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.
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...
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
Looks like the first line of most of the spam that arrives in my junk folder...
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.
I don't like your tone of voice, I think I'll sensor you.
[note: this is NOT called irony.]
Im moving out of the US next chance I get and quicker if asshole gets re-elected
Lord forbid that YOU have to raise your little cracker spawn. That's what the TV's for right? Read my sig, it has a special relevance to people like you who expect the government to protect your children from your own bad parenting.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
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
"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."
-- Clare Booth Luce, American playwright and diplomat
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.
I don't know....I think I prefer crass to waking up to a loud speaker shouting, "Time for Teletubbies! Time for Teletubbies!" every morning for our government mandated exercise session. Also chanting Kumbiyah with your neighbors at sundown every day doesn't appeal to me either.
We are doomed to be food for Morlocks; it is becoming more obvious every day.
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
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.
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.
[
I, for one, am glad that I and my children don't live in America.
Have you never heard of an off-switch or don't they build then into American TVs so you cant steal from the TV companies by switching off and not watching the progams that occasionally appear between the adverts ?
No but, yeah but, no but...
As a citizen in allegedly one of the most "free" countries in the world I am appalled by the FCC's actions. I'm not sure what disturbs me more, the fact that the FCC is yet again trying regulate speech or the fact that this country is so fucking full of god damned prudes.
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
you seem to be serious?!? so i'll bite. i'm also a father with children. that's beside the point.
the fcc is effectively acting as the judicial and legislative branches when it's deciding what is and isn't moral for the ears of both adults and of children.
as a father with children, its your responsibility to monitor what goes in those little ears, and to teach those young 'uns some respect along the way. that's how societ has digressed to a more disrespectfull society. not because some T.V. show uses the word shit or fuck too many times. its because the parents aren't there to monitor their children. they're off earning their 6 figure salaries so they can send the kids to daycare and off to after school activities to lessen the family time together.
you don't like what's on the air waves? get rid of the television. you don't like what's on the radio (read: stern), do away with the radio. your children will be better off by it (though i'm not giving mine up, i'll just watch it with the kids).
we don't need some beauracratic (sp) entity to give moral guideance to our children. we need to accept responsibility for our children's upbringing and take action for that. i would much rather have no fcc involvement in the content that is transmitted across the airwaves. sure, i'd personally use my parental controls if there were a 24x7 playboy type channel on the public airwaves, because i think the freedoms outlined in the constitution have more value than the regulations that are far too often implemented.
It doesn't hurt kids to swear, or to hear swearing.
It hurts kids to not teach them boundaries, and to excuse them when they do things 'to get rises out of people.'
" 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."
And as a father who is raising our kids to understand that words are merely words, and that some are extremely offensive to others, and to have both the maturity and restraint to know WHEN such cases apply, allow me to say that the FCC can go fuck themselves.
This is a MAJOR problem in the US. We keep expecting society to "protect" our children from themselves. Whatever happened to parents actually parenting? Bad things on TV? TURN THE DAMN THING OFF! Read a freakin' book! Play a game with them! Take them hiking! And instill in them a BASIC FREAKIN' MORAL COMPASS and the ability to think critically!
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'll bite.
This decision by the FCC is nothing but posturing. It won't stand a court challenge on the face of it. There will be a big hoo-ha, and then after the rule gets unceremoniously dumped by the courts, the FCC will be able to say "Hey, we tried, now lay off the irate phone calls and e-mails."
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
So who is protecting 5 year olds from parents who drop the F-bomb at home? Maybe we need to regulate speech there as well.
...
On the other hand, if I don't want the kids to listen to something on the radio, I turn it off or change the channel
...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
I fail to see how seeing Ms Jacksons nipple or hearing someone say fuck is going to corrupt anyones children. I we all want to censor things that e donlt want our children to see there's not going to be much left on TV anymore. I dread the day when my children catch sight of Barnye the Dinosaur. That is offensive
No but, yeah but, no but...
You are confusing things a bit.
The JJ nipple thingy would not have happened if it wasn't for the overreaction it was boudn to cause.
For that matter, youa re objectign to breast feeding? Must be, can't show somethign as natural as a breast to your kid, esp. not at that age!
Expecting some rules for what is not appropriate to eb shown during a time when you can expect young children to watch? makes sense. goign beyond that? thats simply censorship, nothign more and nothing less.
Thank you for supporting the Ban on Nipples on TeeVee, but don't you dare try to shut down wholesome things, like when two football players smack together and one of them gets a broken leg or neck. That shit is the bomb! ...and it helps Timmy build character!
Yeah, right.
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.
Once people get used to having the FCC take on a Comstockian role in censoring broadcast television, they are far less likely to protest if Congress expands the scope of the FCC to cover cable, satelite, and other mediums. Congress has already gone after the internet, after all....
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.
Needless to say, the Internet is completely exempt.
IMHO, the FCC has gone far, far beyond their original duty... (they were originally founded to help avoid wireless transmissions from stepping all over each other and hosing up rescue efforts, party in response to the Titanic disaster.)
OTOH, in my very humble opinion I see no problem with them telling people to clean up their language with regards to public broadcasting, since there is nowhere near the sense of access control that you have with private subscription-like services.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Actually, the public DOES own the airwaves. Those companies are licensed to use them, not own them. We subscribe to them for their content.
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
The world as a whole is not 5 year old safe nor should it be. If you don't want your kid to hear it don't let him watch it, or maybe you should teach your kid about it, he's gonna hear it eventually.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Too fucking bad. Does the word fuck on slashdot bother you? Too fucking bad, don't fucking read slashdot :) [Don't like TV? Don't watch it. Loss of ad-revenue hurts the execs more than a fine for swearing. Let the market control language and profanity. Oh yeah, you have a god-given right to get whatever you want 100% of the time. Now I see...]
Seriously, too bad if kids were watching the Superbowl. Actually, not really. There are bad words in the world. People fuck. Stop shielding them from the real world.
Honestly, you'd better not let your wife breastfeed your kids. They might see a nipple. And no sex for you two either. What if they walk in!???
My other car is first.
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.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
What will the FCC do when they are sued via the DCMA by the RIAA for circumventing the DRM so they can altera digital recording to "bleep" out offensive language?
So much for freedom of speach, now it is just freedom of speech as long as nobody/group/etc. is offended.
This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
I sort of agree wtih you. I dislike how the whole negative connotation that swearing has earned. I view the word fuck as any other word in the English dictionary... A fucking word! It has its general definition, regional variations in usage and context and what not. But that's it. I hate how this whole stipulation of "bad" words keeps on prevailing in America. The same goes for visual censorship. The word fuck is constantly used in everyday language by many people commonly, quite a few still not so commonly, and at least everyone once in their life. Personally, I view the US's energy to censor words and nudity as a weakness. Go to Europe, you'll see a lot more mature view about the human body, and a lot less of the "oh my! taboo" bullshit here. Censorship sucks :(
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
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)
I agree with one point you made - it is disturbing how society slides and degenerates. However, the government, in this case the FCC, is not the solution. Take the Janet Boobie incident - there was so much market outcry and complaints that it will be YEARS before CBS airs something like that - and that's how it should be. The issue was over when the marketplace rose up and complained. For this issue, the FCC was really not needed. Sure, CBSMTVVIACOM didn't like the fines, but the millions of extremely pissed off people is what scared them. People (the marketplace) rejected was CBS was offering as a halftime show. And no, it wasn't just the boobie that upset people, the lyrics and crotch grabbing weren't appreciated either.
And actually, you can take that one step further - the FCC in general doesn't need to exist - if you don't like the content on Television or Radio - don't watch or listen. Yes, it's really that simple. And as a parent - it's *your* job to censor what your kids watch and listen to, not the government's.
And finally, to whoever modded the parent as flamebait / troll, that wasn't fair - this guy had an honest opinion on the matter.
FCC - stern and sirius 1
FCC - Stern & Sirius 2
FCC - Stern and Sirius 3
And if we make freedom of expression illegal, everyone will stop right. Ever since murder and coveting thy neighbour's wife has been illegal murder and adultrey have stopped. Oh wait. No.
:)
You can make "fuck" illegal, but when you do the government is one step closer to jailing you for the above comment. Think about that. Society needs to be able to be free to offend other people. Because sometimes good ideas are offensive.
Sorry if it bothers your kids. Don't watch TV. It's not that good anyway
My other car is first.
Still, I would prefer to be the one in control when it comes to what I or my children watch, read or listen to. Not the government. Why right does the government have to disagree over what a parent has a responsibility for? Republicans say it's okay to take responsibility for firearms in my house but not a radio?
As for the slide in society, do we blame people for the verbage of others? I think it has more to do with people taking liberties without being responsible for them. "Hey, some singer says an f-bomb so that mean I can say the f-bomb whenevery I want." That is someone not taking a responsibility for acting civil in public. If someone sees a rape in a movie, commits rape, do you go after the movie or the criminal? If someone kills because of the bible do we start censoring the bible or prosecute the murderer?
What nerves me about the whole situation is that this FCC business is not about decency, it's about power (and money i.e. power).
-Phil
Shoot questions, first ask later...
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
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 ----
as a father who is raising our kids to understand that words are merely words, and that some are extremely offensive to others, and to have both the maturity and restraint to know WHEN such cases apply
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. It's too easy to make children, then let the schools and the TV babysit them... practically effortless.
I don't think I want my children "numbed" by shows that use profanity as it there were no tomorrow, so we don't let them watch shows like The Sopranos, rather than complain to HBO about it.
TV is a fairly decent tool for recreation, but shouldn't be a medium where kids spend all their free time, wether it be watching Nickelodeon, the Science Channel, or playing a PS2 game. Unfortunately, a good number of parents would rather let their kids stare glassy eyed at the TV rather than expend the energy it takes to spend time with them.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
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?
Think about this for a second -- the only place the FCC's "cracking down" is on publicly-regulated airwaves.
The issue isn't about parents letting the TV raise them. My business partner has a six year old, who's huge into football. She and her husband carefully control what their kids are allowed to watch. 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.
There are plenty of other outlets for all sorts of creative expression. Nobody would have noticed if the JJ incident happened on MTV. All the FCC is doing is keeping the public airwaves broadly "public".
Television broadcasters are allowed exclusive access to use our airwaves for free. In exchange for this incredibly valuable resource, which is collectively owned by The People, they are compelled to serve the public interest, which includes conforming to public standards of decent behavior.
It has been proposed many times by libertarians such as myself that TV signal bands should be auctioned off like real-estate to whoever is willing to pay for it, and then the FCC could collect a small tax from them for enforcement, but otherwise broadcasters could do whatever they like with the airwave spectrum they've purchased fair and square. The networks are addicted to free bandwidth, though, so they scream and wail every time it's brought up. Unless and until such a reform is made, they are accountable to the people, and the FCC is charges with enforcing the will of the people.
If you want to watch a show where people say "fuck" all the time, subscribe to HBO on cable. The Sopranos just recently got season 5 underway.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Let's suppose that posts that you make offends me (I'm not saying that I don't like your posts, just using your account as an example). I can either lobby Slashdot to ban mikehoskins account or just set up my filter to filter your posts. I'd go with the filtering option because it does the trick without denying everyone from viewing your posts.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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.
sorry its only shockwave, but you might find this British TV commercial rather appropriate...
:)
Swearing
Enjoy
Meanwhile, television and film can show graphic, glorified murder and only be rated PG13.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Democracy is a scary scary thing.
Well, I'm a person, a member of the public. And nipples and sayingn "fuck" don't bother me. To be honest, I don't really care to see it on TV, but I respect the right for other people to see that if they want to :)
:)
If you don't like what a network broadcasts, don't buy products from the advertisers. That should fix the network's "ideals" up quite quickly.
But not everyone wants to live in a Christian bubble*. I love God, but I also love the right to free expression. Those can go hand in hand.
* Hell, not everyone's Christian. All of these "morals" might even OFFEND some other taxpaper. Too bad we're not all drones
My other car is first.
but I know it when I see it.
Impeach Bush now.
Your constitution is counting on you.
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.
The difference between saying "fuck" here and "fuck" on TV can be seen as different. Most parents will want to "filter" the content presented to children until the child is deemed ready to deal with the content. I for one don't want my children running around using foul language, not so much because it offends people, but rather because the language is generally associated with people who lack intelligence to choose a more socially acceptable word. If suddenly one of these words becomes the accepted word, then sure, they'll learn it at a younger age. Really if you think about it, what's the difference between penis and dick? They both indicate the same body part. The difference is what people deem as acceptable.
Now are you going to prevent your children from viewing Slashdot or are you going to write to your congressman to have Slashdot be censored because you're too lazy to monitor your children?
I for one believe the web should not be sensored. This environment is truly one where a person can express whatever ideas they like. What I do appreciate is content ratings (similar to movies, video games, etc...) where I can filter the content at my end. Your comment about parents preventing children from viewing content is where I believe control should be. Not everyone will want to have the filtering and they shouldn't have to put up with it. Some things can be better expressed using foul language (adds a bit of emphasis in most cases).
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.
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 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!
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
a friend with a young son said to me that it wasn't the nipple that bothered him aqs a father, so much as the act of Timberlake ripping off Jackson's top. It was an agressive, arguably denigrating act. It is an entirely different thing that seeing a mother feed her child. Dind't phase me much, but when people say they don't want their young children seeing that crap I find it hard to argue. Granted, the game itself is violent, but it isn't gratuitous, nor is it designed to promulgate disdain towards a class of people (i.e. women.)
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
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.
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.
I [...] 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.
How did your head not explode as you were writing that down?
Seriously, you post whines about moderation used to "censor" something you agree with AND clamours on about the holy righjeousness of using federal regulations to censor what YOU disagree with.
I think it should be illegal to be that contradictory.
You can't take the sky from me...
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
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.
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:
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!
Really?
Please refresh my memory, in how many European countries can you get actual jail time for drawing Swastikas? What about selling Nazi artifacts on eBay? How many years does that get you?
What about this?
The Council of Europe has added provisions to its European Convention on Cybercrime that criminalize certain Internet content.
Link.
Link 2
Need I go on?
I just love it when you Euros try to display your superiority by criticizing the Yanks on the issue of free speech.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
I dunno about you guys, but this seems doubleplusgood to me!
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
a friend with a young son said to me that it wasn't the nipple that bothered him aqs a father, so much as the act of Timberlake ripping off Jackson's top.
Yeah, I've heard that argument, and it's bullshit. If he'd ripped off her top to reveal a bikini or an undershirt, nobody would be bitching! Hell, if he'd pulled out a bullwhip and pretended to be beating her, there would have been much less controversy! (That last would have offended me but I generally find myself in a minority when it comes to the relative offensiveness of violence vs. sex and/or nudity.) On the other hand, if Janet had calmly and peacefully pulled off her own top to reveal her own nipple, the general public reaction would have been almost identical.
The fact is that we had a firestorm of controversy because a nipple was exposed on live television. Oh the horror, oh the humanity. The supposed violence of the act (and frankly, it didn't look that violent to me) is a distraction being clutched at by those who want to be offended by the nipple but have barely enough intellectual integrity left to realize their position isn't very sound or defensible.
My kids were weaned only a couple of years ago. I don't see any reason why the sight of a nipple on television should be dangerous or harmful to them. They've seen plenty of nipples in their lives, and will probably (hopefully) see plenty more before those lives are done.
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!
How could Jesus believe in the Bible if it were written 100 years after his death? ! gum2me?
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.
I'm all for in context swearing on television when they stipulate a disclaimer in advance. The worst thing is when a regular show comes on, and the context suddenly slips into profanity without warning.
How cute is it when a 3-year-old says, "This is fucking great" - and repeats it because of the exciting reaction culled from both sides. Look at the polarity (and sheer number) of posts here. That three-year-old gets all of it from the teenager laughing, "that's cool!", to the old lady, "my WORD!".
So what context does that child have for the proper use of words that create such polarity? I, as a parent, struggle with that.
Further, in school (no choice here, all US children must go to school), the kids curse - to eachother. If your child thinks it is "just fine" to curse to a teacher, your child will be punished. Is this censorship, too? Yes, perhaps it is. It also teaches the lesson that there are appropriate times, places and situations where cursing is acceptable (which is true in school, business, the courtroom and government). So, until everything comes into perfect alignment and there is no inappropriate time and place, at least tell me before cursing to my kids.
For the Superbowl, my kids did watch, and they never saw the nipple. If they did, they didn't see the nipple. Sure as hell though, they were grossly effected by it the next day. Because of the polarized REACTION to it. So now nudity is just a little more "cool", and a little more "accepted" - but sure as hell, I don't want my kids mooning the teacher, or a football stadium.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
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?
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.
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.