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."

29 of 1,206 comments (clear)

  1. my new profane word of choice by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    -

  2. Defend the First Amendment... by scrytch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... 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.
  3. Overreaching their charter by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  4. Damn it! by dartmouth05 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a serious blow against freedom of speech and expression. While the airwaves belong to the public and all, it is ludicrous to censor something because it is deemed to be "grossly offensive."

    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

  5. Support Howard by fluke_finder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Passion of the Stern lives on!

    1. Re:Support Howard by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Informative

      Long-time listener, first-time caller.. ;)

      Amidst all the indecency crackdowns, and the FCC's announcements yesterday, nobody seems to be pointing out the fact that the ruling against Infinity was for a Howard Stern show that aired in 2001. It's not for anything Howard has said or done recently, and as I understand it, it's more due to what a caller said.

      Howard's been playing this game for a long time. He knows the rules, and he knows them well; perhaps even better than most people who work for the FCC. Howard has always voiced his contempt for the rules, but he's (generally) always played within the rules, as well. So why is Howard getting attacked all of a sudden?

      For the majority of Bush's presidency, Howard has been a staunch supporter. On September 11 2001, he was on the air telling everyone that it was bin Laden, and that we ought to do something about it. Howard supported the Afghanistan strikes 100%. As time wore on and people grew critical of Bush, Howard stood his ground, even supporting the war in Iraq.

      After the Janet Jackson fiasco, when it was obvious that the FCC was gearing up to make some heads roll, Howard suddenly shifted gears. For the past few weeks, his (on-air) political leanings have done an abrupt 180. He's been decrying the FCC and its crackdown, and more importantly, he's been urging listeners to vote Bush out of office.

      ClearChannel dropped Stern from 6 stations. It wasn't for anything "indecent." It was because of Howard's recent political about-face.

      ClearChannel is owned by a guy named Lowry Mays. Mays is a Texan, and he's got ties to the oil industry. OK, so these days it seems like everyone is from Texas and is an oil baron. How about the fact that GWB sold his share of the Texas Rangers baseball team to a guy named Tom Hicks. Tom Hicks was, at the time, CEO of a company called AMFM. Guess what business a company named "AMFM" was in? That's right, the radio business. AMFM was bought out by ClearChannel, and Tom Hicks is now Vice Chairman of ClearChannel.

      Howard Stern had a surprisingly good ride, in terms of FCC scrutiny, under the Bush administration until the past couple of weeks. I think it's because - and only because - Howard had, until that time, been an unapologetic supporter of Bush and the war in Iraq, even to the point where it conflicted with his own liberal interests in terms of broadcasting.

      A timeline:

      1) AMFM CEO buys GWB's share in Texas Rangers
      2) AMFM acquired by ClearChannel
      3) Janet Jackson bares areola
      4) FCC launches witch-hunt
      4a) FCC Chairman Powell is Secretary of State Colin's son, for those who aren't paying attention
      5) ClearChannel dumps Stern like a bag of bricks
      6) FCC fines Infinity (but not ClearChannel, even though they aired it) for a Stern episode from 2001

      Mod me troll if you want, but this is the politics of things. Howard Stern isn't being sought out because he was "indecent." He's being sought out because he jumped the fence, he's being sought out because he's telling 8+ million people a day to vote Bush out of office.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  6. Re:may I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ah you've added religion to the mix! I personally think religious exclamations like "In God We Trust" or "under god" are profane. What if I dont believe in God, or at least your god? Why must I be forced to listen to religious nuts prattle on about God?

    If you take away my ability to say curse words, then I want to take away your ability to say religious words.

  7. Here in Canada... by Opalima · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... 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.

  8. Fucking. Not Effing. by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  9. Re:Long overdue FCC! by mark_lybarger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:This does not lead to censorship by Queuetue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'

  11. Re:Long overdue FCC! by MooseByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " 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!

  12. Re:Long overdue FCC! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Insightful
    God, I hope your children were never exposed to a nipple on TeeVee. It is bad enough that the babies' bottle tops are shaped like them. Someone ought to do something about that.

    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.
  13. Re:Long overdue FCC! by WaterTroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :(

  14. Can I sue my Cable Co ? by Tsiangkun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  15. Re:This'll get some knees jerking. by bnenning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People should not be subjected to it or forced to listen to this stuff

    Yes, I'm all for repealing the law requiring all citizens to listen to Howard Stern for 3 hours a day.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  16. Howard Stern's Required Reading by tstoneman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  17. Re:may I be the first to say by amembrane · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, I can believe that Howard Stern is willing to exaggerate the extent to which he is being persecuted for his speech to that level. It's part of something called humor, which is what makes him popular. I do also believe that he is being persecuted, thank you legislation of morality.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  18. Re:The Battle Rages On by iSwitched · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Let me tell you, it's not just Europeans that are perplexed by this. I'm living in, and a citizen of the U.S. and not only am I perplexed by this attitude, I am frustrated, and if I may be allowed to violate the rules of my own government agencies a moment, fucking pissed off about it!

    As the father of two small children, I would much rather answer the question "daddy, what are that man and woman doing?" than, "daddy, why is that man hurting that other man?".

    Perhaps I am all alone in seeing that it is much easier to explain the process of procreating, which all animals engage in and is a good and understandable process even to the fairly young, than trying to explain random, senseless violence that has no perpose and is engaged in only by 'humans'. The attitude of my own goverment, and by default, a majority of my fellow citizens are absolutely inexplicable!

    --
    "That naive cube! How long must I suffer this!" --Sheldon J. Plankton
  19. Bad news for Comedy Central by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  20. Re:Damn it! (religious right and Oprah) by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The FCC's ruling is really, really fucking awful.

    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.

  21. Re:may I be the first to say by cxreg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good thing the FCC doesn't rule over the internet

  22. Indicative of the American mentality by Zathras26 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:may I be the first to say by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If you take away my ability to say curse words, then I want to take away your ability to say religious words.

    Considering that in french, almost every "holy" word is a curse word, this could be funny.

    Trust me, the bablefish doesn't begin to convey the gist of this.

    "Mon hostie de colise de gros tabernac, ciboire, christ, sainte-sacrement de sainte-esprit, segnieur!"

    Literal translation:

    My host of the chalice of the big tabernacle, ciborium, christ, holy sacrement of the holy spirit, lord!

    Actual meaning - something along the lines of:

    My fucking god, what the hell, etc etc etc....
    Please keep in mind that phrases such as "C'est tout fucke" (slashdot eats my html entity for the e-acute - sorry) which is "it's completely fucked" are actually not swearing, because fuck is an anglicism. "Ah, merde!" is swearing, "Ah, shit!" (pronounced more like "sheet") is not :-)
  24. Re:Disagree with Slashdot, get modded down. by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  25. FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Rather than outlawing consentual activities and perfectly legal activities, I'd rather they regulated showing all the illegal stuff that they show on TV.

    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:

    • If a TV show, movie, etc has all legal content (consentual sex, non-threatening speach) it's OK.
    • If it has illegal content assaults including threats of violence (regardless of the language), unconsentual sex, murdor, etc, it's rated R at least.
    1. Re:FCC should outlaw showing illegal stuff on TV. by osobear · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Definetly agree.
      We need to realize what actually is and isn't a bad influence on everybody (face it, kids aren't the only ones to condone violence because they are over-exposed to it). Profanity only has power if we grant it power, and censoring it is the fastest way to do that. There's nothing wrong with saying "oh shit" if we say that there isn't, but murder is always wrong.

      Basically, the FCC needs to censor and rate less on content and more on themes. Murder seems to be ok if you don't show the actual murder scene, and that just doesn't make sense. It works the same way for drug use, robbery, arsen, you name it.

      I'd much prefer to walk down the halls of a high school and hear "fuck, that test was hard" than "Darn, that was a hard test, I'd like to kill Mr. Smith for giving it to us."

  26. Re:may I be the first to say by aukaru · · Score: 5, Funny
    I think that Washington D.C. is full of idiots

    I know Washington DC is full of idiots. What will it take to make you a true believer?

  27. Re:may I be the first to say by MurphyZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed. The most obscene speech lately is that coming out of Michael Powell's mouth. Instead of legilating and fining these things out of existence, parents should be teaching their children how to deal with it, typically by changing the station. This nation wants to blame society every time something goes wrong and then try to 'fix' society. It's always the wrong fix. If you're worried about what the children can see and be affected, start with the people who control those things--parents. And not by legislating the fix. By smacking them in the head every time they want the government to raise their kids for them.

    --
    Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.