Bruce's death in 1966, his mother allowed Douglas Records to release these tapes that Bruce wanted to use in court during his obscenity trials as part of his defense. Bruce couldn't believe he was being continuously arrested for his words. He wanted to use these tapes as proof to the judge and jury that he was not obscene, but that his bits were simply being taken out of context. Bruce chose to ignore the irony that these same tapes contained many of the bits that got him arrested in the first place."
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
Who defines what is "indecent" or "profane"? As the article hints at, these are highly subjective classifications. Are we going to end up with oversensitive people trying to outlaw every other thing said on television because it offends them personally?
> My analysis
BZZZZZZT!!!
The word "analysis" contains ANAL.
Therefore the word "analysis", "analyst" and derivatives have been declared indecent & profane and shall be removed from the English language forthwith.
- by Ruling of the FCC
you're kind of "dim", aren't you...
"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
-- Clare Booth Luce, American playwright and diplomat
It's silly that this is something our society is so worried about. Let's all waste a huge amount of effort and time to keep profanity off the air, and I'm sure all the problems of unemployment, poverty, violent crime etc will all work themselves out.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWAs we all know, it's the government's job to keep our language clean. And to parent our children for us. And to provide us with jobs. And to...
I thought this was about "Propane Speech" and there was some bizarre Hank Hill linkage. Aw, well, too much toons in my life.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This country needs to be LESS restrictive, not more restrictive. Their initial decision about Bono's comment was a smart and wise one. Back then I thought, "Fucking finally... they've got their heads out of their asses and are starting to realize that these are just 'words'."
But it's sad to see that we're going backwards. A lot of progress this country has made in regards toward less censorship and more focus on personal responsibility has just been pissed on and washed away.
What a shame.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Yup, next time I bet the FCC will rule that "I disagree with the President of the United States" to be profane and illegal.
As so many of our forefathers said, the meaning of the first amendment is that people can and should say things that can make all our blood BOIL, and there's jack shit anyone should be able to do about it. I can turn on National Geographic and see 90 black women's breasts. Who cares? Furthermore, the FCC loves to damage the 5th amendment by not offering due process to anyone on what exactly "indecent" is. I think this is completely horrible, and I will summarily vote for everyone ELSE than the people that are currently in office to send a message that says, FUCK censorship. This is America, not the old, dictator-run Iraq.
stuff |
Everyone should watch this latest Channel 4 advertisement
Does that mean that they will censor out Britney's "I'm a virgin"?? If so, I have nothing against it. (Plus the fact that swearing doesn't really reflect intelligence to me... Bash me out, but I find it teenagish...)
DrkBr
He was accepting an award at the Grammy's years ago, and said, "We'll keep doing our part to f*ck up the mainstream..."
He came out later, to speak on Frank Sinatra's induction into the Hall of Fame, and kept looking off-stage like, "I won't say anything like that again... really!"
Then Joan Rivers gets a boatload of press when she shatters an age old industry taboo and utters, "g*dd*mn". on an awards show. What, Bono isn't worth the extra press?
Chumps.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
The FCC is a failed entity. They had one simple task -- keep broadcasters from "stealing" or "leaking" onto bandwidths that they were not assigned to use. They failed so miserably new technologies were invented to do their job. They were about to go away when Nixon gave them the power of the Seven Dirty Words.
Where does the money from fines go?
Who needs them to regulate anything?
I have 2-13 piped into my house through cable and or satellite therefore I pay for those stations, how dare they regulate what I pay for!
The FCC must be abolished.
This
While watching TV it is really funny when a rowdy audience is near a commentator at a football game and you hear the F bomb in the background. Who would they go after then? Odds are the FCC would go after the broadcast station but shouldn't the person that produced the obscenity be brought to justice? In the case of Bono, the FCC will probably go after him since he is a big enough target but not as big as the broadcasting company.
It seems the rules should be applied universally.
So I had to get my dose of profanity from the TV. And soon that will be gone to. Reminds me of the Southpark episode, where they say "shit" on television.
If government can block profanity, what will they block next? Are they going to censor all instances where lords name is used in vain?
Jesus man! What's wrong with a little profanity, as long as it is not gratuitous?And fucking and shitting aren't unnatural things you know? A lot of people in the world do it.
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
For example, during last year's Golden Globe Awards U2's Bono said 'This is really, really f-ing [sic] brilliant.'
Who needs the FCC when people decide that words like 'fucking' needs to be self-censored? If you're going to fucking quote someone, fuck, man, QUOTE THEM. You're caving in against your own fucking thesis.
[
In a world where free speech is a right and supposedly the most protected freedom, this thouroghly dissapoints me.
South Park's Night of "1000 shits" is a good example. You giggle ath the first 20 shits, but byt the time they are into the 100s, you are completely disintrested. People would forget if it wasn't for the counter. If it wasn't so taboo, it'd loose focus and purpose. Its not like ears are staying virgin untl 13,no, the kid will hear Cunt, shit, fuck and like like by the time they are 5, and learn what they are by 8.
Simularly, shock jocks operate over the same concept. Open it up and the shock goes away. They always have to top themselves to get raitings, but you can only go so far in reality.
While I don't want my 5 year old saying the "fucking cunt is a bitch", I also think that if everyone allowed it, it would either go unnoticed or he'd not bother to use that language and would have to articulate his feelings in a more artistic way. Shock is easy and cheap. Art and structure are hard. Lets get the shock out of the way and get to the good stuff.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Does this mean we can't say Barbara Streisand on tv anymore?
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH
Seriously. We here in Europe can't for the love of god understand what's up with this..first a giant fuss about that ugly nipple and now this. It's just pathetic!
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
We have this ad for Channel 4: not broadcast admittedly
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.
Have you Meta Moderated t
WTF has religion got to do with it?
Peter: Look Brian, there's a message in my Alpha-Bits. It says "ooooooo".
Brian: Those are Cheerios, Peter.
Hear me out on this. If the FCC starts to go too far over the line, then sooner or later a censorship/profanity case is going to end up in the courts. I have no doubt that a court would easily rule that Bono's freedom of speech trumps Aunt Fannie's right not to hear the word "fuck." Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward.
If life breaks some eggs, make lemonade...
er..wait.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Fuck off. It's not censoship to pass comment on someone elses speech. Has anybody stopped him/her posting. No censorsip and no nhyprocisry heer pal.
No but, yeah but, no but...
Everyone has a right to say what they wish. They also have the right to change the channel. So change it already, prude.
I also reply below your current threshold.
Hell-damn-fart!
if the kind of comments that would only offend Jews or Muslims (kofkofPatRobertsonkof) will be ignored by the FCC. Seems like they just want to enforce a Christian viewpoint on everybody, even though everybody's not Christian.
I think the FCC is just making a lot of noise to distract people over the fact that they are pro-media consolidation. These priorities seem out of whack. Sure, we can lessen the number of viewpoints by allowing media consolidation, but we need to make sure no one hears any dirty words.
Come to think of it, these stances on these issues are completely consistant, to advance the agenda of more control of the content of the airwaves. Scary.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
So what are the 7 forbidden words you cannot use over the air? This is what I heard from a friend who used to work at a radio station.
Also, I believe there should be alternate and safe aliases to use such as
- a-hole (as in "What an A-hole he is!")
- f s c k (as in "Lets get the F S C K out of here.")
Surely there must be a long list, in particular British words which are not considered official profane by the FCC.
-
The FCC has a mandate, and a responsibility to enforce a minimum standard of decency on PUBLIC AIRWAVES. VHF, UHF, FM and AM.
So long as they aren't regulating Cable, Satellite, or the Net - which a consumer chooses to bring into their home - it's fine.
There's a situation now with the networks trying to compete with the likes of HBO or Comedy Central, and seeing how far they can push it.
The reaction to the superbowl stunt shows that the folks are simply sick of it.
I'm as profane as anyone, and enjoy South Park and fart jokes, etc.. But it doesn't belong on the public spectrum, they're for everybody.
I enjoy Howard Sterns show from time to time. I hope he's successful on Sirius or other payed service. He does not belong on the public dial.
It isn't censorship. It's regulating the use of a public resource, which is their job. You can't swear and flash your tits on a public station any more than you can in a public park.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I found ludicrous the Enforcement Bureau's decision that a word that might otherwise be indecent is not indecent or profane merely because it is used as an adjective or expletive.
Newly added words not to be said on tv include: But, As. The American children will now be protected from the horrible mouths of the perverted broadcastors.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
(they were going to record it, then play it over the air backwards but somebody left the outgoing microphones on and anyone who was listening to the commercials at the time heard the complete audio clearly in the background.)
If it matters, station honchos have stated that the morning show is suspended pending an investigation.
This also has a lot to do with controlling the political content of the airwaves -- see http://www.howardstern.com if you don't understand that statement.
stuff |
Oh-a-aho oh,
Oh-a-aho oh
FCC killed the radio star.
FCC killed the radio star.
In my mind and in my car, we can't rewind we've gone too far.
Profanity came and broke your heart, put the blame on NPR.
You are a radio star.
You are a radio star.
FCC killed the radio star.
FCC killed the radio star.
FCC killed the radio star.
FCC killed the radio star.
- "Video Killed the Radio Star" by The Buggles
Sorry, that's all I've got going through my head. Back to work.
Otherwise we wouldn't be paying people every month for our subscriptions. The airwaves, like everything else, are independently owned and run. Profits go to those companies that own them, not the people who watch them.
I was reading about this earlier today. This article, FCC Reverses Ruling On Bono Profanity, Hits Howard Stern With Maximum Penalty talks about the reversed decisions of the FCC. Apparently (Howard Stern Show is not in my city anymore) Howard has changed a large portion of his show to criticize the Bush administration. He was a supporter for the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the censorship has pissed him off. He's urging his 8 million listeners to vote bush out. Here's the link: Does Howard Stern Have More Political Muscle Than Ralph Nader? Last, here is a Q&A about crackdown on indecency If you can walk around in your community and not be offended, you are not living in a free society.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Has recently been kicked off of clearchannel stations. He has been ranting about this problem for the past few weeks.
I'm wrote the parent article and arent' surprised. It's Slashdot. Lots of great things happen here and some dumb things. Goes with the territory.
Too bad the GM was a puss. That could have ended that nonsense altogether.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Fuck shit cock ass silly boner bitch muff pussy God's butthole Barbara Streisand.
/. is just a common carrier, so it doesn't matter.
There. Channeling Cartman should piss them off, but hey,
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
...that the chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell, is the son of the Secretary of State, Colin Powell?
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
for a minute there I was afraid they were going to do away with pr0n on the Internet.
Since the broadcasters get free use of these valuable airwaves, it's not too much to ask that they not broadcast indecent material. There should be some level of decency that they can't go below.
I think the broadcasters have had too long to go below this, and it's about time they crack down.
If they don't like it, they can put it on cable or satellite radio. Free Public airwaves can and should be regulated.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
The libertarian in me says 'F-that'.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I remember when they showed Schindler's List on tv in 1997 >http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/ schindler-on-tv.html> without editing it at all. Language, and nudity and everything else. Why was that ok and not Janets boob? Oh cos of the content? Yeah right. Looks like a double standard.
Many radio channels (and Television) in Sweden are government controlled and profanity is 100% unmonitored both in English and in Swedish. There is more freedom of speech elsewhere than there is in the US.
2 buildings get hit by planes from some terrorist guy -> goto war with iraq
nasa loses space shuttle -> let's goto mars
girl shows boob on tv -> ban the f word.
Runnin' On Empty
"The decision also marked the first time that the FCC cited a four-letter word as profane; the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity."
;)
FCC rules on language that challenges God's divinity!
Yes, welcome to the USA folks, where Church and State are constitutionally seperated!!
I'm all for it!
First Clear Channel gets fined for Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern and now this. I am glad to see that the FCC is finally taking steps to put a stop to it and I want to know where they have been fro the past several years.
The trend of using profanity has been rolling for a very long time. But, it really shifted into high gear with the advent of the so called shock jocks. These guys have been pushing the edges of the envelope for years and, in my opinion, went way too far years ago.
I'm no prude and I too am guilty of using far too much profanity but, I have never been able to condone its use in public and on the public airwaves. People should not be subjected to it or forced to listen to this stuff and for the past few years it has been unsafe to have the radio on while driving a child to school.
But, the problem goes much deeper than all this. The fact is that the constant liberal use of profanity is eroding peoples ability to communicate intelligently. It may have been funny when Eddie Murphy took the stage and said the F-word as every other word out of his mouth, at the beginning of his career. But today, it is no longer funny and yet so many people speak like this normally. It is F-ing hard to F-ing talk to or F-ing understand someone's F-ing point when the F-word is F-ing well coming out of their F-ing mouth every other F-ing word. Then there is the whole rap lyrics argument. It is way out of control.
Expand your vocabulary. learn to communicate. Try to go a whole day without using any profanity or expletives and I bet you will find that you too might have a problem.
that the ruling of the FCC and its current rules and regulations can't be read on the air without breaking its own rules?
Now why in the world was the parent of this modded down?!?!?!? C'mon moderators, can't you take a little dissent?
I thought this site was in favor of free speech and dissent, not censorship! Your Rights Online, indeed!!!
I, too, am a father with kids and am glad that the FCC is FINALLY cracking down. If you want profanity, you've got satellite, cable, or the video/DVD market. If if goes out over public airwaves, there should be restrictions; it is the law, after all....
C'mon. Mod me down and the parent up. Take 7 points away from me, but don't censor people's viewpoints just because they differ from yours. Man, I wish I had yesterday's mod points back. I'd give it an Interesting or an Insightful, not an "I'm going to censor your 'alternate' viewpoint with a FlameBait rating."
The airwaves DO belong to the public, and therefor some balance must be struck. Whether or not *I* am offended by the F-word is not necessarily relevant.
I've always tried to look at things in the perspective of a continuum. Many times it provides a perspective.
In this context, I would anchor either end of the continuum with what I'd consider extremes that define the continuum reasonably well. So, on one end of the continuum I might describe a person on TV (or radio) simply saying, "Hello" to the audience. That seems extreme enough to define a highly INoffensive use of the public airwaves.
On the other end of this continuum I might describe some reality TV show whereby the goal is to survive in the real sense -- and the way a contestant survives is by being the last contestant alive. Each contestant must avoid being killed by the others. AND, the killing must be done with 6-inch knives... and this would be broadcast live and un-edited.
I would believe that would describe pretty wide ends of a spectrum/continuum. I also would submit that almost everyone would agree that somewhere between scenario one, and scenario two, a line is crossed whereby the material has become universally unacceptable. Where exactly that line is noone really knows, nor will anyone ever know.
In the meantime, for the sake of having standards, a line gets drawn. Being somewhere between my two extreme points, obviously some will cry foul. Get over it -- there will never be a way to make everyone happy.
Remember, a democracy is the worst form of government, until you consider all of the alternatives...
They're not saying they CAN'T use those words, they're only determining WHERE they can use those words.
We'll all still be able to watch the Sopranos in their FULL 'You Fat Fuck' glory.
They just won't be syndicated on UPN anytime soon.
Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
Just when you think the FCC isn't going to get any crazier, they turn around and start talking about things that are "profane."
The article makes a great case as to how this could be a strong move towards regulation of hate speech. You should read it, if you haven't (I know, this is Slashdot and all, but give it a shot). I'm not the only one shivering here.
There's just something about having a Bush in office that makes me really hate the Republican party. The last time I got this riled up about politics was, oh, about 12 years ago. I'm not saying I was a big Clinton fan, just that he never got my goat in quite the same way....
Funny how things have changed. The entire goal is supposed to be protection of common standards of decency. To, for example, protect the "citizens at large" from being assaulted with smut they don't want. We've slipped from that into a place where we don't protect the "citizens at large" but rather the vocal minority of those citizens who can't figure out how to fucking change the channel.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
about as dim as you are, cuntface.........
There aren't enough four-letter words to describe this.
The companies which lease the airwaves pay the
You can show images of people getting shot in the head at point blank range on TV, but you can't say fuck...how fucking stupid...
Don't own a TV. There is very little worth watching. If you do own a TV you use V-chips to screen out channels anyway. Now of course children can run off and go to their friend's place and watch their TV, but once again that's your responsibility as a parent.
Either way it's a trade off between 'freedom of speech' and 'think-of-the-children!'. I don't think the government should be thinking of the children, parents should.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
According to this new decision by the FCC, any speech that is grossly offensive, whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.'
Although I count as the last person to accuse a government agency of using logic, by that new definition, Bono's statement may not count as either indecent or profane...
The new criterion includes "grossly offensive". I do not consider "this is fucking brilliant" the least bit offensive, nevermind "grossly".
Of course, I find very little offensive enough to warrant complaining - I may not control the content, but I control the TV itself. I can change channels, or even just turn it off. IMO, the FCC needs such a major overhaul we may have an easier time just dissolving it and creating a new agency, perferable with control ONLY, over spectrum allocation, not content.
I never did understand how limiting content fails to violate the 1st amendment, but hey, what do I know? "no law respecting an establishment of religion" doesn't include giving my tax dollars to the 700 club; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean people can have guns; "unreasonable searches and seizures" doesn't include FBI backdoors into every ISP; "without due process of law", "in all criminal prosecutions", and "a speedy and public trial" doesn't include anyone accused of terrorism or "unlawful combatants"; "cruel and unusual punishments" doesn't include sleep deprivation, inedibly bland food, or blasting Bruce Springsteen at high volume; and "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" doesn't mean anything.
Now we get to say "f-ing" all the time, just like Tulip in Terry Pratchett's "The Truth." F-ing F-ing F-ing! Take that, FCC!
May I be the one to point out obvious joke:
At Live Press Conference:
Press Member:What is this F-Word you keep refering to? Is it "Farm"? Maybe "Fruit"?
FCC official:Uuuhhhh.
Other FCC oficial: Guards arrest him!!!
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
I don't know but to me this FCC thing is getting WAY out of hand. I can see going after nudity and other "gross" acts but come on WTF is wrong with Pink Floyd's song Money? It has been played on the radio accross the nation for how long? Now the FCC is banning radio stations from playing it because they consider the song obscene because it contains the "S" word... The FCC is threatening to fine any radio station playing this song $270,000.00.
I am not sure that this is all around the world but a classic rock station here in Cleveland, Ohio has been threatened WNCX
IMHO there is a line which separates needed censorship (such as keeping porn off network tv where kids would have access to it) and the government trying to press it's belifes (religious or not) upon it's people by censoring out something as trivial as a song that has been played for years.
I just don't get being offended by a single word regardless of the context. If he had said "bloody brilliant" or "freaking brilliant" or "stunningly brilliant" it wouldn't have changed the meaning of the sentence one bit, but somehow this one word is offending millions. It's a learned behavior. People are offended by "that" word because they were taught to be, without regard for the meaning, and for no other reason. You can say things hundreds of times more offensive and be covered by Freedom of Speech (which, just to avoid confusion, I think is a good thing), but utter that one word, regardless of the context or what you meant by it, and you are subject to derision and fines.
Your response to that word is caused by emotions and meaning that you assign to it and is therefore nobody else's problem but your own. And no, just because a large number of people, even most people, think the same way doesn't make it right. "Popular" != "right".
Get over it. It's just a word.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Listening to all the new terms and phrases we come up with to skirt around the forbidden subjects. This does nothing to curtail the subject matter, only the vocabulary.
You can't contain thought, because thought wants to be free.
Also, anyone notice how EFF (Electric Fronteirs Fountation) shares the "Eff" in "F-word"? Rather ironic.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
...that "fuck" means "I love brussel sprouts", and "shit" means "I should really clean my room". Guaranteed, they'll never say those words again for years.
You saiiiiiid crappppp.. "thats not a bad word." Yes it is, I'm TELLLLLLIIINNNNNGG....
Need cheap, customized, and quality bandwidth or hosting on any business scale? Visit www.ENetpresence.com
When I signed up for cable television, I purchased access to crash, abusive, violent, sexual, morbid, humerous, and offensive content. If I wanted to watch purple dinos and signing hand puppets I could get that with public television over the airwaves. I PAID for access to the offensive stuff. I LAUGH at kids getting ninja throwing stars stuck in their eyes.
I did not pay money to have a television raise your fucking kids. I support child care programs with tax dollars, but using laws and regulations to replace parenting with a TV is too much.
--Tsiangkun
Obviously the people who ran Ford in the late 1970's, or Enron, or our government when it exiled the Indians (Native Americans) or interned the Japanese, or many other people and organizations, didn't have respect for others whether or not they spoke profanely. Stopping profane speech won't induce people to have respect for one another - it just means that they will be less able to exhibit disrespect in a less harmful way. Often, its seems the most repulsive acts are justified in terms that don't involve cursing or profanity - they simply speak the cold, clear voice of evil and urge others to follow. Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay about this about 10 years ago - his point was that while PC was not good, the greater threat was from those in government who spoke lies in deceptive language and paraded them as truth. It is very easy to couch contempt or disrespect in nonprofane language; while the use of profanity may offfend others not directly offended by the content, it won't make the lack of respect disappear.
As a bonus, because of the emphasis on speech with potential to shock, there is a danger of inhibiting speech which invokes ideas that are shocking. Sometimes the truth is hard and uncomfortable, sometimes shocking, but necessary.
Inhibiting this speech over the air is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect against - thus the regulations have a measureable risk of doing something bad while little risk of making our society more civil.
Respect is the origin of civility; forcing civility will not induce respect.
Those are all really offensive. They may be the truth when you apply it to certain people, but these guys will still gun it down. Man, I thought Rebublicans were against Political Correctness??
" If I plan on watching something like the Grammy's or some other award shows (or the Super Bowl halftime show) I don't at all expect to be seeing or hearing some of the crap I have seen."
I'm not being a troll, I'm completely serious. Kill your television. OK, but keep the TiVO... ;-) TV in America has become this incredible addiction. I've seen people actually get edgy if a TV wasn't around. Read a book. Play a game. Go outside and plant something, even if it's just your ass on the grass.
TV offers some great things. PBS' Nova series is excellent, and even the really raw stuff can be a lot of fun. But too often it seems like folks focus on the dreaded box as their only outlet in this world.
I'm not speaking of you specifically, but folks as a whole.
Turn the damn thing off. Go a week without it. Seriously.
I never even knew about this case, but find it quite interesting. That led me to the parent article, which is about the regulation of [what some people consider to be] indecent speech.
IMHO, kids are going to learn these words anyway, and to have them be "taboo" is to make them more appealing for kids to use.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
FCC - stern and sirius 1
FCC - Stern & Sirius 2
FCC - Stern and Sirius 3
This is the worst fucking piece of shit government regulated assholes. How could Americans let them take their fucking rights away? That's complete SHIT. FUCK. CRAP. You guys should be fucking fighting against this shit, it's garbage. Jesus fuck. Shit.
With all your rights already evaporating why would you let this go on? You're not the land of the free, not even CLOSE. I used to think so, but if your going to take THE KING OF ALL MEDIA off the air, you have ISSUE'S. It's not like he's promoting hate (except against BUSH), so what's the deal? Worried the word FUCK is going to hurt your children? Be more afraid of them growing up under Big Brother's thumb.
2004 = 1984 + 20.
Mod +5 Drunk
..and the FCC is taking a really long time to look at our application for translators (devices that will help us expand our broadcast range to actually reach our campus. it's a long story :)
I feel like they are expending energy in a direction that is absolutely fruitless and useless. let the invisible hand of economic forces decide what's fit for broadcast or not, i say. let the fcc handle things that are actually important.
Foolish Consistency?
Yeah, right.
So what are the 7 forbidden words you cannot use over the air? This is what I heard from a friend who used to work at a radio station.
Also, I believe there should be alternate and safe aliases to use such as
- a-hole (as in "What an A-hole he is!")
- f s c k (as in "Lets get the F S C K out of here.")
Surely there must be a long list, in particular British words which are not considered official profane by the FCC.
-
i've got a weekly radio show on a local college station from midnight to 3AM. this means that currently i can play music with as much nasty language as i want, as long as i don't say any bad words into the microphone. ("indecent" material is explicitly allowed between 10pm and 6am)
i'm not quite sure where this new thing leaves me. hrmm...
I heard someone say "If you are not offended atleast once when you drive through your neighborhood, then you are not living in a free society".
Cant believe a nipple would do this much damage.
And dont get me started on the news media who wants to put two stars between "F" and "k". I thank them for making it complex enough so that toddlers and teenagers wouldnt understand along with the rest of the population.
Rapid Nirvana
I'd like to SEE the FCC regulate speech.
The first time someone is prosecuted, they can sue the FCC for violating the First Amendment.
The FCC was created by Congress, is paid for by public funds (taxes), and is controlled by the Government.
I remember reading that "Congress shall make no laws..."
You just won. Congress created it, funded it with public money, and officially the "Government is prosecuting you for your speech."
You can easily sue the FCC into oblivion here, getting rid of all those "indecency rules" that tell me what I can and cannot say in a free country!
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Howard Stern did not have a problem with clear channel radio until he started criticizing Bush. The head of the FCC is Colin Powell's son. This ruling will be used mainly to attack enemies of the current regime.
Seig Heil Bandar Bush! (Ooops, Ashcroft can come drag me away now)
I don't have a problem with people swearing if they really want to emphasize their point. Even if it's part of their language. But fucking swearing at every stupid goddamn line just to fucking prove their shitty point sounds a bit ridiculous to me.
DrkBr
I mean, fuckity fuck fuck this fucking fucktard piece of fuck.
The more we ban a word, the more it becomes "profane"
The more we use a word, the more it becomes part of everyday vocabulary.
Even if use the word fuck to describe sex, is that "profane" The word sex was used over and over in a Friends episode. Imagine if they said "fuck"? Does that make the meaning different?
Next thing they will be banning "shit" or "crap" but leaving "feces" or "solid human excrement" it all means the same thing!
Roger Daltrey has been singing "who the fuck are you?" on classic rock stations for about 60 years now. Is this the silver lining for this otherwise crazily opressive cloud?
The shit from a "holy cow"...as they are revered in India. The magic mushrooms come from this holy dung from said holy cow. Some say that these hallucinogenic mushies when ingested started the evolution of humans...hence the expression.
I encourage you to sign a petition at http://stopfcc.com/
While I'm a firm believer in free speech, its been decided that obscene speech isn't protected.
They are going after obscene speech, not just offensive.
Personally, if someone wants to create a show that is obscene, it needs to be restricted to adults. NOT be broadcast to the general public. Much as PPV porno is already.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Indeed, "fuck" is always a profanity, but it is not necessarily "profane" to say it,
Do what?
... we don't censor programs even if they're aimed quite a lot for children and people swear in them. And the fucking kids still don't swear much more/less than in other places. I think it has a fucking lot to do with how they're raised by the parents. But sure, if the babysitter AND parent is the fucking TV, I can imagine how things might end. But as long as they have a normal fucking childhood, I think censoring programs are a fucking waste of time.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
NO, that's not LSD. Try the math book.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Looks like Stuttering John Melendez got out while the going was still good (of the stern show) but what will gary delabonte do for a living?
E.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
God rest his smutty sole.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
It's not the words that are illegal. It's the person's intent that's speaking. If I speak in a sexually insinuating manner to a co-worker of the opposite sex then my intent is to sexually harrass her. My words aren't criminal; my intent is. If a FCCing(tm) pervert tells a child all sorts of inappropriate sexual things then their intent is what's in violation of the law; their words are just that, words. If I scream "FIRE!" inside a crowded movie theater, the word isn't criminal. My intent is. By your definition telling someone on an airplane that "I'm a bomb technician" makes a criminal out of me. In reality neither my words nor my intent are criminal in that case.
Unfortuantely, the FCC has responded to the ludicrous hype which has all stemmed from a split second shot of someone's breast. It was so fast it was over in the time it took me to look down to pop another taste piece of chicken breast (sweet irony, eh?) on my fork. They show far worse things on MTV, every single day but no one complained. Go figure.
OK so it was wrong, she shouldn't have shown her boob (waldrobe malfunction my ass, attention grabbing idea more like) on national TV during a family show but please, get over it!
My personal opinion is that the US should follow the UK rule, have censorship until 9 pm and then tone it down. It's the parents responsibility to limit what children watch at a time when those that are young and impressional should be asleep anyway.
Ever heard of a thing called the off switch?
...consider the logical conclusions of going to either extreme. What's the worst that happens?
If you go all the way lenient, your kids use "fuck" and "motherfucker" every fifth word.
If you go all the way restricitve, you get arrested and thrown in PMITAFP for writing something in your blog for that's "profane and insulting to the spirit of Islam^WChristianity^WOur Great Nation".
Which world would you choose to live in?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
IF I knew that Comcast wouldn't shut it down on me, I would set up a stream server, fed by aFestival server, constantly repeating the same stream over and over and over.
This is a message from the general population of the United States to Michael Powell, chairman of the F C C. FUCK YOU. Thank you.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Once they totally sensor the radio and cable what's next? When is the internet going to be sensored? At this rate it's a matter of time.
We need to get bush out of here.
SpermanHerman
F*ck the F*cking FCC!
Oh come on its a fcc'in joke, laugh
Its bad enough ABC has LOL Fridays whats next Spike TV's WTF Thursdays
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Shit, you're absolutely fucking right. There's nothing fucking wrong with saying a couple of fucking bad words. What the fuck is wrong with the shit-for-brains at the FCC? You'd think that shit stands for Fucking Comunist Control or some shit.
:)
Hey, that was fun.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Lets see:
o the FCC regulates profanity.
o Bush essentially tries to recreate the house unamerican activities committee under another name. o The US falls out with Russia (and the rest of the world).
o Being gay is slowly being becoming a crime
Well, lets all go down to the soda fountain and hit a drive in movie afterwards why don't we.
Well, woop-de-fucking-do. This isn't the 1950's any more; face up to the fact.
Just run the country properly and stop futzing around with stupid things that have no bearing on the quality of life of all those people that are living below the poverty line, to all those people who no longer have health care, to all those people to don't have jobs, to all the people that had to take a job after retirement because the CEO needed a bigger mansion in Hawaii and raided thier pensions.
Hey republicans! The 1950's are over face it. If it was Ronald Reagan would still be making B-Movies and outing his friends.
Ozzie Osbourne sure seems to say 'beep' a lot when 'The Osbournes' is on in the US. Once when his son Jack held his middle finger up to the camera, it was blurred out to protect sensitive american eyes. A friend in New Zealand tells me that The Osbournes is on broadcast TV there at 10 pm uncensored. New Zealand doesn't seem to have suffered because of it. Nobody much seems to care. My friend remembered the blurred finger. Presumably that was done at the source by the same guy who blurs the car license plates etc.
I remember watching an interview with the late George Harrison on VH1. At some point he said something about the record companies was all bullsh*t. Even that was beeped out.
This is a country that lets people work around with concealed handguns but shudders at the thought of a naughty word. Very strange place.
Hmm, 200 posts already on this topic, so far I've read 2, yes 2 that support the FCC, so what the fuck happened to "DEMOCRACY"
Mod +5 Drunk
Republicans want more freedom for corporations and more restrictions for individuals.
Democrats want it vice versa.
Vote accordingly.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
...there's no compelling state interest in banning profanity. There's a compelling state interest in banning obscenity. There's a big difference between the two. Indecency is an element of obscenity, and is the reason why you can hear a lot of stuff after 10 p.m. that you can't hear before it. If the Golden Globe broadcast was violating that compromise, then maybe they'd be subject to fines for indecency, though certainly not for obscenity, given the way the word was used. If that was their justification, I'd grumble about uptight conservatives and move on, but they're not just screwing over one broadcast here, they're trying to establish an entirely new regulative domain that the courts have held time and time again that they have no authority to do. Of course, it'll take a couple years to work its way through the courts. Fun.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
"It's really nice to know there are still parents out there who think like I do and believe it's the responsibility of the parents to teach and or protect their children. Unfortunately, we're in a sad minority on those views."
What drives me nuts is this: When did what you, my wife, friends and I see as basic parenting skils, obvious parenting skills, become such a freakin' Lost Art?
"It's too easy to make children, then let the schools and the TV babysit them... practically effortless."
Very true. Sadly true. Some people seem to think parenting is a hobby. I've always seen it as Job 1. Breed 'em? Better be damn sure you're ready to invest the time and energy to raise 'em. *sigh*
Keep the faith.
getting heard in all the noise in this thread.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It doesn't hurt anybody...fuck, fuckity, fuck, fuck fuck
What ever happened to one man's vulgar is another man's prose?
What is so insane is that the rules for profanity are completely inconsistent. Oprah can have a show talking about "tossing salads" which include a detailed description of what that is, but if Howard Stern says it, he will get fined.
This is a problem for several reasons:
1) Our freedom of speech is killed because we can be fined into bankruptcy for talking edgy, so obviously people will be more careful of anything that they say
2) freedom of speech is completely killed because the FCC can decide months later if what you said was profane, so the feedback mechanism is completely messed up.
3) initial rulings on profanity can be "overruled" by the FCC, meaning that political agendas can be enforced through the FCC now
For a listing of required reading go directly to Howard Stern's web site.
For example, I think most people would consider free speech to be sacred. Of course, that would mean that the FCC ruling on the matter might be considered profane under the FCC ruling.
The FCC offends me in this, and many other ways. I am shivering with fear at where their definitions of "sacred" might lead us...
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
and all it's worthless Commissions, Departments, Committees, GSO's and anything else FUCKED UP by it's hackneyed system of fascist religiously tainted rules!
sorry its only shockwave, but you might find this British TV commercial rather appropriate...
:)
Swearing
Enjoy
Freedom is just another word, for nothing left to lose. - Janis Joplin
Meanwhile, television and film can show graphic, glorified murder and only be rated PG13.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
How does this affect shows on networks such as HBO... last time I checked, Tony Soprano happened to like the "f-word".
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
"Profane" is the opposite of "sacred". Profanity is immoral speech or actions. Your President's FCC, run by your Secretary of State's son, is now the arbiter of public morality. Welcome to the ChrisTaliban States of Amerikkka. Lick Bush in 2004.
--
make install -not war
I must remember to say "Fuck the fucking fucked-up fuckers at FCC."
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Democracy is a scary scary thing.
"crap circle" :-)
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Yeah, because a crusty old musictian who doesn't know the 90's are over, and Howard Stern are cartoons. In fact they're indistinguishable from the smurfs.
And how the hell are kids going to hear the f-bomb dropped on the air between 6am and 10pm anyway? When I was a tot I sure as hell wasn't driving myself to school, with my windows down, and my system up shouting "Where my bitches at" to the thumping nubian rythems. I was with my parents, or at daycare, or at school, or with my parents.
And if South Park is his kids favorite cartoon, might I suggest he try to act in his own fucking stated intrests.
The funny thing is out here in seattle, there are these guys who run porn on public access, and generally look like serial killers in their spare time which appears considerable. The porn can only be on after 1am. People are trying to get these shows kicked off because, "children might be watching." First off children watching public access? WTF? Secondly at 1 am!? And the fact that they might be seeing porn is their most pressing problem? Indeed.
Fuck you stupid little bitches who want to childproof the world. Fuck you in your stupid asses. The Smurfs should not be entertainment enough for everyone. Perhaps instead of always crying for the children, you might be so bold as to try and raise them.
but I know it when I see it.
Impeach Bush now.
Your constitution is counting on you.
Why does the word "FUCK" need to be said in broadcast media? Freedom of speech used to mean the ability to freely disseminate any idea without fear of reprisal; now it means vocal minorities have the right to have their words forced into our ears. Other than discussion of the use of the word "FUCK" what ideas are censored by not being able to use the word "FUCK" on network feeds, which as this poster notes are seen and listened to by children?
It would seem the average slashdotter has no problem with strangers going up to other peoples' children and using any string of obscenities they want.
Maybe the FCC has gone too far, maybe it hasn't, but it sickens me to see how quickly the knee jerk liberal Slashdot bias is enforced by moderators who clearly didn't have enough time to ready the article in question before modding this comment down.
Other than pre-recording and screening all TV-programming how are parents supposed to ensure their children receive wholesome fare? You may not think the word "FUCK" is harmful for a young child to hear (or other words or images), but that would only be your opinion not a provable fact.
I'm sure if Jason Timberlake hadn't just exposed Janet Jackson's boob, but actually torn all her clothes off and sodomized her for fifteen minutes with extreme camera close-ups and slow motion replay -- that too would be just fine with a great many as well.
Is there really no line at all?
Letter To Iran
While crime rules many of our streets, while we wage war with terrorists that we created ourselves.
While jobs are outsourced, and we have largest budget deficit ever. Corporate crime is at it's peek...
Let make sure that are kids are safe from 'profane' language. And while we're at it, let's make sure they are safe from all words that are 'offensive', and while we're at that, why not safe them from all words that may potentially imply any criticism of anything. We wouldn't want to burden our kids with so much responsibility making decisions.
Because, if we can't talk about things, than maybe these things do just exist in our imagination. Ahh, I feel so relaxed now.
Thanks you very much big FCC.
how much of my tax money if going to making sure that people Iraq have more of a right to free speech than i do?
here is what upsets me, the billion dollar deficit, my 30 year friends who can't get health insurance, jobs leaving the country, fellow americans dying in other parts of the world
fix this stuff then we can get to TV/Radio
Guess that means we won't be seeing gems like this anymore....
KYLE: Shut-up, fatboy!
CARTMAN: Hey! Don't call me fat, you fuckin' Jew!
MR. GARRISON: Eric! Did you just say the F-word?
CARTMAN: "Jew"?
KYLE: No, he's talkin' about "fuck." You can't say "fuck" in school, you fuckin' fatass.
MR. GARRISON: Kyle!
CARTMAN: Why the fuck not?
MR. GARRISON: Eric!
STAN: Dude, you just said "fuck" again!
MR. GARRISON: Stanley!
KENNY: Fuck.
MR. GARRISON: Kenny!
CARTMAN: What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody. Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
MR. GARRISON: How would you like to go see the school counselor?
CARTMAN: How would you like to suck my balls?
KIDS: [gasping]
MR. GARRISON: What did you say?
CARTMAN: Oh, I-I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Actually, what I said was: [speaking through bullhorn] "How would you like, to suck my balls, Mr. Garrison?"
KYLE: Holy shit, dude.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Mmmm...I love my police state. Will I next not be able to put profane words on my website? or tattoo them on my body either? I guess liberty wasn't overrated after all.
This is complete bullshit I mean this is so stupid, why don't they just piss all over the Constitution? I mean what the fuck? The FCC is once again being a total cunt. Whoever decided what words you can and can't say is being another Republican cocksucker. I according to the 1st amendment have the right to say motherfucker. Oh yeah and tits.
What never ceases to amaze me in our country (US) is the extreme differences in reaction to violence vs. nudity.
Make a list of all the parents who were "horrified" that their kids were exposed to a nipple during the Super Bowl.
Now from that list see how many of those kids were allowed, even encouraged, to watch TV/movies depicting violent deaths, gun fights, explosions with flying bodies, etc.
A breast. Panic.
A beheading. Cheer.
No wonder we're so fucked up as a nation.
Let's be honest and clear about this too - it is not just the FCC who is doing this, they are getting lots of pressure from the religious right on these issues. This is a perfect example of how a specialty group is directly influencing the government.
The FCC looks like a bunch of idiots over these issues. They are bringing up issues that are *YEARS* old, and fining people for them. The issue they are fining Howard Stern over is from 2001.
I listen to Stern on occasion, and have been more frequently recently. This morning was a fantastic illustration of how stupid this all is. He played a clip from the Jimmy Kimmel show, where Jimmy was defending Howard. He said that they should be going after the filthiest person on TV - Oprah. Jimmy then played a clip from the Oprah show, where she was talking with some women about sex things. They were laughing and having a good time. One of the women mentioned "tossing salad" , and then proceeded to describe what it was. When Howard played this clip, it was bleeped (time delay removed) from his show. He begged his GM to let him play the clip. It was from Oprah, which runs in the mid-afternoon.
Here is the point - Oprah can get away with this kind of talk on her show, but Howard gets fined for something not nearly as graphic from 2001? He has a great argument - if they play the clip and get fined, the FCC would HAVE to fine Oprah. They would never fine Oprah. If they didn't, they would be obvious hypocrites, and if they did they would be showing the world how stupid they are behaving. You don't mess with Oprah. It would make national news if Oprah was fined for indecency.
It is all a big joke, and the religious right is standing firmly behind this one. They have strong ties to Senators (giving them cheap housing) as well as other government officials. Hell, some government officials ARE part of the religious right - all the way up to the drunk-driving President and Vice President. (1 and 2 offenses respectively)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
When the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in the late 90's, they disallowed women from working, forced adult men to wear beards and banned music, they killed adulterers and homosexuals. Of course, they also banned the heroin industry there, which encouraged help from abroad.
Why I am mentioning this? No, no reason. -1 Offtopic, as the kids call it these days.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
Yep, fuck em.
Fuck them for trying to censor anyone's speach on radio or TV.
And fuck ultra liberals for trying to censor our thoughts and speach on collage campuses.
The right and left are making the USA feel like a nation where we soon will not be able to say, do, or think anything besides what our approved advertisers tell us to do, say, oh and buy.
Fuck this shit.
Yep, somedays I believe that I am an illegitimete love child of George Carlin, wanna make something outta it assholes?
Have a nice day!
Didn't he actually say "f-ing"? I'm pretty sure he was accurately quoted in the /. synopsis. Not only are they censoring words like fuck, but their derivatives as well.
Of course, I'm too lazy to search for the exact text, so I could be wrong here.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
who the fuck gave them the god damn, mutha fuckin permission to tell me how to speak and what is sanctioned by the state. Fuck bush and all his rich circle jerking asshole buddies. I'm sure they're all laughing their asses off as they suck each other's cocks off.
The poster uses "fucking" all over his analysis on his website. The fact that fucking is censored in the slashdot post is only an indication that the editor ( at /. ) censored it.
Why ? Ask Michael, or Michael's boss.
J.
the worst offender is the AG. look up an article about him in a recent Vanity Fair (or whatever). i believe the title of the article is John Ashcroft's Patriot Games. how this guy is an elected official freaks me the hell out. he's a Christian Mullah Omar.
.... OUT! =)
nice writeup though. GOSAND
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Try pronouncing F-C-C as a word.... does that mean they get banned?
Remember that, in no uncertain terms, things like this are exactly why we have the right to bear arms. Shoot the fuckers in the head, NOW.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I am deeply deeply offended by anyone who would oppose the war against Iraq. To this end, all news, images, or talk displayed on television by war dissenters shall be banned.
Fuck yeah! Fuck that fucking shit. Fuck all those fuckers who fucking censor a fucking quote, fucking even if the fucking quote is fucking dumb and the fucking quoted is a fucking idiot. Fuck you all, you fucking fucks. (15/39; I'm fucking slipping.)
Does anyone know why Tits is on the list?
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
The article wasn't quite right.
Actully he said, "This is really, really fucking brilliant."
The airwaves are owned by the People - private concerns just rent them. The government administers the airwaves on behalf of the People. Licensees of the public airwaves are NOT entitled to use the airwaves for any purpose other than that granted in the license - if the licensee doesn't like the "no profane" speech requirement, then the licensee can find another distribution avenue - there are plenty of them (internet, press, cable & satellite). Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean you have to the right to have your speech subsidized by the People (and it is a subsidy, since we are talking about the allocation of a scarce public resource).
The FCC doesn't just regulate obscene content - what about the "equal time" requirements? What about the public service message requirements?
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
I hope all languages and religions are given equal treatment.
In my native language, Microsoft is both profane and indecent!
Then stop being a father and human and start acting like one and teach your kids what is right and wrong, how to act polite with company, what they should and shouldn't watch, yada yada yada
Nothing gets done just looking at it or waiting for others to do it!
--
my sig censors your lame ass
Ashcroft is not an elected official, he's an appointed official.
sorry, my bad.
however, his offenses while gov of missouri and us senator are hardly any better.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This just reminds me, yet again, of how messed up Americans' values are in so many ways, a fact that was first brought to my attention when I went to the United Kingdom (my first trip abroad) back in 1995. Over there, TV is not censored, at least not to the degree that it is here. They leave in nudity, sex, profanity, and all the other stuff. There's very little protest about it because they have a much more mature attitude -- they believe that adults should be allowed to watch whatever they want to watch without having the government tell them whether or not it's OK for them. More importantly, they also believe that if there's a show that has sex, violence, profanity, or anything else they might happen to find offensive, the proper course of action is to change the channel or turn off the set, not to say that nobody else at all should be allowed to see that stuff on TV.
I wish we had that attitude here. As others have said, I find religious junk like "The 700 Club" highly offensive, but I simply don't watch it -- and I don't expect the government to ban it. People who want to see it should be allowed to without government interference, just as people who want to see "Die Hard" uncut should be allowed to without government interference as well.
You are really confusing things here. The FCC previously established that bono's words weren't uttered with sexual intent... but now they are saying that words themselves are illegal no matter what the intent is!!! THAT is the whole point of people's outrage over this
fuck it.
(Most of us Stewarts are descended from Walter Fitzalan, third high Steward of Scotland, and/or from peasants on the land of various Stewart landlords (since Scots traditionally used somebody-son-of-somebody naming rather than inherited last names) or slaves of people named Stewart. I'm not aware of any close relationship between my family and Martha or Potter, but I do know bad decorating when I see it.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Although I disagree terribly with any form on censorship, we should at least try to understand why so many people were upset about the Janet Jackson SuperBowl fiasco. Many Slashdotters are (rightfully) stating that parents should take charge of what their children are watching. This is precisely why people were so upset with the breast-baring SuperBowl. They were thinking that of all things on TV, their kids should be able to watch what is perhaps the most viewed annual sporting event in the world.
That's it, folks. I'm not saying I agree with the FCC's kneejerk reaction, but this is why people are upset and we should aknowledge it when discussing this topic.
Having said that, I do believe that there is no cause for relegating broadcast & cable television to G-rated content. If you don't like the services rendered to you, don't patronize it.
This is a disturbing trend within our society: armchair moralists. Everyone wants to legislate their own personal interpretation of moral and good and the government is left grasping for the most acceptable edition in order to continue to win votes on artificial topics around election times.
When are people going to wake up and start taking care of their own households before they start passing gargantuan federal mandates? Watch TV with your children and monitor the viewing. Spend time with your children and don't let them play alone. Go out with your children and show them through example what proper behavior is. Expecting the government to raise your children, police your society, and walk your dog for you is only going to lead to more laws and regulations about speech, traffic, and dog-poop.
Then again... when the citizens pay close to 50% or more in taxes (12.5% social security, +federal, +state, +local, +6% sales, +gasoline, +energy, +cable, +alcohol, +tobacco, +registration fees, +school participation fees which are supposed to be funded by preexisting taxes, +real estate taxes, etc.)... shouldn't they be entitled to expect this sort of warm security blanket from their big brother?
We're going to end up with the one-size fits all security blanket if you rich yuppies and soccer moms don't get your heads out of your asses and then no one will be happy.
Don't give me any crap about voting, either. As one of the oldest forms of decision making known to civilized man, any decision (eg. election) which relies on the democratic process is inherently RIGGED.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
does the FCC does not understand?
If I walk into someone's house and read their financial data, even if they leave it out on the table or in an unlocked cabinet, I will still be trespassing. If I use it for anything, I may be guilty of other crimes, unless he posted it on the front lawn, in which case it was fair game, but I don't think a common server used by both parties but with different permissions counts as a front lawn.
The content is probably not as important as the fact that it was obtained illegally. For an administration that wanted to bring honor back to the government, this seems slightly more hypocritical than usual.
P.S. Is it more cynical that the Democrats are stalemating high-level conservative judges because of their color or that the Republicans chose them on that basis (so that they would be hard to reject)?
ba ba booooey ba ba booooey ba ba booooey
Okay my collection now includes:
/. .sigs.
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from government
any sufficiently well-organized government is indistinguishable from bullshit
technology = magic, for sufficiently advanced values of technology and magic
Anyone want to add more? Or for that matter, step forward and take credit--most if not all of these are from
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
I've always wondered, in television, they always bleep out the word God in the phrase "God Dammit" or they'll bleep out Damn if the phrase is simply "Damn it"
:-P) , drop me a line, I'd love to take the FCC to court over this, just because I think censorship in general should be left TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
Now, I'm of a very lenient type, and I think it should be the PARENTS responsibility to, oh say, PARENT, since plenty adults rather enjoy free conversation in the expression of speech, but I have to ask, since the US constituation states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
I have to wonder, seeing as it not only says that congress may not abridge freedom of speech, AND that their laws cannot 'respect an establishment of religion' (and perhaps I'm just conveniently misinterpreting, but I know what it's supposed to [traditionally] be read as), but in all honesty, is it the right of the government to censor words related to religion, or the expression of one?
The government here, is clearly doing it to protect religious interests (and no I'm not trying to troll here), which, while special interests make the world go round, I find curious when while a majority of the populous may be indifferent to it, we have bonefid laws on the books that say roughly "Thou shalt not take thy lords name in vain"
IANAL, but if theres' one out there who happens to agree w/ me (and likes working for fame not fortune
Admittedly, having this stuff thrown at you (Janet's tit, or Fuck in the middle of an awards ceremony) may be out of line, but every TV station I know of now rates their own programming. Can't we simply say "If you don't wanna hear it, dont watch TV-MA"?
I mean really, every bloody TV out there has the VChip, and every parent _should_ know what their children are watching. As a child, I had great parents who both worked, but they still protected me from what they saw as indecent for their children. And that's their right, I grand them that, but I'm sick of someone elses parent, telling me as an adult what I can and cannot hear / see / whatever, ESPECIALLY IF I CAN DISABLE TUNING IT IN ON MY OWN TV. If I didn't want to see nudity, or hear swearing, those are _all_ options on my television, my cable box, AND my tivo.
*Sigh*
Let's face it, people like to believe that they are right at any cost, and that _their_ morality should be the morality that rules the world (country). But can we all just take a few feet back, and realize that just because you dont like it, you don't have to listen.
Same as the written word, or movies. You know the rating, you know the content from the back of the book, and you know what you're getting into. If you're going to be offended, censor yourself.
Ok, I'm done now.
-- (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I have no problem with the language, not in the least fucking bit; it is appropriate to the topic.
It is also the submitter's and the slashdot editors' responsibilities to be professional. This is a work friendly site, and I like to opportunity to choose to go into the uncensored discussions.
There was a story a few months ago where goddamn was used in the story description on the front page. I commented on it, got called a religious zealot fuckhead idiot (i'm none of those (to me at least)) and got modded insightful, troll, insightful, overrated, troll and flamebait.
I think the right thing was done today.
Here in Canada almost anything goes. Maybe we're more open minded. Maybe we're a little less uptight. Maybe we watch a little too much American TV.
...?
....
You're watching "a little too much American TV"
Man, that's like saying you're getting a little too much nerve gas in your diet
-kgj
-kgj
This is higly manipulative - in a person to person situation, one person tries to maipulate the other by putting a demeaning value on speech or outer appearance (for example).
Same goes for human dignity - deeply violated by police and military behavior. Look at Guantanamo Bay, War on Drugs, how people protesting are treated, prisons, etc. Human dignity is worth shit in comparison to the purposes it's being sacrificed!
Clearly shows what wimps of people are in charge. Nobody there has the courage to keep this from happening - disgusting!
unless it has precognative powers to knows Janet is gonna flash her boob or Bono decides to use a verb as an adjective.
I curse more than a Eminem song but my kid knows not to repeat it. My son is up playing during sitcoms where more than enough vulgar things are on. He catches some of it. Shame on the network or shame on me?
Fuck the FCC. I'm getting more than paranoid about the religious agendas of some of these known and unknown sects. It's not the religion, it's the people that are screwy.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
Right now, much of the justification for the FCC censoring radio and television is based on assertion that the Public owns the airwaves (and therefore allows the majority to determine what gets banned).
Obvsiously, the next logical step in regulation - after tv and radio - will be the Internet. And I'm not thinking about obvious targets like pornography here. No, I think they will sart with Salon.com articles that use the "F word," health sites that depict women's health issues (in 4-color graphic detail), web sites showing the uncensored Janet boobie incident video (SHOCKING!) or any number of the flash animations that we know and love.
But there's a problem here (which obviously has been discussed many times in many venues - but is no less applicable here):
"The Internet" is not owned by the Public.
Sure, they can prosecute people that run servers in US territory. But I wonder: will the US government start blocking "indecent" and "profane" web pages located on servers in other countries? And what will they do about people accessing banned sites though distribued networks like Free Net?
How will the "Public" react when they discover that they don't "own" the Internet - that they Government can't "protect" them - that the only way not see "indecent" images or ideas will be to exercise a little personal choice?
It's not going to be pretty.
Which is okay if they're Muslims, or Jews, or Christians who don't agree with you. Can't really call that sacred, since its all, you know Heathen and shit.
I fer one think we should go a few steps farther and kill anyone who is doing anything profane. The American flag is sacred, so first we kill anyone who messes with the flag (or Texas). Then comes Jesus, so everyone who hasn't seen Passion yet has to die. Then we kill anyone who has a sense of humor, because if it's funny, it's making fun of somethign, and thats abuse, and theys gotta die.
Les see, what else? Well, I figger since 'bout everyone in the world is heathen, I'm goin ta hafta start in Europe, and work my way back around. I kin purty much tell when someone is you know, profanin, so I figger I'd best be the one to decide who's got to go.
By the time I'm dun, it'll be jest me and ma dawg, and I ain't so shur 'bout him. He looks a little queer.
Let it be a lesson to posterity; if you create a country based on freedoms, all you get is a buncha freaks who spend their time trying to kill the freedoms they don't care about or understand.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
This is living proof that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
I'm dead serious when I say that too.
This kind of crap never made any sense to me when I was a kid, and it makes even less sense now. Who are these cretins who are so afraid of "bad words" anyway? What kind of bizarre "thoughts" go through their minds that would lead them to go as far as exerting political pressure on the government to protect them from these words?
I just don't get it. Even the "Its for the children!" argument doesn't hold water in my book. Kids need to be protected from many things, but words are not among them. Besides, if these words were truly evil or harmful in some way, they quite simply would have died out ages ago. No one would know them because our ancestors would have stopped using them. The very fact that they have persisted in our language proves that they are harmless. There is simply a legion of brain-dead morons who believe they are. The world would be a much better place if they didn't breed more of themselves.
You can mark this bullshit down under 'A' for absurd.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
This isn't about freedom of speech or freedom of religion. "This is f*cking brilliant" is not protected speech, never has been, and never will be, and you don't have to be religious to find certain phrases vulgar or offensive.
You can rant and rave all you want about this, but there is plenty of legal precedence for what can be considered protected speech. To use an example that /. readers can comprehend SCO can not claim that "All your Linux base belong to us," and then pretend they are merely exercising their right to free speech when it is shown that in fact they don't own all of your Linux bases.
You might disagree with this, and you might even feel that the use of vulgar language should be encouraged over public broadcasts. However, the vast majority of folks disagree with you.
Although I support applying the definition of "profane" as discussed in Tallman to this particular incident, this too is a new finding by the Commission. The courts never applied the standard in Tallman to an isolated broadcast of the fword and the FCC has never used this definition in any analysis of "profane" content, let alone the use of expletives. Rather, "profane language" has historically been interpreted in a legal sense to mean blasphemy. Moreover, the Mass Media Bureau in a document entitled "The Public and Broadcasting" stated that "[p]rofanity that does not fall under one of the above two categories [indecency or obscenity] is fully protected by the First Amendment and cannot be regulated." [footnotes omitted]
OMG, an FCC Commissioner mentioning the First Amendment...
Bzzzt! Opinion too nuanced!
The terrorists have already won.
No reappointment for you!
Why's it OK to show people getting shot, robbing banks, beating each other up, etc; while everyday ordanary dialog is being censored.
I'd much rather my kid was exposed to a handful of swearwords and see the occasional brest, then be shown TV shows that makes them think everyone's a criminal so it must be OK.
Movie dialog like threats like "I'm going to kill you" are far more harmful to kids than "oh shit".
How about a law:
Jew?
Indeed. I find it particularly ironic that the swine slashdot editors decided to censor out the word "fuck" in an article on censorship.
;) )
Slashdot editors: this isn't a damn newspaper where whiney grandmothers get all uppity about actually printing the word fuck. This is especially true in an article where the word is only referred to and not used. If we can't even refer to the word fuck without using euphimisms or taking out 90% of the letters in the word it only endorses the censorship endorsed by the FCC. Referring to the word just isn't the same thing as an article that starts out "Those fucking shitbag weasel-monkeys at SCO are at it again". (Though personally I would like to see an article like that.
AccountKiller
In case you haven't noticed, everything that "The Importance of" submits to Slashdot turns to gold. He's on a pedestal shared only by Roland Piquepaille.
Michael didn't edit the submission.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
NO! The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us fought to gain those rights.
WHY...
For the same damn reason you don't have porn-flicks on the bloody Disney channel...
And if you can't figure that out...well than frankly, I am of the persuasion of thinking why the !@#$% should government regulate at all and why can't I just FCC'ing kill you...
Um...yeah...we have regulations, we have laws (and yes morons...every single law IS a legislation of morality)
Frankly I don't see where the FCC gets off. If I want to use words that everyone else thinks are obscene, I should be allowed. Who are they to say that I'm immoral? It's all relative, anyway. While we're at it, we need to get rid of laws against rape, because the girl in the next office is looking mighty fine. It's only because the people in charge are so religious that we can't rape who we want, which I think should be our right. Some other human sheep will say something like, "Oh, just saying words doesn't HURT anyone, but raping them does!" I say, who cares? Who said that hurting people is wrong? The same closed-minded jerks who say that saying fuck is wrong, that's who. And what do they know? All morals are just figments of our imagination.
I dunno about you guys, but this seems doubleplusgood to me!
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Here are many of the things that I have heard on the radio (since my CD player broke a few months ago) on the morning drive into work, between Howard Stern, and some local DJ's, and such..
..anyway, these are the things that I dropped my jaw and gaped at, thinking "they aren't REALLY doing this on the RADIO are they?"
.. this is just some.. i can't remember.. i know i've been utterly shocked (not offended.. but shocked) at what has been going across the airwaves lately.
(and, keep in mind, I almost always enjoy the Howard Stern show, but is 7 in the friggin morning a good time for his show? i'd say probably not - they relax the airwaves a little bit at night, when kids are likely to be in bed.. not in the morning, when they are likely to be in a bus on their way to school with some schlep bus driver blasting this to them all.. just one possible example)
explicit details on performing oral sex on two men simultaneously
explicit details on two women performing oral sex on one man simultaneously
playing pr0n music in the background, and graphically describing a pr0no flick over the air
discussing anally raping a presidential candidate with a strap-on vibrator
talking in vivid detail about how awesome some girl on a magazine cover's "cameltoe" is
yelling at a caller with an obvious accent, "THIS IS AMERICA, SPEAK ENGLISH!"
What purpose does spreading this junk all over the metro area have? Most of it's not even remotely humorous... at least if it were, it would have some value.. but,.. it's mostly just lame bathroom humor on the air.. yuck.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Howard Stern: "How can you say I'm the antichrist when Christ and I have so much in common? We both are thirty-something Jews with long hair and in problems with authority. He had his 12 disciples, I've got my team. Moreover, I'm bigger than Jesus. I'm sindicated all over the country. What market share did he have outside of Galilee?"
that we should be able to live in this country without ever being offended by anything?
It's not a constitutional right. It's not even something we should be fighting for. In fact, it's the exact opposite of tolerance.
You can write Michael Powell at Michael.Powell@fcc.gov and tell him how you feel. I did this morning.
:p
I wish I still saved a quote I read at the end of a message post from a while back. Basically, it was a rant on the degeneration of society, and how today's kids are disrespectful, etc. Only thing is, the quote came from ancient Greece.
I think it's easy to look around us and make blanket statements about how bad things are getting, without realizing that society's perceived "issues" today are quite similar to what they've been since the dawn of time.
The only things that change are the details. (EG. 75 years ago, a woman was considered "indecent" if she went out in public wearing pants cut above the knee. Today, she'd have to wear much less than that to shock anyone. However, go back far enough in time, and you can find situations where complete nudity in some public situations was perfectly acceptable and normal.)
Personally, I find it a bit ironic that we're collectively so upset over Janet Jackson's incident at the Superbowl, yet we're perfectly fine with the concepts behind the game itself. (As I recall, many Chrisitan religions refer to the human body as the "temple of God" and claim it's wrong/immoral to purposefully cause injury/harm to it.) Even the completely non-religious could surely question the sanity and society's valuing making a sport out of slamming guys into each other, tackling each other, and so forth. After all, we have plenty of other sports that revolve around the same basic idea; get a ball from one side of a playing field to the other. Purposely trying to injure each other doesn't seem like a necessity.
Fuck
Sex
Shit
Pussy
Cock
Balls
Nuts
Anal
Rape
Howard Stern
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
thats a funny video
Reading slashdot one would think this was the end of the world and we are all doomed, doomed, doomed. What a bunch of hogwash. Further, I see as one of the old guys on this board that some of you youngsters might be suprised to learn that there was very little cussing in public let alone TV/Radio some 30+ years ago. First it was added into movies (even when it wasn't needed), and now its everywhere in public. This is not progress.
There is a difference between watching something like the superbowl where you were expecting a football game, and not soft porn film to be inserted into the middle of it. I am parent and I do carefully montior what my kids watch and hear , but that only helps with some sort of rating that is followed. When the rating is not followed, what is my recourse then? The FCC is setting a reasonable standard, and it won't be the end of the world.
A few points:
One: The Radio and TV airwaves are publicly held by the government, and the people have a right to exercise some control of that which is no different than most other things in life including places like public parks.
Two: Obscene speech is not protected speech.
Three: This does not affect cable, the internet, books, papers, magazines, or movies.
Four: There is nothing to bar one from showing how crass they are by the speech they use in everyday life.
Some outrage was going to occur on TV, it was inevitable, but the Superbowl thing was apparently perfect.
The big question is, why was it orchestrated? What purpose does it serve, other than to help Big Government Republicans pet agency, the FCC, appear relevant? Is there a bigger agenda at work?
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Fuck the fucking fuckers.
When just regular people were upset. It was all about context. Bumping and grinding, and rogue boobies, did not belong. It's not that they're bad. Its that they are our airwaves. And they should behave as expected. A place for everything and everything in its place. Are boobies evil. No, they're delightful. But they don't belong in the superbowl halftime show. That is low class. Something Demi Moore might do.
That's why PBS can have british boobies as part of a monty python special (because trust me there are religious nuts who literally sit by their tv's and radio's counting and documenting every "bad thing" that takes place) and it's ok. Boobies and british humor just seem to go together.
The media, being populated by soul-less mindless zombies knows *something* happened but not whether it was bad or good. They're just standing up in their embedded zombie journalist spider holes looking around to see what the public thinks. The public is mad because MTV (or just Ms Jackson if the pose-able self-wetting metro-sexual Timberlake with booby nabbing action is nasty) said, "Haha boobies. Look you're entertained!" It's actually really insulting to the viewers. Especially when you look at how much a ticket to the event itself costs. The media morons that they are they just run the direction that's more salacious. Did I mention they're soul-less, mindless zombie whores, of low character? So for the next week they try and out morally outrage each other, and people tune in, because, hey boobies, better than the grizzly murder of one random pregnant woman.
All of a sudden, the only thing more loathsome than media people, politicians (people of easy virtue but too ugly for TV) are thinking hey. I want to be popular, I'm never going to get over those wedgies in high school, college and graduate school. This idea is popular, and even if it's not, I get to be on TV. It'll be like that Sally Fields speech, except really awkward and contrived. I'm going to be for morality in media, which means I'm going to have to put off that trip to Thailand the Durex lobbiest set up for me....
"Good people, I share your outrage. Having no moral compass of my own, I will do what ever you tell me." After which he mutters to himself, "So long as what you tell me to do doesn't contradict what the people bribing and promising to bribe me tell me to do." He continues to the, "In the interests of re-election, I will use bully pulpit to pander mercilessly to the puritanical interests of a very small minority with good organizational skills who's only interests are puritanical!"
So he, and all the other invertebrates call up Micheal Powell, son of Colin Powell, and one of the few people who gets to do multi-tens, maybe even hundreds, of billions of dollars in economic damage and gets to keep his job. Yeah, Mike. An inspiration to under qualified, ignorant underachievers everywhere. With the right father, wealth and power can be delivered to you without any sort of merit what so ever. He decided that swearing is bad. And should never ever be heard by anyone because it makes the baby Jesus cry. Despite the fact that Christianity teaches that every sin is so bad that it pains God as if one had killed the whole world, and that while we should try to be perfect people we will fail, and their God in his infinite mercy and wisdom gave unto us the only perfect person to redeem all who wish to be so redeemed in advance. Then there are the children to consider. Because I can't speak for everyone's kids, the first thing my seven year old kid does in the morning, even before he shaves and gets his first cup of coffee, is to turn on Howard Stern.
Besides, seen The Passion of The Christ? Aside from the less than perfect makeup, still somewhat violent. There's a lot of sex in the bible, but it's all gone with the wind, they fade out before it gets jumping. No violence, and they have to keep their good book to themselves. Which means we're back to celebrating the solstices and equinoxes li
"As a Christian, I find it offensive when atheists like you tell me I'm a credulous moron. But that doesn't mean I think you should be banned from saying that."
As a christian *I* find it offensive that people like you are trying to force the shows off radio that I enjoy.
I don't think jesus cares if we look at a saggy boob, or talk about anal sex. And if he does, then heaven probably isn't worth going to.
Contrary to popular assumption, there are no laws banning yelling fire in a theater.
People like you should be fucked in the ear. That is to say: given a brain.
"When he wanted to watch the Super Bowl, the expectation was that she was letting her son watch a football game, not some washed-up "musician's" saggy boob."
It stopped being football when it became the Halftime Show.
Now let me get this straight - the same parents who were offended by their child seeing a nipple (missed if he blinked) had NO problem with him seeing Janet and BackStreet Boy grinding all over each other? Or with the commercial where the guy was suckling at the teat of a dog?
Sounds like your friends have serious nipple issues. Either that or they have NO idea what their kid sees on TV, only what makes the headlines the following day.
Pretty messed up either way there.
visit stopfcc.com to join the fight.
The US has more freedom of speech than anywhere else in the world, ever. That's because the First Amendment to the Constitition guarantees it.
The only exception is the things you're not allowed to say. But such a limitation is a small price to pay for unlimited freedom of speech!
"When he wanted to watch the Super Bowl, the expectation was that she was letting her son watch a football game, not some washed-up "musician's" saggy boob. That's the whole point of the FCC's action."
Why do you think you are "obligated" to get the entertainment you want? Its a free market... if you don't like it, then write a letter to CBS and tell them you're not watching.
But you expect a "level" of entertainment that the government will "guarantee" is safe. You want the government to intrude into the most private things you do...
Then you turn around and vote for Bush because "the government is involved in our lives too much".
You're the worst of the worst. At least the simpleton fundamentals admit they want censorship. You say you want to be free, but refuse to take responsibility.
You think Janet Jackson acted inappropriately, *so the government should do something about it*.
Its people like you who ruin a free society because you refuse to act like an adult. Daddy Daddy! Help me! I saw Janet's titty! Oh, my children are ruined.
Yes, I have 2 children, they both saw it, we laughed about it, and it was never mentioned again.
If a nine year old can get over it, why can't you?
From a british perspective, (dunno if you care?) we think its all totally insane, you actually have 4 weeks media attention, court hearings and fines just because someone said fuck or showed a nipple? i think the latest south park episode took the piss the best :P
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
"I don't at all expect to be seeing or hearing some of the crap I have seen"
So don't watch. You'll live if you don't see the superbowl or grammies.
Life goes on.
But you want the government to "guarantee" a "safe" level of entertainment. I'll bet your a nice guy, but your attitude is so anti-american that I wish you'd move to Canada. No offense to the Canadians.
I am for the FCC putting pressure on broadcast media to curb profanity. I believe that strong character based on Christian principles makes for better families and a better society. You may not like it but there are millions of tax paying, voting Americans that feel this way. America is NOT an amoral society.
You must be thinking how small minded I am.
I also agree that adults should not be prohibited by the government from hearing or viewing material based on whether or not it is labeled obsene by others. Unless public broadcast are your only source of news and entertainment you are still free to hear and view anything you want.
This post will get modded 'Troll' simply because it expresses a differing viewpoint. Now who's small minded?
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.
It's a little known fact that NASA has been editing transmissions from orbiting astronauts before releasing transcripts to the public. Here's a rare unedited sample that was picked up direct from a NASA feed .
conviction under section 1464 for using profane language upheld where "the defendant . . . referred to an individual as 'damned,' . . . used the expression 'By God' irreverently, and . . . announced his intention to call down the curse of God upon certain individuals").
Anyone know if "W" has said anything that could be censored as profane? I'm sure he'd fight it, and the verdict would help to hedge in the definition of profane a little more.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
I think we all learned our lesson when it comes to censorship for the movie OLD SCHOOL:
...and all I want to do is get some fucking sleep.
Mitch:
Beanie: Whoa. Whoa. Why the F-ing? Why in front of the kid? All ya gotta do is say "earmuffs" to him, and you can say "Fuck, shit, bitch."
Frank: Cock. Balls.
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
"but it's perfectly reasonable to set aside a small part of the media and allow the government to regulate it to a reasonable level."
Just saying it doesn't make it true.
What's reasonable? Some fundamentalist christian view? No thanks. You the opposite of an American with your views.
Channel Four International (C4i) asked a number of US and UK film and TV stars what the favorite swear words were -- and to say them out loud (and they do). Check it out here.
We have the best government that money can buy.
Could you not just encode the audio signal of swearing so that to a normal tv it sounds like a beep, but to a tv fitted with a decoder it gets the sound. A first guess would be some sort of modulation where the beep is the carrier (dont forget its just a second of audio so quality isnt such an issue) or even better would be some sort of digital encoding, the technology is there and if a standard was decided you could make everyone happy, or just do what we do in the uk - wait until 9pm and say whatever the fucking hell you like bitch.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
You can't swear and flash your tits on a public station any more than you can in a public park.
Okay, it wasn't Soviet Russia, as it was in the early '80s (after the Union fell), but funny story:
I was in a park in Khaborovsk, sitting near a monument (every Russian park seems to have a monument of some sort) on a bench, when a bunch of kids came up to me. They were only a few years younger than me, college-age kids it seemed. They had some good Russian beer and some terrible Russian champagne.
We sat in the park for several hours, and between their bad english and my (even worse) russian, we were able to talk; we talked about American freedom, and American pop culture, and how much they wanted to come to America (for the freedom).
They were *amazed* when I told them that, in America, you are not allowed to drink in most public parks. I told them that, in America, you are not allowed to curse on TV, nor are you allowed to show female breasts. (I did mention that on cable TV, you can show anything you want-- nudity, cursing, copulation.)
There's a *lot* of stuff on broadcast TV that offends me, most of it dealing with Religion. I am offended that that President of the US lied to the American people on TV. (Which President? Most of them.) I am offended that CHiPS and Threes Company were once popular TV shows.
What the fuck is wrong with our us, as a society? We can show the dead and mutilated bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons, we can broadcast over and over bombs destroying real live people, but we can't say certain words because they are offensive?
What kind of fucking priority is that?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
"If I'm sitting with my child watching the public awards "
What public awards? THe grammy's are a PRIVATE award show.
Did you know the superbowl is a PRIVATE football game?
I'll bet you think you have a right to "clean" entertainment. Guess what... you DON'T.
You're so confused, you think anything that might offend you should be labelled and probably banned. Really, the best thing that could happen for your child is for you and your husband to die and for your kid to be raised by parents who don't have a board up their ass and who have an ounce of brain left.
"Dear Jesus, please let this person die and let this poor kid be raised by people who aren't big pains in the asses. Thank you jesus. Thank you"
Well, there you go. You might want to get a cancer checkup or something, because you know what... Jesus answers prayer.
Now there's a truly dedicated geek - would someone holding up their right hand offend you in the same way - its probably your favored mode of entertainment.
The FCC ruling only apply to broadcast media. The deal that broadcasters make is that they agree to follow the FCC rules, and the FCC grants then a monopoly on a part of the broadcast spectrum. This agreement is entirely voluntary - stop broadcasting, and you can say anything you want!
These megacorporations make billions of dollars from their monopolies, and all they have to do is keep their content above a very low standard. Personally, I'm offended even by the "clean" content - I find it generally childish and moronic - so this isn't about me. What it is about is the great majority of Americans, who do not go around swearing, who do not hang around others who swear, and who do not want their children listening to people swear. Sure, they could change channels or stop watching/listening all together - but they shouldn't have to: It's their spectrum too!
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
Well, so much for hoping to see SouthPark: The Movie uncensored on Comedy Central ever again.
While I don't want my little sisters seeing such shows, I'm convinced that all that reality TV, prissy/popular-teenage-girl, consumer whore culture stuff is going to do more damage to their personality than bad words.
I'm starting to feel that TV is messing up kids. It gives them an unrealistic world-view. Also, there's more important things in life than idolizing a sponge who's a complete moron. It's like letting a kid eat nothing buy candy.
At least my old cartoons had some fiber in the diet. Remember GIJoe and their lessons like: "Hold on Timmy, don't touch that live electrical cable". Also, they taught that if you do need to kick some terrorist-ass, you do it multilaterally. They had everyone from ninjas to eskimos on their side.
Rather than censor things like bad words, how about getting some child psychologists to decide what's most appropriate for them to learn, and more importantly, don't fine people for bad words (there are bigger fish to fry). Don't fine Janet Jackson for what she did, give her some jail time. I'm sure that if her freedom were on the line, she wouldn't have done it.
this week the FCC board themselves ruled on it and ruled it and bad.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...there is a God, he actually is an asshole, the bible is absolute truth, and both of us are going to Hell...
:)
Have a nice day
-zarr
What cracks me up about people using F*CKING or a derivative thereof is it really serves no purpose. I don't know about anyone else, but when I see it spelled out like above in my mind I say the word fucking 'out loud'. So what is the censorship in this case trying to do?
The only reason words are offensive, and things such as this are actually making progress, is because education is at an abysmal state in the US. Only an uneducated man or woman would take offense at a mere undirected word.
Context is everything.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
How could Jesus believe in the Bible if it were written 100 years after his death? ! gum2me?
"He does not belong on the public dial."
Fuck you. I say he does. So do millions of people who enjoy the show.
Who the FUCK are you to tell me what I can listen to.
It'll be cancer. Something slow and painful, and as you're in a pain stupor, know it was karma that gave it to you because you can't even form a cohesive thought about censorship.
Oh, the children! Oh the public airwaves! Tits will corrupt us all!
Do you realize how silly you are? Well, you will with that IV in you. and time running out. And that pain all over your body from the last stages.
What the are you cocksuckers still doing down there? Like it's pretty clear to me that any non-Protestants staying in the US are about as smart as the dumb cunts who spend years hoping that their husbands will stop beating them. Leave that shitty place and come up here to Canada where the Prime Minister is required to be a lapsed Catholic.
/. and get emigrating!
Seriously, dude, all it's going to take is two more terms of Republican or I-Can't-Believe-He's-Not-A-Republician Democrats like Kerry and you'll be living in a motherfucking theocracy. So stop wasting your time pissing your troubles out on
OTOH, you guys do have the biggest average tits in the world, so maybe that makes up for it?
Actually, the whole point is that Bono actually said "f'ing" (as in eff-ing) instead of saying "fucking" in an attempt to get past the FCC's hissyfits over the word fuck.
Now, the FCC is saying that things like f'ing, s'ing, and calling someone a piece of s. will be actionable, if they are offensive.
... our teacher in 'religious education' was also a writer on books and abstracts on religion of some renown (Arnulf Zitelmann, for those who care).
I clearly remember him saying several times: "Well, you know, I can take the Bible, close my eyes, pick any 100 pages, and use them to write a book on Science Fiction.
I could also use it to write a Porn movie script."
Who gets to define that "Minimum standard of decency" ? If someone determines that "fucking" is beyond the pale of that, I certainly feel that I have the right to say that each of the following offends my "minimum standard of decency" and should thus be banned.
So, I'm sure you'll all agree that I am at least as capable as anyone in the FCC to establish a reasonable "Minimum Standard of Decency", here goes.
Here, then, in no particular order is a partial list of things that should result in half million dollar fines :
I feel that the FCC's job should be to regulate who gets access to certain frequencies in a geographic location. It is not the job of the FCC to censor the airwaves. It seems to me that the Imperial Federal Government lost out on the battle of freedom of the press, and therefore found another medium that they could control.
I have two knobs on every receiver to control my vote on what is perverse and obscene...The volume and the tuner.
If you want the government to protect (control) every aspect of your life, than you cannot claim to love freedom.
you amerikans are too fucking much too bloody fucking much you're the laughing stock of the whole fucking world in no other country will you run into this fucking nonsense bunch of fucking idiots is what you are bunch of fucking puritannical fucking idiots you're wusses - pussies - to the very last one you sit at home jacking off in front of your slackware boxes getting up every now and then to get a new coke from the fridge squeezing yet another pimple which you get because you're so fucking fat and eat so much fucking junk food who the fuck do you think you are? your government spends $46 million chasing your president because of a fucking blowjob? you get pissed off because some nigger bitch shows a fucking nipple - a mammary gland kids eat off for chrissakes - on tv? really? and you have all these fucking idiots complaining 'what will we see in ten years?' uh - maybe the fucking human body on amerikan tv? ogod - would that be possible? if there's ever a nuclear accident i hope it's in the united fucking states of fucking amerika and that it wipes you all fucking out
...is Words that They Will Bend" -Metallica
I love the fact that here we've got a story about the FCC regulating 'what is profane', when I swear I haven't seen a /. story with this much profanity in a very long time. :)
-matt
It's fascinating to see the (mostly) statists here flail away at this decision while still trying to uphold (or at least not confronting) the notion that the FCC should have control over the ownership of the airwaves.
What do you expect? The FCC is an agency of the government, which in this society is, in the end, answerable to the people, at least those that vote. (And, please no bitching about election 2000 - do you think an FCC filled with Democrats would not be under the exact same pressure as the current one?) If, as many are unwilling to debate, the airwaves are "publicly owned", subject to FCC discretion, then what is broadcast over those airwaves will inevitably be regulated by the government, and it only depends on whose views are in political ascendancy as to what the specific pressures on broadcasters will be.
The only principled alternative to this is the complete separation of speech and state, including speech broadcast over the airwaves. The FCC's role should be to come up with sensible (given technological capabilities and requirements) divisions of the various spectra and then to auction these slices off to the highest bidder, and then never to have anything to say about that slice of the spectrum again.
Broadcasters would then be morally responsible for what they broadcast, parents would be responsible for dealing with their children's viewing/listening behavior, individuals and corporations (read: advertisers) would be free to patronize, boycott, protest as they see fit. And, anyone would be able to start a blog for less than $500 (including a brand new computer and net connection) to say whatever they want about whomever they want. In other words, SPEECH would be FREE!
If you can't accept this scenario, then all of your yelping - on either side - about these profanity "standards" is pointless; go vote for whomever you think would better represent YOUR standards, but don't be surprised when the political winds start blowing the other way.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
if someone doesnt do or say something that offends you every day you are not living in a free society.
With Cable (or satellite) and XM Radio, fuck the FCC.
"Who needs the FCC when people decide that words like 'f***ing' needs to be self-censored? If you're going to f***ing quote someone, f***, man, QUOTE THEM. You're caving in against your own f***ing thesis." [profanity censored]
I totally agree!
--[As Brian and his mum come over the top of a hill, they see a large number of people stoning some unfortunate. MC hurries Brian along to get to the next victim in time. When he is, we see that he crowd consists entirely of women wearing fake beards. An elder stands in front of the next prisoner holding a scroll as he waits for the crowd to settle down.] ...you are to be stoned to death.
ELDER: Mathias, son of Deuteronomy of Gath.
MATHIAS: [to a guard] Do I say yes?
GUARD: Yes.
MATHIAS: [To the elder] Yes.
ELDER: You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our lord, and so as a BLASPHEMER...
CROWD: Ooooh.
ELDER:
--[The crowd looks anxious to kill Mathias]
MATHIAS: Look. I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah'.
CROWD: Oooooooh!
ELDER: BLASPHEMY!!!! He said it again
CROWD: Yes, yes. [etc]
ELDER: Did you hear him?
CROWD: Yes, yes. [etc]
WOMAN1: Really.
--[There is a moment of silence as the elder thinks, after hearing the woman's voice.]
ELDER: Are there any women here today?
CROWD: [Guiltily] [mumble mumble]
ELDER: Very well. By virtue of the authority vested in me...
--[One of the more impatient women throws a stone and hits MATHIAS on
the head.]
MATHIAS: Oh lay off... we haven't started yet.
ELDER: Come on. Who threw that? Who threw that stone? Come on.
CROWD: She did, she did, he, he, he, him, him, him, he did. [Their voices drop as they realize their mistake.]
WOMAN1: Sorry, I thought we'd started. {Said lovelyly.}
ELDER: Go to the back. There's always one, isn't there. Now where were we?
MATHIAS: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying Jehovah.
CROWD: [Shocked] He said it again!
Edler: You're only making it worse for yourself.
MATHIAS: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah.
CROWD: Oooooooh!
ELDER: I'm warning you... If you say Jehovah once more... [A stone flys by and hits the elder.] Right. Who threw that? Come on. Who threw that?
CROWD: She did she did, he, him, him, him, him, him, him.
ELDER: Was it you?
WOMAN2: Yes.
ELDER: Right...
WOMAN2: Well you did say Jehovah. [She gets stoned {the blasphemer}]
ELDER: Stop, stop. Will you stop that... stop it. Now look. No-one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear; even if they do say Jehovah.
--[The shocked women stone the elder to death, ending in the dropping of a huge bolder on his fallen body.]
WOMAN3: Good shot.
--[One of the two Roman guards looks at the other, who shakes his head. They do nothing.]
Cthulhu loves you.
This is a very good comment (although I think in all fairness, it could probably be applied to both parties). I myself am a religious person who would like to see the federal government weakened relative to local governments. I think there's tremendous waste throughout all levels of government. I think taxes could be significantly lower, and I feel like the more the federal government keeps their hands out of charity, schools, and businesses, the better those organizations run. Rhetorically, I suppose I'm very close to a republican, but I've always been very disturbed by the willingness of party members to compromise these principles to accomplish their goals. For example, I don't like the idea of gay marriage, but I would never support a constitutional amendment banning it. The issuing of marriage licenses is a power granted to states and I think it needs to remain with the states. I don't like courts overturning laws passed by elected officials, even if the decision of the courts is in my favor. Businesses that promote lewdness won't get my money. I don't need the FCC to protect me or my children. Deficits and excessive government spending are negative things, I don't think military spending should be an exception to that rule. I think bills that go through legislatures should be clear and concise in their focus. Bills that are loaded with things unrelated to their primary focus are wrong, even if everything in there is OK. I can't bring myself to support a party where the ends always justify the means. I guess I'm just not Machiavellian enough. This is probably while I'll always be politically marginal, but at least I can live with myself.
You seem to believe you're an authority on the bible simply because you've read it in multiple languages. Yet you seem to believe that the Christian interpretation of the Bible as the only worthy view to counter (or perhaps believe it to be the only interpretation available). Of course it's easy to counter, but I'm sure if you tried you're arguments with any educated Orthodox Jew you'd find your arguments to break down rather easily.
At first I was tempted to say that I'd much rather have the USA be more of an atheist country than religious (Christian), but when I see things like this I see that the religious aspect needs to be held to keep ignorant people like you from going to far in your descrimination.
This is slightly off topic, but I felt compelled to speak my piece.
This country fucking sucks now. Anybody who votes for Bush can go fuck themselves.
Janet Jackson just may be the smartest person in America. The whole point of that stunt is that as a country we are addicted (yes addicted) to violence. Something is horribly wrong when one of the most violent sports in the world is considered family affair until a tit is shown.
THE POINT IS THE WHOLE DAMN THING SHOULD BE R RATED!!!
I used to think that one of their hits was "No Amiga", and presumed they were Atari ST fans instead. Finally I figured out that it was "Yo Nigger", after it kept getting played again and again in the office...
A tribute to the FCC
Take away a man's right to say Fuck, and you've taken away his right to say Fuck The Government.
I forgot who said this, might have been a comedian.
wbs.
Huh?
/.ers are a herd of cannibalistic trolls.
Well, luckily for me, I dont god damn fucking swear at all.. nope, not me... not fucker ever...
fuckers.
but like carlin said, they're just words.. it's the intent behind them that's offensive..
so let's start a campaign into making them null words..
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
All this and no mention of Howard Stern's involvement? Oh well, I guess i'm the only one who listen's to him anymore
I FEEL SHOCKED WHEN YOU USE THE WORD 'FUCK'.
WHAT TO DO?
Sargamo, it is one of the most beautiful words. The English language should be proud of it. I don't think any other language has such a beautiful word. One Tom from California has done some great research on it. I think he must be the famous Tom of Tom, Dick and Harry fame.
He says: One of the most interesting words in the English language today is the word 'fuck'. It is one magical word: just by its sound it can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.
In language it falls into many grammatical categories. It can be used as a verb, both transitive (John fucked Mary) and intransitive (Mary was fucked by John), and as a noun (Mary is a fine fuck). It can be used as an adjective (Mary is fucking beautiful). As you can see there are not many words with the versatility of 'fuck'.
Besides the sexual meaning, there are also the following uses:
Fraud: I got fucked at the used car lot.
Ignorance: Fucked if I know.
Trouble: I guess I am fucked now!
Aggression: Fuck you!
Displeasure: What the fuck is going on here?
Difficulty: I can't understand this fucking job.
Incompetence: He is a fuck-off.
Suspicion: What the fuck are you doing?
Enjoyment: I had a fucking good time.
Request: Get the fuck out of here!
Hostility: I am going to knock your fucking head off!
Greeting: How the fuck are you?
Apathy: Who gives a fuck?
Innovation: Get a bigger fucking hammer.
Surprise: Fuck! You scared the shit out of me!
Anxiety: Today is really fucked. And it is very healthy too.
If every morning you do it as a Transcendental Meditation -- just when you get up, the first thing, repeat the mantra Fuck you! five times -- it clears the throat.
That's how I keep my throat clear!
Enough for today.
http://www.otoons.com/osho/Fuck.html
Where did I say that I was God? Oh, you're doing a straw man argument. Well, mr straw man, you need to see the wizard of oz to get a brain :-)
The bible claims to be an absolute standard of morality, of right and wrong, of "salvation" for "fallen mankind". It claims that God created everything, but at the same time absolves God of any responsability for his creatures' actions. So, if homosexuality and lesbianism are natural, how could they be immoral (after all, God "made man in his own image. Male and female made he them." to quote genesis. Now, since Christians believe in a tri-une (trinity -3 parts) God, that means that, at some point, there's some same-sex action going there (Jesus was male. Jesus says "I and the father are one - sounds like a gay union to me. So I guess that makes the Holy Spirit female, since his creatures were created in "His" image - male and female).
Jesus claimed that scripture was authorative, "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all is fulfilled." When Jesus referred to the law and the prophets, he was referring to what we call the Old Testament, which is the majority of the bible.
Also, since he claims that "I and the Father are One", he must be omniscient, so he must be aware of the Bible's contents. And since God is supposed to know "the end from the beginning", (also, "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last") he is supposed to be aware of everything that ever was and will be (unless, of course, he WAS a liar, or the Bible is a bunch of lies, or both).
So I guess you either didn't read the bible, or don't believe it either :-)
Well, the UN would consider it a crime against humanity, so I guess I'm not alone. And, isn't this like what George Bush is using as a partial justification for the invasion of Iraq - the genocide of the Kurds? And didn't the UN send troops into Bosnia because we recognize that genocide is wrong, even when done in "God's" name?
Maybe you can't, but I can.
Fuck the fucking fuckers
The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
"According to this new decision by the FCC, any speech that is grossly offensive, whether or not it has anything to do with sex or excretion, is 'profane.'"
I find that assertion to be grossly offensive.
Will someone please report to 445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC, and padlock the doors? We can't be having publically funded agencies issuing profanity.
Will the FCC be issuing us each a new set of morals so that there will be no confusion as to what we each personally find offensive?
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK me in the goatass, biatch
This only applies to terrestrial TV. Cable channels don't have any real restrictions, hence Comedy Central being able to run the South Park movie uncensored, and also most of Chappelle's Show. And I'm fine with that, as long as it stays that way. As soon as they try to regulate all of TV, then I'll boycott.
FC Closer
http://www.stopfcc.com
> As JFK said "The only thing to fear is fear
> itself"
It turned out he had *much* more to fear.
I would be in favor of the death penalty for both Oprah Winfrey and Howard Stern.
Unlike in America, nobody really cares here.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I am not American. I could not care less about Stern or other broadcasters. The real problem here is how totally fucked up American society is. I know that at least half of all Americans would agree with this statement.
Stop making the entire country look like idiots!
Our country is based on democracy, and free speech is an added bonus. If more than 50% of people object to something, then a real democracy would not allow it. Issues like this generate a lot of pro and con religious comments, but the real issue is how we manage a democracy and free speech at the same time. I don't think anyone has any misgivings about how the framers of the constitution felt about profanity in public. Free speech is not freedom to offend, regardless of your convictions about free speech. The major problem is how to define things to allow freedom and democracy at the same time. Give it a try instead of ranting. Maybe you can find a universally accepted defination.
That's some pretty fucking fucked up shit from the fucking fuckers at the FCC.
A Bush, a Dick, and a Colin. Can we expect the FCC to levy fines against the administration anytime soon?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I'm more concerned about the loss of political speech with these restrictions, not the loss of the ability to roll in the dough by airing lesbians.
"of His Royal Majesty King George III (or IV):
"Are not these rabble-rousers' demands for freedom of speech, or the press, the right to keep and bear arms, of free assembly, 'grossly offensive' to the Crown and His Majesty?"
--
Geeze, George, it's enough to make me want to resign from the Republican Party. I think I'll go buy a LEGALIZE FREEDOM bumper sticker.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Um.... I think your wrong about the majority rule thing. Just becuase a majority wants something doesn't mean its right.
Imagine this... say you did agree with majority rule. The blacks are a minorty... lets go to slavery. The jews are a minority... lets discriminate against them. The people who publish written work are a minority, lets censor. Anyone who is not chrisitian is a minority, lets join church and government.
Do you see where im going with this? Everyone has rights, including the minority. I think we all need to live in a dictatorship(a real one) for a while, then we would appreciate the rights we have now a lot more.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
...I had to just last week debrief four classes of students on appropriate usage of profanity. They want to talk like a hollywood action flic amongst their peers, that's fine, but when you call your teacher to tell him that 'the fucking internet is friggin mother-fucked up today' it is pretty inappropriate and I was honestly shocked (and that example is NOTHING compared to how I talk to my computer when alone! - I can swear to make a US marine blush, but I don't do it when talking to my boss or where the general public has to put up with it!)
The US has to also remember that they are exporting their culture intensively to places where the people can't look out the window for a reality check and start to take what they see/hear as literal truth of what the US is like!! Just something to keep in mind.
I have no problems with non-gratuitous profanity. I couldn't read Enid Blyton(sp?) after age ten ('Oh Anne, you just be quiet'). But a lot of what I hear in the media today is just there to impress the pre-pubescent kids market. It just gets to sounding stupid.
The man with no surname and a silly hat
On the universe: It's bunk.
Found here: http://www.fcc.gov/parents/content.html
Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
wtf is up with our goverment's usage of the word "evil"? It's getting very annoying.
-metric
Wow - a pretty big jump from getting tired of foul mouthed TV to reinstituting slavery.
I would suppose that in your ideal world, the minority of people who are murderers should be allowed to kill at will. Cannibals are a minority... lets supply human flesh at the grocery store.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Communications is speech so the FSC is doing what it claims it is supposed to do. The question is how did we get to this point. Historically the assumption was that the transport had meaning and hence was the same as communications in the social sense. Today thanks to Shannon and others we know that the transport and the content are unrelated. We also know that the copper phone wire can many thousands of phone calls rather than just one. Spectrum management is also a source the artificial scarcity that is then used to justify granting the FSC the ability to impose social policies that would otherwise be considered outrageous.
What is puzzling is why the FSC has not been forced to justify its violation of the (US) first amendment.
But.. they did die. Just not that second.
Ok... so we both took big jumps. Reality is that everyone has a perception of what is right and wrong. The laws reflects a middle ground. My point still holds... democracy doesn't mean majority rule.
Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
Murder harms people.
Swearing, arguably, doesn't. "Oh, shit." Who is that harming?
evil adrian
Democracy: "Government by the people, Majority rule." (definition)
A true democracy allows the majority to infringe on the rights of the minority. Our U.S. constitution has a "bill of rights" to avoid the rule by majority in certain instances. That is how the rights of minorities are protected, and that is why, even though the majority may object to language that is offensive or indecent, the minority opinion still has to be heard and considered. Note that this is not an opinion about indecent language. It's merely a way of saying that this whole thing is not just a religious issue. No matter what you may believe personally, the attempt is to provide laws and interpretation of laws that voice the majority opinion while also protecting the minority.
That's great and all, but how about censoring the most offensive thing of all...
Something that's been aired free of censorship for years...
Something offensive to almost every man that exists...much more offensive than the F word or the S word or a pair of boobies...
How about they FREAKING CENSOR TAMPON COMMERCIALS!!!
Unfortuantely, the FCC has responded to the ludicrous hype which has all stemmed from a split second shot of someone's breast. It was so fast it was over in the time it took me to look down to pop another taste piece of chicken breast (sweet irony, eh?) on my fork. They show far worse things on MTV, every single day but no one complained. Go figure.
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjj.htm
[note, I don't know anything about the credibility of the drudgerreport, but they had an image of the breast in question]
I had no idea this was going on until my niece pointed out that some superbowl show recently showed Janet Jackson's breast on tv. I don't know if this was broadcast tv or otherwhise honestly. She also sugest that it's the reason for the subjectmater in the recent southpark episode... is it 701, or 801.
You know for a fact that america is filled with uptight religious zelots when we take so much time and effort and debate regarding some popstar showing her breast on television. Personaly I think if you've never seen a breast before, then it's about damn time, unless you really want to ban National Geographic from children.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
People really need to get away from the notion that America is a democracy. We're not. We're a consitutional republic. The means that despite what the majority wants, the rule of LAW supercedes that want.
This is one of the major problems in the US today. People think we're a democracy. True, we do run the country, more or less, democratically. However, the Constitution, it's amendments, and other works of Law are what rule this country. The executive branch enforces the law, the legislative branch makes new laws, and the judicial system rules whether these laws abide by the Constitution.
Didn't you pay attention at ALL in school? Freedom of Speech isn't an "added bonus"! It's a right as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Pure and simple, no argument can be made against this. I mean come on it's right their in the name "Bill of Rights" not "Bill of Added Bonuses".
Regulating speech is not only silly, but very dangerous. Can't you understand that rolling over and just taking something like this sets up a precident for takeing away our other guaranteed rights? You think freespeech is an added bonus. What if the FCC decideds that things on Slashdot are offensive. I know I get offended by alot of things on here. In fact, your comment offends me a pretty good bit. By your reasoning, if a majority of people get offended by your comment, you shouldn't be able to post it. Can you see how this is dangerous?
I know I'm jumping in late on this one, and I'm not reading at -1 so mod me down if I'm redundant, but what scares me the most about this is not that they are trying to prevent utterance of the dreaded "F-word" on TV. What scares me is that they are doing so because it is "profane".
This makes me fear that either:
A. The people in charge really don't speak the same language that the rest of us do and/or they don't even consider the ramifications of semantic uncertainty in the language that they use to write the laws by which they will punish us.
or
B. Somebody in our government will get to decide what is and what isn't officially sacred, they will get to decide just how irreverant the rest of us can and cannot be, and they will get to decide appropriate punishment for those of us who act in a manner they deem profane.
The Dalai LLama
"If we ever get a president named Booger, Skeeter, T-Bone, or Downtown President Brown, you'll know that finally this country is a relaxed, comfortable place to live." - George CarlinMy sig could be your sig!
Profanity my fucken arse. The Fucken FCC (Fucken Cunts Commission) ought get fucken back to their core job description and fuck the right out of language. And the the fucken conservative politicians putting on the pressure should take their heads out of their fucken black arse and fuck a tree. fucken dumb fuckers.
As long as they are combining church and state, I'm sure they will bring back indulgences. For those not in the know it just means you can pray for your sins, or pay for your sins to be forgiven.
It's a shame that it's the zealots that have the voice because they are so entertaining to watch. Most people I know are pretty tolerant, but it's kind of hard to be rabidly vocally tolerant so they get drowned out.
Fiddle-dee-dee! That will require a tetanus shot.
(Homer, after stepping on a nail)
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
So speech is free, unless someone is offended. That offends me!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a pervert.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,7
1,000th post!
which fucking part of "shall make no fucking law" don't you fucking understand???
Ah, good ol' Godwin.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
So now we can NIETHER prick our fingers NOR finger out pricks!?
Huh? Small children are robots that parrot what they hear? Righhht. ;) Sure they are. ;) You just keep telling yourself that. Apparently they are devoid of the ability to use reasoning and logic, and therefore can not be taught that the word they heard is inappropriate for them to use.
My god, I cuss like a sailor. Actually worse. My children do not run around spouting obscenities, so I guess I had better get their hearing checked.
p.s. Umm, by the new standards, is my subject line indecent or profane? Both?
"A lot of people are still pretty pissed"
no, a handful of people are pissed. You probably live in "backwater, USA", and so you're unduly influenced by fundamentalist dogma about how "dirty" the human body is.
"Whether you agree, or not, the public airwaves in the US are regulated, and there are content standards."
They are not regulated the way you claim, or indeed to the degree the FCC is now claiming control. Aside from the old Pacifica ruling, there is no legally binding guidelines. The FCC has guidelines that are not open to public scrutiny because...gues what... not only will they not even define their standards, but they change them from day to day and week to week. These are teh facts.
"If you don't like it, do what you need to do and run for Congress."
Why bother? This whole thing is not about a tit and the word fuck, its a smokescreen to point out that (a) the war in Iraq is going badly (b) bush could be the dumbest president we ever had (c) the cheney halliburton connection is unbelievably corrupt. So Bush plays to fundamentalist idiots by saying "Oooh, we're getting rid of Howard Stern".
Well you know what? The majority of us are finally tired of people like jamming their goofy, cloistered view on the majority of us, and we're taking back the country. I'm 44 years old, I've voted Republican forever, I'm registered Republican, but my party has left me. They're pandering to dummies below the 50th percentile who thinks God is throwing lightening bolts because I like Porn, my kids didn't get upset when they saw a titty at half-time (they laughed), and I'm tired of you jamming Jesus down my throat. I'm already a Goddamn methodist, I don't cram my views down your throat, so stay the fuck away from me, what I do, and what I like. Stop trying to punish me and blame your children.
Fuck you. Seriously. Just fuck you. ANd your whole insular life, and the way you think you know better than anybody else. Just fuck you.
I can't figure out why it scares you. Be an adult, and don't run away from words. They're only ideas, not rocks.
This is what the retarded fundamentalists want you to think.
But the truth is HS was #1 in all the markets CC kicked him from. This was all about political censorship; they threw HS to the wolves to appease Bush's FCC.
The sooner bush is out of office, the safer this country will be. He is a disaster.
I find the phrase "Microsoft Windows" objectionable and profane. It should be forbidden.
"Based on democracy" with free speech as a "bonus" (to real democracy) is a way of saying that the US is not a democracy but the government is based on the principals of democracy. Free speech, (and the rest of the bill of rights) is an added bonus on top of the democratic foundation, and that is what makes us a constitutional republic. Jumped in too quick didn't you?
The bill of rights not only protects free speech, but also protects others when the free speech is abused. If enough people feel that profanity is abusive, then they have the right to be protected from another's free speech. You may think you have freedom of expression, but if you use your freedom of expression to be a "flasher" and expose your body to children, you will find that the bill or rights protects someone other than yourself.
"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders
/ 3239659. stm
won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"-Apocalypse Now
No cameras for US war dead's return
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas
Linux is just not for you. You are not smart enough.
Unless your boss is a) ultraconservative and b) constantly looking over your shoulder, I don't see how a "fuck" in size-12 Times is gonna hurt you.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
One. Smoking section.
I experience censorship on slashdot all the time do to my view being opposite of whomever has mod points. Doesn't make my opinion not valid, but ppl who read at the default threshold won't see my comment. This is no different than the FCC regulating offensive words, as long as the majority of the masses find it offensive (ie not the slashdot mods) these new regulations will not only be excepted, but welcomed. On that note, let me make sure my viewpoint is modded down.
...that outta do it
Nothing is stopping anyone effected by the FCC to switch to internet broadcasting, Sat/cable, print media, whatever! They can voice thier speech through any amount of alternative outlets. It's thier stupid decision to use FCC regulated frequencies which are bound by indecency rules.
GET YOUR FILTH OFF OUR RADIO WAVES AND BROADCAST TV!
They say that society swings like a pendulum between science and religion. Seems American Legislators are thinking that the American Populace are becoming a bunch of prigs.
I'm glad I'm Australian, where the concept of 'fair-go' seems to be better accepted.
there are too many posts here to read them all.
Here's the great thing about the FCC. They are swayed by the volume of complaints that arrive in their mailbox. Nevermind that many of them come from the same organization, or the same people week after week.
It's worse that the e-voting issues!!
DATA comments; PROC SORT DATA = comments BY score; PROC DELETE comments >> 1; RUN; DATA entertainment SET commen
These words express emotions and ideas that some people find offensive or indecent or whatever excrementy other excuse they can find to justify their desire for others to limit their use.
I believe you are right about low IQ, but there is another factor present here as well; namely, straight up fear.
That's right, fear. Anybody who cannot handle these words is living in a self-built world of denial. Quite simply, they cannot handle the simple truth of their humanity and thus try to hide it. To me this is their loss really. It really sucks to always live in fear and ignorance.
Too bad they fuck up their kids one by one. Ever wonder why so many teenage kids, raised in conservative families, rebel? Look no further than this for most of them.
They should just shut the fuck up and learn to deal. Teach their kids the way the world really works and go from there. Hiding from all the bad things doesn't make them go away you know. This sort of witch hunt is foolish in the way that peril-sensitive sunglasses is funny.
Go ahead, keep your eyes closed and your mind in prison. Just know I am not afraid to not do the same. That's exactly why we have a first amendment.
Our leaders would do well to remember that.
Blogging because I can...
The Gauss bell curve is proof that 50% of the population is under average intelligence. Anything else is a non-sequitur.
According to the 7th edition of the Black's Law dictionary "profanity" is defined as "profane, adj., (Of speech or conduct) irreverent to something held sacred." Something held sacred evokes the idea of something religious and of higher value. Therefore, now we have a new form of priesthood as exemplified in FCC's rulings. They're the new priesthood of making sure our language does not get polluted with profanities. And they want to decide it for us, right? I can voluntarily abstain from indecent words and phrases, but it my decision. My words is my own religion, not theirs.
But what is so sacred about language, one might ask, that we need to make sure that FCC's priests can let us know if something is, or not, profane? Soon enough there will be people who will want to control not just broadcasted language via radio or TV but also in public gatherings, bars and restaurants, or on internet. Folks, where is this going to take us? Do you want to live in the world with all those controls? I would say f'k 'em.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
Swearing, arguably, doesn't. "Oh, shit." Who is that harming?
Me, you fuckin' asshole.
Hey, you know if we legislated against showing illegal stuff on tv, then the news wouldn't have been able to show us the play-by-play of the events on September 11th. They wouldn't have been able to tell us, even. They would have just said something like "Terrorists, well, we can't talk about them on tv anymore because they only do illegal things, and they've done something illegal, but we can't talk about it."
Hmmmm, and showing murder doesn't hurt anyone. Let's not institutionalize thoughtcrime, now. Next thing you know the FCC will issue us a dictionary with only 5000 words in it, effectively removing concepts from the language which might require any sort of independent thought.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Regulating speech is not only silly, but very dangerous.
You know, I really don't like making 1984 references, but I just did in another post and now I'm going to do it again.
Regulate speech first. Language comes next. Then they can trim out all the subversive words in the language until the only thing a man can think about is his work and his love for the state.
We need to make sure we keep as much in our language as possible, and that we constantly diversify it and spread it around. Removing words from tv or radio is regulating speech. Language is next.
Not that I'm trying to predict 1984 in 2084 or anything like that. But the possibility of a state like 1984 ever happening is real, no matter how slight, and it's a fate worse than death for humanity. So whenever someone takes a serious step in that direction, we need to take it seriously.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Back in October, the FCC ruled that the use of the word "fucking" as an adjective was not indecent
Anyone know what the ratings where for South Park episode 502: It hits the fan which has about 270+ instances of the word "shit"? Obviously, a more profane word if we are going to look at the vulgarity aspect, but they let that through as well.
The Seventh Circuit, in its most recent decision defining "profane" under section 1464, stated that the term is "construable as denoting certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."35
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are thousands (or more) people in the US that feel that any mention of God in a political speech is a offensive and a nuisance (as well as illegal if we consider the separation of church and state). Therefore, shouldn't any mention of God in a political campaign be considered profane?
In addition, if they want to sue someone for broadcasting profane language, don't they have to file a suit, and put the words used in the case notes? And don't those notes become public? And doesn't the media usually repeat what they are being charged with -- thus putting those same words back into broadcast?
36 Nuisance has been defined as including "a condition of things which is prejudicial to the . . . sense of decency or morals of the citizens at large . . . ." Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969).
I reiterate my God and South Park statements above.
We will analyze other potentially profane words or phrases on a case-by-case basis.
IE: They reserve the right to make what you said illegal AFTER THE FACT.
Personally, I can't wait until our own government (whether it be the FCC or local riot police) actually read these words and think for a moment on what they ACTUALLY say: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
Justice Holmes was merely making a completely hypothetical and paranthetical aside in Schenk v US with his Fire remark. First of all, that case was heard in 1919, wartime. World-wartime. During these times, the older parts of the Constitution give the government a little more power -- like to put the Japs in concentration camps during WW2 (as affirmed in Korematsu v United states in 1944). Schenk has nothing to do with movie theaters. The "speech" in question was propagranda leaflets being circulated which among other things declared that the Conscription Act (military draft) was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment (slavery). The undisputed intent of the documents were to impede both volunteering and drafting, an intent which violated the Espionage Act of 1917. This posed a clear and imminent threat to the security of the US -- the ONLY situation in which free speech may be infringed.
The Supreme Court has heard no case in which either the Federal Govt or the states have attempted to prosecute a theater-fire-yeller. There are no laws, there are no precedents. Justices tend to become off-topic in their opinions (sort of like this thread), but what Holmes said was no Footnote Four that has had any post-ruling influence. And by the way, in pretty much every subsequent free speech case (other than DMCA-affirming cases like Eldred v Ashcroft) and the lower courts' encounter with Emmanuel Goldstein's DeCSS crusade, the Supreme Court has opted to strengthen the protection of free speech.
So, as I said, it is legal to yell fire in a theater as it does not violate any law (a law which does not exist because what it would be prohibiting does not pose a direct and imminent threat to the Federal Government.
But I invite you to test it out -- maybe you'll get famous.
only if you pay him little boy.
only if you pay him and you SWALLOW!
I'm an american and NO, you get the hell out.
Just who the fuck are those fucking "Americans"
you keep describing.
There are 250 FUCKING MILLION people in America,
considerably less than 50 million voted in the election,
and the majority did not vote for fucking Bush,
so who the FUCK ARE THESE AMERICANS!??!?
the Dark Ages again. Europe dug their way out, but most probably because they got rid of their short-sighted, thin skinned, want-to-dominate-the-world religious extremists who went to ...
The FCC began its witch-hunt BEFORE the Janet Jackson incident and has been SPECIFICALLY targetting ClearChannel.
a _s _brazen_shows_.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/01/28/Tampabay/Bubb
But don't let the facts stand in your way of a good conspiracy theory.
Whether it's John Milton in Areopagitica explaining that the good is only known by examination of the bad, or Justice Felix Frankfurter warning against "burning down the house to roast the pig," the wisest minds have always opposed the dullards' lust to censor.
The culture wars aren't going to abate. Bush and his theologically minded scolds will carry on as our freedoms are constantly curtailed to suit the tastes and limits of the Falwellian mind. Kerry does indeed suck in many ways; but we will not get this kind of reactionary government under him.
Fuck, shit, asshole. These words have the power they do precisely because they are taboo and bad. As much as I hate censorship, I would hate it worse if these words became so mainstream and accepted that they lost their oomph. If I hammer my finger on accident, saying "Gosh darn it" alleviates absolutely NO pain. Saying "God fucking damnit!!" actually seems to help a little. This would not be the case if these words were as commonplace as "darn" and "ouch". I'm serious on this one. Every language needs it's curses, and these need to be respected as such lest they lose their power.
Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
http://www.updater.co.uk/
-- I like the cut of your thinking, young man. - me.
As much as the FCC would love to, they cannot regulate XM on their best day. The sooner people move off the FCC regulated portions of the EM spectrum, the sooner the FCC will become irrelevant.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
I beg to fucking differ. How the fuck does your inability to handle what I have to say equate to me having a problem?
Here's a better idea: How about you try going through a whole day without casting judgment on everyone else around you and focusing on your own flaws for once? I bet you'll find that you too have a fucking problem.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
To me it is a very boneheaded decision. I hear and read more profanity during the day from other people than from what I hear in the radio (not that I listen to much radio anyway). Can we get the Internet to be legislated too, please? Maybe after a gazillion cases brought to the court, FCC realizes its stupidity.
OK, that is it for now. I'll post a more comprehensive advertisement lists of what I find offensive later.
Now, for the TV show
I could go on, but in the mean time you can start with these shows.
Except that this was probably never a case for the court, rather a case to be discussed privately by Mr. & Mrs. Clinton?
Those who have not seen a nipple, raise your hand!
[Sadly, I bet that some people will raise their hand, forgetting that even men have nipples. It's not like something you haven't seen before].
You know how conservatives argue that guns don't kill people? Now apply that to human body. Human body is not obscene. What people do with their body can/may be obscene. If you look at women's breasts in a non-sexual context and think obscene, then it's your brain that malfunctions. How about mouths and tongues? There are such things as oral sex, you know, which by the logic makes showing lips obscene. If you think nipples, penises and vaginas are obscene, you are welcome to remove yours.
How is it possible for people in "less civilized" tribes to see uncovered female breasts and yet don't get a 24 hour a day erection? Are their kids unprotected from becoming perverts? How about Chinese women feet? In the past, female breasts were not as erotic as women feet (talk about foot fetish!) that were bound and deformed so that they were very small. The matter is, the more you make something a forbidden pleasure, the more people seek it (and perverted because of it). Go to many European beaches or see European TVs and you see that nudity does not automatically makes people perverts.
Not many paid attention in school. The average dipstick on the street would probably agree that the purpose of the constitution is to guarantee that the majority gets its way. They never seem to realize that we don't need a constitution for that - that's how angry mobs work!
Many of these morons believe that if 51% of the country voted to exterminate the other 49%, that would be cool.
BS, Bush-Shit! This really doesn't surprise me considering what a fine job Dubyas done. He will turn this into a major part of his re-election( god forbid) platform. Personally I say pray for the country that Bush loses, the FCC gets it's head out of Bush's ass, and officials remember the 1st amendment.
Actually, you're an ignorant fucking tool. Bono said, "fucking". The FCC let it slide because it was used as a synonym for "very", not as sexual slang. What the FCC is saying now is that saying "fuck" will get you fucked regardless of context.
Just trying to open someone's head! I mean "mind!" Open someone's mind, um, to the possibilities! With explosives!
TV violence is more pornographic in its way than any "real" porn. And I'd rather small kids see the occasional tit than all the violence they're exposed to day in and day out. But violence doesn't get the same response as "indecency". People complain about it, but not with the same level of Satan-is-amongst-us self-righteousness.
Also, come to think of it, there's the matter of who's bothered by TV violence. It's people like you and me, who've stopped to think about what actually has a bad social effect, as opposed to what offends them personally. And such people tend to be against censorship on principle.
In collage, they'll be 18, and they can do whatever they want. At that point, they should have the intelligence to be able to understand the full consequences of what they are doing.
Maybe the FCC is just PO'd about having an acronym that sounds like the F-Bomb if you try to pronounce it.
Sort of like a kid with the last name of "Bush" who always got made fun so he partners up with a guy named "Dick" and goes on to become president to try and to ban all profanity.
You said:
More of the same old, same old, you can't knock down my arguments so you engage in petty attacks on me. Just more proof that people who believe the bible are not capable of constructing a logical argument, because they're too used to taking everything of faith.
I said:
You replied
So you are claiming that God allowed slavery to prevent people from sining. That's a very weak God, when he can't find a better solution.
You also wrote:
"Hey, I treats my slaves okay, they should be HAPPY to be my slaves." Come on, slavery is a crime against humanity. There never was any justification to enslave anyone, for any reason.
You wrote:
Again, this is just people using God as a reason to kill off people with different beliefs. How is this less of a crime against humanity than what went on in Bosnia, or in Hitller's Germany?
You wrote:
These weren't defensive actions. They were attacks. There is no justification for attacking and slaughtering people because their beliefs are different. If there were, I'd have to worry about you attacking me physically, and vice versa.
I wrote:
You wrote:
Here you go - old and new testament quotes:
and
Just do a google for "god hates fags" and see the garbage that pops up, complete with bible references, about how gays and lesbians are supposedly committing abominations against god, put up by people who call themselves believers in god.
I wrote:
More of the same old, same old, you can't knock down my arguments so you engage in petty attacks on me. Just more proof that people who believe the bible are not capable of constructing a logical argument, because they're too used to taking everything of faith.
Petty attack? I question your authority to decide if the Bible is consistent or not.
So you are claiming that God allowed slavery to prevent people from sining. That's a very weak God, when he can't find a better solution.
Well, as you say the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS made a stupid decision. I guess I should believe you. Your lack of knowledge on how a Jewish slave-owner treats his slave is the reason why you can't see how good of a ruling it was.
In the morning, the slave and his master wake up and both want breakfast. Who makes the food? The master. Who eats the food made by the master? The slave. Who makes the coffee? The master. Who drinks the coffee? The slave.
One pillow in the whole house to sleep with, who gets it? The slave, rather than the master.
Not only that, but a slave owner only gets to keep a slave until the Shmita year (happens in 7-year cycles), at which point the slave owner is obliged to send the former slave with many gifts. Of course, the slave can choose to stay with his master, but even then he can only stay until the Jubilee year (50-year cycles).
It sounds pretty good to be a slave of a Jew.
Again, this is just people using God as a reason to kill off people with different beliefs. How is this less of a crime against humanity than what went on in Bosnia, or in Hitller's Germany?
That is, assuming God doesn't exist and therefore doesn't own all of his creations.
These weren't defensive actions. They were attacks. There is no justification for attacking and slaughtering people because their beliefs are different. If there were, I'd have to worry about you attacking me physically, and vice versa.
They were idolators. That is, the worshiped gods other than the only true God. When you don't even acknowledge the One who made you, what rights do you have before Him? Again, this assumes God doesn't exist and therefore didn't give the command to attack.
Here you go - old and new testament quotes: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. and "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
That doesn't give me any impression that I should hate homosexuals. Just because I kill a person doesn't mean I hate them.
Just do a google for "god hates fags" and see the garbage that pops up, complete with bible references, about how gays and lesbians are supposedly committing abominations against god, put up by people who call themselves believers in god.
Well, of course those people have a distorted view of things. What they believe doesn't apply to me, however.
The bible doesn't equate stealing with homosexuality. Stealing is a sin, but the bible reserves the much severer term of "abomination" for homosexuality and lesbianism.
Whoopideedoo? It is man's free will that allows him to decide to be a thief or homosexual (despite ANY environmental forces at work). That was my point, which you seemingly missed.
At least gays and lesbians are more charitable than the god-fearing. They would agree that if someone stole from you, or prevented you from marrying the person of your choice, that they were doing wrong. Why can't you show them the same respect?
What they say doesn't affect my view that the lifestyle they've chosen is wrong.
Cat got your tongue? I was able to come up with several examples of the Bible being a book filled with
Nobody should own another human being. That you have gone to such extremes to try to justify the Bible's stance is an example of the wrongheadedness that I have been pointing out.
As to your statement questioning my authority to decide whether the Bible is inconsistent or not, instead of attacking me, attack the examples I give. But you can't (as evinced by your attempt to justify the biblical stance on slavery). You may be happy with your stance, but it is immoral.
Agreed, slavery was not a good thing.
I... maybe I'm confused, but I don't understand your post.
I was explaining why murder should be illegal, and swearing shouldn't be...
evil adrian
How can a developed country like US allow
*** in Bedrooms ? Why don't they ban it ?
Also it will be a better IDEA to go for artificial
insemination ( that too done by clergy men,
not others )
hmm, made sense when I was posting it, but now that I re-read it...
I was agreeing with you, even though it doesn't look like it. I still had some angst left over from replying to the idiot that suggesting there should be a law not allowing us to see illegal things on tv and in movies, and that angst bled into my reply to you blurring what I was trying to say.
Sorry about that. I'll be more careful in the future...
Like what I said? You might like my music
Thank you Mr Context, Outof
I was obviously talking about censoring
FUCKING PROFANITY,
self-censorship for the sake of secrecy
concerning military matters is totally different.