Slashdot Mirror
PBS Feels FCC Chill On Censorship
Shadow Wrought writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on PBS censoring one of its upcoming drama shows, Cop Shop, due to the chilling effect of the most recent FCC rulings on indecency. Star Richard Dreyfuss offered these choice words as part of a prepared statement, 'It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.'"
The slippery slope my homeland is heading down ...
- Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual
images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are
actually harmful.)
- Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from
scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern.
- Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must
protect children from terrorist attack.
- Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must
protect children from policies we do not agree with.
sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once.How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
From the SFGate.com article's subhead:
3 no-nos bleeped from new crime drama -- Richard Dreyfuss blasts government censorship
And further down the article:
The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV critics here on Friday.
Tonight on PBS: the world's smallest violin plays "My Heart Bleeds For You".
I'm no fan of corporate-owned media, and the whoring of the airwaves by the likes of FOX. Today's "Reality shows" remind me of the government-run pornography industry in Orwell's 1984 -- a handy way to distract the masses from reality (election? what election?).
But I doubt that "Cop Shop" is going to be the poster boy for government interference with free speech. I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings. They had a prepared statement -- the press release crying "censorship" was composed before the show was even screened. That tells me that the show needs propping up by the controversy, because it's likely to fall down under its own pompous weight.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Talk about a made up controversy. PBS is slowly dieing and now they're trying to get attention.
," "f -- " and "blow job,"
With the excising of three not-so-little terms -- "s --
Ok, now I'm confused. They're censoring "Fuck", "Shit" and "Blow job". Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now. Really, this whole thing is absolute crap. "Chilling censorship" my ass.
It's also really "surprising" that PBS doesn't like conservatives (who cut their funding again?). And that there's an article in the SF Chronicle about it (strange...). And, this might surprise you, a hollywood actor is also upset about this. This is really a new low for slashdot that'd they post such a ridiculously idiotic article.
Casual Games/Downloads
They wanted to say "Fuck"
Hope that helps.
It takes a Brit to say what we feel about this sort of stuff ;)
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
What the hell does PBS and their boring shows have to do with 'News For Nerds' here? It seems slashdot has been turing into angry, leftist politics for nerds nowadays.
Anyways, there nothing wrong about the chill here. The PBS runs on a public airwaves for free, the deal being that it broadcasts according to the government's standards. If you or PBS don't like it, take it to cable, because that when you are on public access, you have rules to follow.
This isn't about your rights here, it's slashdot and PBS trying to turn this into a bigger issue than it really is. Everybody has to play by the FCC's rules.
"Boobs are proof that God exists and want's us to be happy".
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
And you should hear Elmo go when you piss him off!
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Not if they can help it! The US presidential election, evidently, is optional
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Yes, and everyone should read this eye-opening article, as well. Sorry, New York Times reg req'd: Antiwar Group Says Its Ad Is Rejected
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
"The FCC chairman is going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you on the ass!"
Thank you, thank you.
put the what in the where?
saying fuck and shit a moral imperitive? Didn't these people know the show was being made for TELEVISION, not movie theaters? Whining that you cannot swear on television in 2004 is kind of behind the game, isn't it? Since when has it been acceptable to say those words on broadcast television?
I have no love for the current administration, but I also am aware that Mr Dreyfuss could probably pay these fines and call it the cost of doing business if he so chose. Since we have the freedom to bitch about our gov't in the US, he has every right to complain, but I don't think he is "in the right."
That seems to be the trend nowadays - label anybody or anything who/which is anti-war, anti-administration or anti-corporation as "unAmerican" and get done with it. It's right up there with the "Axis of Evil" and "Freedom".
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
A show that's broadcast over the air is being censored by its corporate distributor (in this case PBS) in order to avoid the imminent fines by the FCC (either that or to maintain its wholesome image), and somehow it's the fault of the big bad Bush administration? This has "publicity stunt" written all over it.
I can't help but think of two very good quotes I've used in the past when arguing against censorship:
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home: but unlike charity, it should end there. - Claire Booth Luce
To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. - Claude Adrien Helvetius
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
And you should hear Elmo go when you piss him off!
That's nothing compared to when you piss on him.
It always steams me that they'll edit out breasts and other "sex" things in movies, but movies like "Predator" and "Resevoir Dogs" will be shown on TV, with lots of people getting shot up and spewing blood all over. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? I myself would just prefer not to edit anything out.
2. Swear words are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern.
Hey, I though you were arguing against censorship?
Keeping my kids from growing up to be Howard Stern seems worth almost any price! ;)
Thank goodness for cable!
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Well, not really a fix....
BROADCAST EVERYTHING ONLINE! There's no censorship in these here hills.
Abandon your televisions, throw away your radios! Head to the hills, and bring your yagi!
Television needs to die. Corporate radio needs to die. These FCC rulings are just going to make that happen faster.
Don't Crease the Weasel!
This is all Janet Jackson's fault. Thanks Miss Jackson, Janet cuz you not nasty, for ruining the show for all of us with the gratuitous display of your breast that no one really wanted to see in the first place. You, madam, touched off this mess, and it was so necessary. You provided fuel to the Christian right's fire, and for that, I'll....well.....I guess I'll never listen to Rhythm Nation again, so TAKE THAT you hussy!!!
So the fact that they did not choose to speak extemporaneously indicates some sort of behind-the-scenes plan? The President reads prepared statements all the time; he doesn't seem to have a plan.
So Dick Cheyney's half-thought, irrational, emotional outburts are fine for public coverage yet the use of the same expletives for a well-considered, precisely-scripted, time-consumingly produced fictional presentation are NOT acceptable is absurd.
Fiction is the ideal place to expose new ideas that aren't taught in school (profanity, sex, violence). Simply declaring that all bad words are "bleeped" and all nudity is blocked is doing a severe disservice to the (yes, real) humans watching television.
It isn't an accident that Richard Dreyfuss sounds so knowledgable on efforts to censor so-called free speech; Hollywood has had years of practise in generating social/political spin all the while most Hollywood types have the blood-spitting fits when confronted with views on which they disagree.
Otherwise, this reads like a publicity stunt. No one watches PBS all that much.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Just get the 3 people who watch PBS to sign a waiver or something?
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
Why is that the BBC can get away with accurately reporting what the Vice President said on the Senate floor while american news sources had to keep us guessing with abbreviations?
The ethical course would be for PBS to eschew all government funding. Let PBS use their own dime, present programming the way they wish, and let the chips fall where they may.
Beggars can't be choosers. If I give my kids some spending money, I want some influence on how they spend it. If my son comes home with a copy of Hustler, he is going to be defunded.
Bullshit. I do. ...Then again, the only channel I get is WGBH
Found here.
Seems likely that most here would declare themselves to be anti-censorship ..... until their own particular threshold is crossed. And if one indeed has such a threshold (and most do, somewhere), then moral indignation at someone else's more restrictive threshold seems hard to come by.
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
If you must have your profanity, here ya go: Shit, fuck, blow job.
Sounds like my kind of day!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Did anyone else catch the cover photo to the Business Section of this July 12 article [no photo on website] in the Los Angeles Times? It looks as though part of Keira Knightly's breast nipple is showing through her rediculous costume.
signature pending slashdot approval
You can argue about the FCC standards, about whether they should be what they are. (Remember, though, that just because you consider the standards laughable doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees with you.) But let that go for now. There's another issue here.
If I don't like what's aired on the Playboy channel, you might say, "Don't watch it." But if it's aired on PBS, I'm paying for it. So if this show offends my standards, what are my options? Refuse to pay for it? That equates to either "leave the USA" or "go to jail". Nice set of options you give me...
My point is that standards should be more stringently applied to PBS than to other broadcasters, because if someone doesn't like what is aired, "don't watch it" doesn't address the whole problem.
Like many here, I spent my time with Sesame Street and Electric Company, and then of course Monty Python, Nova, Sagan's Cosmos, Dr. Who, and many more.
These days Nova is like "Science For Dummies", and PBS has its own versions of Reality Shows. Thank god for Red Green reruns combined with British Comedy reruns. The occaisional Nature show is still allright, but its getting more and more where I can't tell where the music video stops and the science is supposed to begin. Even that miniseries on String Theory started out good and then petered out.
Now we top it off with the need for "gritty" cop shows that use realistically foul language.
To me the decline of PBS is a much more sad affair then whether or not the FCC will let them curse.
I pulled a jack move to cop this sig
Let me get this straight:
A government-funded station is currenctly experienceing a chilling effect because government regulations that have been in place for years prevent said government-funded station from broadcasting certain words over airwaves allocated to it by the government.
Egads!
"Folks bent on reinventing the wheel should understand that if it's not round, it ain't a wheel." - Jonah Goldberg
No one is being oppressed, suppressed, whatever. The standards that dictate the bleeps have been in place for years. Dreyfuss knew this going into the project. What changed is the cost of breaking the standards, so he's complaining it's now too expensive for PBS to allow him to violate the standards. Perhaps he should have chosen a more appropriate venue for his work.
Also, the article linked to was a columnist's take on it. I don't know if I'd consider it "reporting" as columnists tend to skew things according to their opinions.
I'm surprised at the caliber of comment on this article. Who watches PBS anymore? Why watch that old channel? I'm in college, I watch Dave Chappelle and Cartoon Network. But I also watch PBS: they show delightful British comedies (unfortunately our affliate has pulled Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers, and Flying Circus now). Lehr's show is one of the best news programs on television.
Not to mention that you slashdot people should enjoy PBS's science programs (as a child I lived and breathed their animal documentaries, and I still find the birds series a joy to watch) and perhaps their history (their documentaries on the Prophet Muhammed and Islam the last few years were great).
If PBS is mad at conservatives, it should be. America had a chance to have something as brilliant and deep as the BBC. That NPR and PBS aren't is the fault of the conservatives who seem hell bent on funding idiots like Rupert Murdoch and their "news."
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Now if a few hundred million more people would say something similar in November...
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
We all know what should happen here: the government finally goes "ah ha!" and eliminates censorship on tv, because hey, you can change the channel or turn it off (which you can't do when your kids are at school around their friends anyways, so you've already got all the control you need). All of a sudden, shows will be titled "F*** you!" and the whole show will be 60 minutes of the f-word as fast as possible, set to Flight of the Bumblebee. That would be the greatest day of my life!
stuff |
When I am around people who use words like "f--" or "s--" a lot I get the feeling that I can't have an intelligent conversation with them. Instead of explaining how they feel or why they feel that way they'll simply say "I feel like s--" Or, in the case of Cheney, they think that lashing out with the f-word will help them feel better and put the other person in their place. Is this really the way that rational human beings should communicate with each other? I know from personal experience that I can communicate much more effectively if I eliminate these words and learn to express myself in a more meaningful way. After all, does it evenmake sense to curse someone with a euphemism for a sex act?
See, here's the problem, Clear Channel can't censor anyone because they're NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Clear Channel can decide whoever the hell they want to do business with and under whatever terms they wish. The only thing this group has any valid argument on is breach of contract, not censorship, and even that's sketchy.
If Clear Channel doesn't want to display an advertisement because they believe it will negatively affect their business, that's their decision. If they have a choice between listening to a few misinformed, whiney protestors cry about "censorship" or possibly losing REAL advertisers and/or viewers, I think they're going to worry about the one that hits them in the pocketbook.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
What "stars" don't realize is, we don't care what they think. They live a lifestyle out of the reach of the masses, hang out with people foreign to our everyday lifestyle, and therefore have NO clue about what we go through because when you live that life long enough you conveniently forget where you came from. We don't pay them for their political opinion. This ruling isn't going to keep Richard Dreyfuss from living in the Hollywood hills so we the masses say "Shut and entertain us. That's what we pay you for."
This program is on PBS on name recognition. PBS jumped at the chance for their own cop show drama. Black and Dreyfuss probably cound not make this a go on FX and draw the potential viewership of the PBS network. They could change the broadcast venue and play what they like. But then there would not have been near the publicity and it would have been dead in the water.
R Rated cop show on cable or network TV (yawn)
R Rated cop show on PBS government supported TV (OOOH controversy!)
Pledging money to PBS is a little like The United Way. They hit you up and make you feel uncomfortable. They do alot of good, but do some freakshow stuff with your money too. You don't give your money to PBS thinking you are only paying for Sesame Street and Masterpiece theater. (Just like you don't give your money to the United Way thinking that all the money goes to widows and orphans.) I feel sorry for the PBS directors because of the dreck they have to program to please everybody and anger nobody.
Have you Meta Moderated t
PBS gets billions of dollars of broadcast spectrum for nothing. In return, I see nothing wrong with the government asking them to adhere to some common standard. If they want to display their hardcore, gruesome or sexual images, they can always produce DVDs or tapes. The porn industry has not been hampered. They weren't chilled.
Having said that, I can say that it might be nice if we had more unlicensed space without the arbitrary limits imposed upon the broadcast spectrum. But that wasn't possible when they first created television. It would be nice to overhaul the entire spectrum regulation process, but that's not the question.
PBS should respond to this inter-fear-ence by the neo-conservative moral minority by broadcasting Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election.
PBS is in the business of publishing facts, not images and quotes assembled out of context to support an unsupportable accusation.
It's quite astonishing to see all the Slashdot posters applauding cvensorship and getting modded up. I wonder if the RNC has been having a Slashdot posting seminar.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Wow, I couldn't have said it better. Beautiful....
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
If you are concerned about the erosion of your liberties, please do something, no matter how small. Write or call your local reps, and Michael Powell:
. html
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_email
If you have communicated, thank you. If you have not, and are bitching, then bitch to the right people. Then come back to Slashdot and bitch guilt-free.
If you think this censorship stuff is all OK, I am sorry for you. I am sorry you have chosen fear over freedom. If you think this is all about the quality of a show, or the popularity of PBS, I am also sorry for you. I am sorry you don't grasp what's really happening here. I am sorry you'd like to wait until it's too late to do something about it. Unfortunately your apathy will mean MY loss of freedom, so please don't feel bad when, someday, I don't feel bad about calling the local authorities on you for unpatriotic speech. We cool? Great!
Not many people know this, because, not many people watch it, but PBS used to show a fair amount of nudity. Back when I was an engineer for a PBS station, I used to keep a tape of breast footage entitled, "The Greatest Tits of Masterpiece Theatre."
I've been told by friends who still work at PBS that it no longer shows boobies. That's too bad.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Hey guys! I got a great idea! Rather than debate the issues, let's just moderate opposing viewpoints as "troll"!
If this isn't censorship, then what is?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I'm not trolling for a violence is bad/ok argument (I love a good action flick), just seems many people/politicians worry about their kids seeing too much skin, but don't seem AS worried about violence. Or in some cases, the religious hypocrites want people to take 7 year olds to see The Passion of the Christ - but have fits over most other violence in film/media
I'm not saying that we should censor 'x' amount, but it seems weird to me how random the application of censoring is - and how people with a political agenda (liberals like Dryfuss or conservatives like "Passion" advocates) kick up a stink only when it suits their personally ideologies.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
And now our overlords are looking to postpone the elections.
You don't need an election.
Now I'm no constitutional lawyer. But as far as I know, Congress hasn't specifically done anything abridging the freedom of speech by allowing the FCC to make these regulations. It's my opinion that the Framers wanted *Congress* to pretty much stay out of it, and let the states (and/or local communities) decide what the rules ought to be. If a state wanted to make a single utterance of the f-bomb an automatic 30 days in jail, so be it (according to what I think the framers intended).
The FCC thing is a little tricky... it's a federal organization, which means that Congress ought to have some oversight into what goes on... but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law," not "no federal organization shall make any rules" about free speech.
Obviously you could choose to break the rule, get penalized, sue, and hope the court agrees with you; all it takes is money. But isn't that how most of our rights are these days?
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
I guess if you believe that sex is something that should be done outside of marriage, then you probably don't have a problem with pornography.
What does sex outside of marrage have to do with pornography? Sex in public, whether between married people, or absolute strangers would still be porno.
The ONLY venu in which PBS could show a sexual context, would be in a true educational film dealing with a medical subject. This COULD be done in good taste (though there would always be someone objecting to even that).
Wow, could you possibly be more of a jerk about it?
Reading this whole article makes me feel like the whole phrase "chilling effect" just got cheapened...
Stifling someone's freedom to talk openly about technology is one thing, regulating vulgarity on television is quite another.
So they can't say s__t and f__k on public television or show titties. I can't give out bank account or credit card numbers on the internet or distribute viruses and I don't pretend that's abridging my freedom of speech.
"What the hell does PBS and their boring shows have to do with 'News For Nerds' here? [
That seems an incredibly myopic viewpoint. Rights to privacy, free speech and freedom of information are core values here. The FCC has a broad reach, all the more reason to follow everything they do.
Or would you rather have the DMCA + FCC clamp down on the flow of all kinds of information? There is already quite a fight going on here in the States to preserve even basic requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Want jail time for that Xbox mod you installed, or for discussing a certain encryption algorithm online? Think it can't happen? Then by all means roll over and focus on "news for nerds" like the PS3 rollout. But if you ignore the "stuff that matters", you may not be around to see that PS3.
What stuns me is the number so-called "conservatives" who are watching an unprecedented assault on basic citizen rights here in America. What a bunch of pathetic posers. Wouldn't know the concepts of small government and personal liberties if it bit them on the leg. This administration has set the conservative movement back many decades, and the GOP will pay for it for decades to follow.
Could this censorship of PBS have anything to do with the new Bush donor appointees to its board? Or tie in with the addition of rightwing moutpieces to the PBS lineup?
or possibly anything to do with the fact that PBS is both publicly and privately (by the likes of Coca-Cola)funded? As PBS falls into the realm of public television, the FCC has to consider that ALL of the public can view their programs. As far as I know, fuck and shit have never been allowed on public television. If you want to hear those words en masse, pay for HBO and watch the Sopranos.
Otherwise, deal with the idea that some people actually are offended by that kind of language, and since every tax-paying American can claim to be partially responsible for funding these programs, some discression should be considered.
Given, also, that Dreyfuss and Black read from prepared statements, I would suggest that they planned for such an event, and had hoped to use it to gain publicity for a program that, being aired on PBS, was guaranteed a low Nielson rating. Remember, in Hollywood, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Just ask Michael Moore.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11
Absolutely.
At least here in Atlanta GA, PBS is the only 'Basic Pacakge' TV channel that has programming for people that can walk and chew gum at the same time.
All the other channels are endless variants of the same 3 formulas for entertaining low-IQ southerners: 'reality TV' shows, TV shopping, or ranting fundamentalist christian TV-evangelists.
That this entire story feels off-topic to me. I'm not trying to "troll" here, so hear me out.
Slashdot is a technology site for nerds (upper left, "News for Nerds"). We've got this subsection "Your Rights Online". Ok. This story is not about technology, nerds, my rights online... it's about what Hollywood can do on television.
You know what I have to say to Hollywood about censorship? Regime change begins at home. These are the same people who rallied in support of the movie industry to help pass the DMCA to limit the speech of computer programmers. Now they're upset that Christians have rallied in support of Bush to limit the speech of Hollywood. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I read that Richard Drewfus quote and I can't help but think "political grandstanding", from the lips of a man whose screen guild dues ingarguably went to promoting a law which makes my encryption research banned speech.
It's not right when anyone does it. Bah, humbug.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
yup thats censorship.
Guipo
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
I just want to hear Mackey on "The Shield" say "shit".
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11
I totally agree with you. I only watch British Comedy and Charlie Rose. Most of the CR interviews can be found as Online audio, I will suggest anyone sample a few of them.
Help fight continental drift.
There is a line that is pretty easy to cross that I will say "I shall choose to ignore your speech because it is repugnant to me." I am even willing to delegate the positioning of that line to entities I trust (e.g. listening to my friend Chuy's opinion on a movie that I may or may not like, or reading slashdot at +2)
Apart from demonstrably harmful speech (e.g. "shouting fire in a crowded movie house", libel, slander) I honestly believe there is no line you can cross that I would say "you need to be censored to protect me or others."
Of course, the argument that we need to restrict "obscene" and "indecent" speech, is predicated on the belief that, to some, it is harmful. It is with this determination that I take issue - which is why I said demonstrably harmful.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
How will they beep it out?
-Max
Far, far too much of the current US debate is all about ad hominem attacks. It never seems to matter what anyone says anymore..
It's all about "he's just out to sell his book/movie", "get attention" or "to further his/her career". Either that or it's about who they hung around with 30 years ago. Or who they've had sex with. Or if they've ever used drugs. Or how they used to feel differently, and therefore must be hypocrites.
From following the so-called debate, you wouldn't think anyone ever said anything just because they actually believed in it. Or that it could actually be, that someone with personal faults could actually be right, and that a person with a spotless reputation could be wrong about something?
It just makes me sick. And anyone thinks this posting is itself partisan in any way*, they need to seriously start thinking about what democracy is supposed to be about.
* Not counting people who truly advocate totalitarian systems, of course
I'd say it depends on when the show is aired.
Why should "dirty words" be a problem if it's broadcast during "adult" hours, like the standards used for TV?
Kindly define "pornography" and "decency".
... until someone says something they do not "agree" with ... then they try to place limits on so-called "free speech".
Many conservatives apply the word "pornography" to anything they "think" is offensive. One man's "pornography" is another man's art. Robert Mapplethorpe's photography is a good example of this. Some conservative religious fanatics in this area actually tried to get the producers of "The Vagina Monologues" to change the name of the play... because they thought the word "vagina" was indecent.
Conservative religious fanatics defaced many ancient Greek & Roman sculptures because they were offended by seeing a penis or a bare breast. Many conservatives consider Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue to be "pornographic".
Many conservatives also puff out their chests and talk about the right to free speech
Take it from someone who has bought and placed advertising. The major media routinely reject ads that contain images of weaponry -- guns and bombs especially -- because if they don't then cranks call up and start whining at them about "sending the wrong message to the children."
Another reason why the government shouldn't be involved in the arts. PBS subsidies this year were $380 million, not counting the free use of public airwaves. In exchange for this, they are expected to adhere to the same standards as broadcast network television. Where's the controversy? Would Dreyfus and the rest be out there whining if ABC told them to cut out the profanity? This isn't any different.
The fact is that anyone using public funds is (and should be) accountable to the government and held to stricter standards. If you find those standards unacceptable, don't accept the funding or the other freebies. And if you as an individual feel that the FCC is exceeding its bounds, feel free to express your displeasure in any of the many ways provided to you. Better yet, tell the government to stop wasting your money funding unwatched television stations and artists whose only visible talent is shock-mongering and obtaining NEA grants.
In 1994, Janet Reno went after violence in Cop Shows.
Michael Moriarity told her what he thought about that in so many words, and was promptly fired from Law & Order.
Democrats won't protect your freedoms. If you think the Bush Adminstration is bad, do you really think Gore/Lieberman (two major advocates of censorship) would have been any better?
You only use 2% of your DNA
It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.
Censorship wrt words, sex, and religion has been in place since the dawn of this country. Under Clinton the FCC was even more strict as they have only laxed their rules in the last 14 years. To say that the government is getting more strict is just stoopid. What is happening now is the FCC is trying to get rid of the grey area and define and enfore the rules. To attribute his frustration to the current politcal force (Bush ya think) is Ludicrous.
Dreyfus, you are an idiot. Please wake up and learn some history. There is a strong correlation between our current "censoring" and growing social problems. 18 pregnancy is up, STDs are more common, education is down (despite having these wonderful computers), and corruption is on the rise. All this in the last 35 years. We "censor" certain outlets because they CAN have a negative effect on our social future. I for one would rather be safe than sorry.
China has witnessed to oppsite effect. Since their "revolution" censorship dramatically increased and many of their social problems decreased. Corruption has all but been eliminated, violent crimes are down, education is up.
I dont agree with the extremes in either case but I think there is a line on what should be broadcast for free. If I need boobs I know where to find them. I dont need them posted everywhere despite how convenient that might be. I would rather have our children focus on learning and know what is presented to them by TV, radio and movies/music.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
About 30 years ago PBS, in its Masterpiece Theatre series, showed an excellent adaptation of Graves' I Claudius. First episode: bare breasted women dancing in Caesar's garden. I don't remember any harsh complaints then. Remember that wierd Irish tragi-comic series, The Sinners - dirty jokes and swearing were the run of things.
Why, now, should we accept this artificial puritanism when its ok to swear on the senate floor and at the presidential cabinet meeting and it's JUSTIFIED...yet any thing which attempts to portray (even NYPD Blue got away with a lot) real life and situations is suddenly not acceptable. This is hypocracy at its finest.
Even Hitler was 'moral' and 'Christian'. Read some of his quotes...
Neal Stephenson made a great point about this in "The Diamond Age." In his fictional world, moral relativism progressed to the point that hypocrisy was the only sin you could call someone on, and to be inconsistent was to invite ridicule. So the only safe bet (as a politician) was to have no moral code at all. Contradicting yourself isn't a sin; it's natural, especially in the case of an entire administration, which is made of thousands of people.
/. also made a good point in the discussion on the use of torture in wartime. (S)he said something to the effect of "Just because what we're doing isn't as bad as what they're doing doesn't make it OK; it makes both sides wrong." What Cheney said, whether Leahey deserved it or not, was inappropriate, and he's paying for it. Whether Kerry was right or not about postwar planning in Iraq, he's paying for it.
Someone here on
It's also germane to note that Mr. Limbaugh is NOT part of the Bush administration, so taking his views as though Bush said them is a mistake. You could say the same about Kerry and Al Franken. He's a bit of a nutjob, and everyone knows it.
Hamster
Yeah and this country is also supposed to "separate church and state", meaning the government stays the FUCK (you like that?) out of MY business when it comes to anything regarding religion. You CANNOT deny that W. is a religious zealot, and if you do, I'll reference two dozen speeches and television spots that prove it; just in the last year. Bush wants nothing more than for everyone to picture America as the ideal Christian civilization. This is the 21st century, not 1776. Things change and we either evolve as a country or we dissapear. I agree that porn is demeaning to women (most porn) but it's my "god given" RIGHT as an AMERICAN to CHOOSE to watch and or partake in something like pornography. No one forces these women to do it and no one forces you to watch it. You do realize that nearly all woman porno stars either do it for the pleasure or for the money, right? No one in the porn industry is forced to do anything, otherwise it'd be illegal. In my honest opinion, organized religion (Christianity, Judism, Islam, etc) is for the weak, naive and stupid. Religion causes war, that's a proven fact. Middle Eastern Muslims hate Christians. They have for centuries. Not to mention the Elephants and the jack-asses have turned this country upside down, but that's another argument for another time. No one has any right to tell me how to live my recreational life. No one has any right to tell me I can't say "Hey, you.. religious person.. go fuck yourself and I hope you burn in 'hell'"! If you don't like it, move to China. Being American in the 21st century is about CHOICE. Don't force feed me any of your bullshit because you're a weak minded individual who's been brain washed by the religious right. Decency is in the eye of the beholder, not the government or religious fanatics who hold governmental powers and make laws. Don't try to protect me from myself, I don't need it, nor want it.
Dear jgardn: There were some spelling errors in your wonderful letter. As such, please note the corrections below.
I'm sorry folks, but there is a line, and it is called "censorship".
Pornography is enjoyable. I think any sane person agrees with that. What people do with their life that doesn't affect other people should be left alone. If someone doesn't like pornography they don't have to watch it. It pays both men and women well. No one is forced into the life of a porn star. It glamorizes sex. That sounds like a good thing to me.
I guess if you believe that sex is something that should be hiddenm not talked about and generally repressed you probably have a problem with pornography. If our nation turns into one where the majority repress their sexual urges and pretend they don't enjoy it it's going to lead to some pretty messed up people. I think the taliban would approve. Once Americans start behaving like the Taliban, we're going to have some serious problems.
Lewd talk and foul language have no place in public discourse. You can express yourself better if you use clean language. Fortunately, lewd talk and fould language aren't necessarily pornography and anyone who attempts to link the two is probably being disingenuous. But, there is no need to use sailor talk in front of women or children, or even men for that matter, unless of course your the president talking about a reporter, or the vice president talking to a senator.
Baby Jesus cries when people make false analagies such as: "It is a crime to defecate in public places, so it should be a crime to defecate foul language with your mouth in public places."
I know this may peeve you so-called "Religious wackos" and Taliban supporters out there, but let's face the facts. America was founded on the separation of church and state. So called religious principles, rights that supposedly come from God are subjective at best. After all our forefathers left England because the current religious based govermnent would persecute them for not behaving exactly as they would like. Those rights include free speech, but some people want to take that away too! You have as much a responsibility to excercise your freedom of speech as you do to vote. (For now at least)
And not comparing this with the totalitarian regimes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq (until not to long ago, thanks to President Bush), is just stupid.
We have been able to maintain a good balance, and if we go too far the *EITHER* way, the public is free to correct the course of events with their votes. Or just go knock a few thousand people off the voter rolls in a tightly contested state.
I say all the radio stations simultaneously play Anthrax's song Startin' Up A Posse http://www.lyricscafe.com/a/anthrax/killerb.html in protest. Of course this won't happen. Why would the radio stations, who are all pretty much owned by Clear Channel and Radio One, want to speak out against the government after the government is helping them build their huge corporate media monopolies. P.S. I would like to take this opportunity to say FUCK on the internet while I still can and not be fined or imprisoned for it.
...for Powell to finally surpass the record indecency fines levied by (Clinton's early FCC chair) Reed Hundt - even without adjusting for inflation.
s px ?aid=239&sid=200
http://www.publicintegrity.org/telecom/report.a
Richard Dreyfuss got all the free publicity he could hope for with those who are all too willing to ignore any past sins in order to villify Bush and his administration. I mean, it's not like it's all that hard to make him look bad, why make stuff up?
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Sex IS glamourous and enjoyable. It's the way we can actually create life. We can show our love for our partners. We can use it for removing stress or for getting what we want. It's a great tool. Check that - it's a great SET of tools.
Not talking about sex (which is forbidden in paces like Afghanistan and Iraq) leads to things like teen pregnancies and high STD transmission rates. My view is that not talking about sex is more offensive than talking about it.
Where did you learn about sex? Ever? Did you watch a film in grade six, or did you learn second-hand from your older brother?
"Lewd" talk has a place in public discourse. We have to tell our kids about pregnancy and disease or they're going to fuck up their lives (pun intended) I have a daughter. My job is to make sure that she uses protection every time she does anything sexual. (I have a lot of time to prepare!) To do less is to abandon her. It is our duty to make sure our kids know about AIDS, syphillis, ghonnorea, hepatitis, herpes, babies, and everything else that goes with sex. If not, then they will find out from a doctor when they get treated - if they are lucky enough to get a treatable disease.
As for your religious leanings, I think you have to review the history of your country. I'm not from the US, and even I know that you're wrong. The US was formed to get away from the tryanny of England. The US citizens were considered second-class to the British. That and the taxation-without-representation. Nothing else. The rest are amendments, which should be looked at with the same light as the 18th amendment. (Wherein a black man is worth 1/14 of the worth of a white man.) You do not get your rights from God. You get these rights from the legislature - other humans. That's right; everything you have in your country is from the work of other humans. If you don't get out there and kick the shit out of people who try to take away what other humans have worked towards, you get Afghanistan or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria.
You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you harm none. You have the right to free speech, including things like "I'm going to fuck you up the ass." You have a duty to protect my right to say that - as much as it offends you.
As for Bush, he's a war-monger. If he was serious about human rights violations, he'd invade China or Saudi Arabia. However, he's going after people with a connection to Oil that he doesn't have economic ties to. Nothing has changed in Afghanistan or Iraq, except now there are more people willing to take up the sword to kill Americans. If he wanted to prevent war and was serious, he would have landed thousands of troops in Iran after the earthquake to rebuild schools, mosques, and hospitals.
Remember, the "W" in George W Bush stands for "Wha' Happen?!?"
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
True, there has been a large outcry about this lack of enforcement. I remember watching the noted conservatives Tipper Gore (sic) testify before Congress about the need to impose labeling standards on albums, and the cry from the entertainment industry about censorship.
A lot of people of various political strips have shouted for years that there has been no enforcement of standards, and called for censorship of even commercials for being a "bad influence on children". Different political sides call it different things. One popular term right now is "enforcing community standards".
My standards are that I don't like being around people that spend their lives spewing vulgarities for the sake of being vulgar. I have two nephews that couldn't get two sentences out consecutively without saying "F...". They're getting better; now that they're finding out that employers don't like it, they can sometimes go hours without calling someone a whore, or implying they have sex with ducks, or... you get the picture.
I've watched Howard Stern. He doesn't have to be vulgar to be good at what he does. But it is his trademark, and he choses to be. Richard Dreyfuss, same thing. But, I think, in his case, he doesn't believe he can be good without the vulgarities.
Some would argue that a cop show, or music video, or [insert show type here] can't be realistic without portraying the vulgarity present in the real world, but I thought the liberal ideal was to move beyond such crassness... You know, the whole Star Trek sanitized future. And yet, some of them are fighting to do just the opposite.
It has to be acknowledged that the rules in question have been in place for
decades
. The current "crackdown" is an attempt to apply them uniformly... Howard Stern isn't the only one who has been fined, he is just one who doesn't care to stop. He should welcome the FCC's new initiative to make the radio stations hang onto tapes, because it will give him and Mancow proof to use against the groups they claim are making false statements about their shows... rather than the FCC just taking the complainer's side.
I'm not keen on nudiy *or* violence on TV.
:) }
As a parent I filter what my kids see.
In addition to my proactive filtering, I think it's a good idea for the government to limit the graphic violence and sexuality sent over the air to my neighbors (or to me.)
From a practical standpoint, while TV/Movie producers stand on a "freedom of speech" platform, their expressions have almost nothing to do with political expression, and everything to do with a mindless appeal to the base nature of man. Why should we promote that? Let's promote media that stimulates people to think, not just to be aroused from an erotic or violence standpoint. I have to give Michael Moore this much. His programming, while disagreeable to me, is really about a political statement and even though I may find it distasteful, he is well within his rights to develop his films.
I don't even let my kids watch most kids programs - because most of them fall into one of two camps:
1. product marketing/tie-in
2. Bad examples of attitudes or behavior.
My kids have lots of toys. Ads convincing them to become materialistic won't make them happier, and I'm happy to help them avoid that trap.
I don't know about your family, but my kids think up enough ways on their own to do bad things that I don't need a constant flow of bad ideas pumped into their heads.
I can recall an episode of Arthur where within a 1 minute period every child lied to an adult and got away with it. Why does this need to be demonstrated for my kids? Rubbish!
As a parent, it's my job to determine what my kids can handle, and limit their consumption accordingly. Over time, as my kids develop the requisite skills for making good choices, my wife and I will give them more freedom to choose. Eventually they will need to live on their own, and it's our job to become obsolete.
Until then, I'm quite comfortable pushing the FCC to limit nudity and violence that is available over the airwaves. As a citizen, that resource is a public trust, and my opinions about what is appropriate for that medium are just as valid as anyone else's.
FWIW - my kids are extremely well behaved, love to read books, respect adults, and are quite happily emotionally connected with both mom and dad. {and they are smarter and better looking than everyone else's kids, too
Lack of access to most TV media has not ruined them so far, and I doubt that it will.
Just my 0.02 (US)
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition isn't about sports, and the pictures aren't pictures of athletes...
Ok, now I'm confused. They're censoring "Fuck", "Shit" and "Blow job". Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now. Really, this whole thing is absolute crap. "Chilling censorship" my ass.
You might want to look back a few years to when Schindler's List was broadcast on NBC (IIRC) with no commercials and no editing for content. I distinctly recall the phrase "fucking bitch" being used.
Word up.
See, here's the problem, Clear Channel can't censor anyone because they're NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
... probably into perpetuity ... next election), and offensive to anyone, of any political stripe, who holds any value for our constitutional rights above any one party's ideology of the moment. Indeed, it is no more appropriate to censor public political speech for "economic" reasons than it is to censor expression on PBS, or any other party, for right-wing religiously defined "moral" reasons.
Bullshit.
You are defining censorship as a subset of itself: government censorship. There are numerous kinds of censorship, including a few that are appropriate (parental censorship being one) and many, many which are not, including political censorship (by anyone in a public role), corporate censorship of the public airways, and government censorship.
Clear channel's actions certainly fall in the category of political censorship, which to virtuall all Americans of the non-neoconservative and a fair number of even that ever-more radical group, is considered unamerican. It also falls into the category of corporate censorship, which may be appropriate within the walls of a corporate office, but certainly is not appropriate when applied to the public airwaves.
In this case we are dealing with politically motivated censorship of the public airwaves by a corporation in an effort to silence political dissent. This is an aggregious violation of American values and political tradition (kind of like the last stolen election, and like the quite possibly soon-to-be "postponed"
The fact that it is a private company violating and actively suppressing our freedom of speech (whether as a proxy for those currently in the government, or as a misguided private policy dictated by simple greed, or a toxic political agenda), rather than the government directly, is immaterial to the fact that our rights as a people have been suppressed, and political dialog silenced as a result.
This is unamerican in the truest sense of the word, and should absolutely not be tolerated, much less touted as appropriate because one assumes the motiviation to be nothing more than banal greed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
When did /. become TV Guide?
"Breasts are proof God doesn't want babies to starve, and that all men suffer from an oedipus complex."
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Maybe my brains are so fried I can't see the forest through the trees (or whatever the phrase is, you the point), but it seems like our society is branching to into societies; old world and new world.
The old world is system where the politics and judicary are attempt to make the world be the way it (political and legal systems) needs in order to survive. Ref: DCMA and this article on censorship.
The new world, on the other hand, tries to solve problems and doesn't need or care about politics or legal boundaries.
It seems to me, that until one of these worlds wins and the other gives in, the anarchy and confusion will only get worse.
Personally, I hope the old world goes away. It seems like it could end up like another dark ages to me....
The producers of the new PBS drama series "Cop Shop" say they're "enormously grateful" to the FCC for an "absurd" new list of words it demands not be used on television no way no how, and to the vice president of the United States for using one of those words on the floor of the U.S. Senate, because they have given people "at last a battle we can all understand -- the forces of dark versus light."
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
John Kerry didn't mumble it. He in fact authorized that the expletives be published. In fact, I believe that if you search for expletives on John Kerry's own website, you will find numerous articles quoting John Kerry. At least it was that way a while ago.
Dick Cheney was wrong to use expletives on the floor of the senate. I don't admire him any more for doing that. It's not cool. It's not what President Bush stands for, and I am sure he got a word or two from the President.
I do not like the direction politics is heading. I don't like people calling each other names. I do want to hear debates on people's records and their policies, beliefs, and plans for our future, however. Let the candidates attack each other on those issues, but ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
"Clear Channel can't censor anyone because they're NOT THE GOVERNMENT."
Of course ClearChannel can censor. They do it all the time for matters relating to FCC "decency", else why pay the fines?
The question is rather this: Since ClearChannel is using a PUBLIC resource (frequencies claimed by the gov't), to what extent can they legally censor views that are unfavorable to their corporate agenda?
That's a grey area that should be regularly questioned by all to keep it in line with reasonable access to the airwaves. A lazy electorate deserves the government they get.
J'accuse!
There is more than enough evidence raised by Fahrenheit 9/11 that deserves deeper investigation.
So, let me see if I understand this. It's acceptable and appropriate for the Vice President of the United States to hurl profanities against a United States Senator on the floor of the United States Senate (not in session) but it's not acceptable or appropriate for an actor playing a United States Police Officer to do the same on a PBS TV show.
I fail to see the logic of that.
r
So adults with money can pay to hear adults talk like adults, but poor adults are treated like children. Sounds like you agree that these PBS censorship initiatives *are* connected to their new Republican crony board members, and are pleased, and of course won't admit that in public. Your partisan repugnance at "prepared statements" from actors who read prepared statements is similarly appropriate to a party represented by actors like Schwarzenegger, Reagan, and even Bush, who's never had an original idea in his life, and every move is scripted. If only we could vote with our remote on them.
--
make install -not war
' replaces a letter
...
What does ' replace in
John's bike
Jill's bike
3M's new product?
Take THAT bad-natured grammar naziry!
Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now. Really, this whole thing is absolute crap. "Chilling censorship" my ass.
I don't watch PBS (I don't have a TV), but Google turns up a lot of hits on PBS for "fuck". At least some of these search results are transcripts from TV shows that were broadcast.
"# Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)
# Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern."
When have we NOT held that public nudity and swearing in public are a bad thing? Especially on the broadcast airwaves? When have we EVER allowed it?
"# Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack.
# Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with."
One, what the fuck does either of these issues have to do with this show? And two, when has the press ever been NOT free to question the adequecy of national security, except during wartime? We're in a war right now (whether some people want to admit it or not), and none one has ever been censored for questioning national security. No press freedoms have been curtailed at ALL, unlike WW II, where official censors got to look at everything the press did before it was published.
And not allowed to speak ill of the power structure? What??? Michael Moore's movie is proof that's bullshit. And the news networks don't seem to have any problem criticizing officials, elected and otherwise.
"sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once."
You can pine for a never-existant utopia all you want, but for the most part, we have as much freedom as we've ever had. With the exceptions of some things like the DMCA, tell me what freedom's we've lost that used to be written in law? Even the Patriot Act doesn't affect the vast majority of people in this country.
PBS took prudent steps to obey the law and accepted public standards (which are far more lax now than they've ever been). There's no chilling effect here, just the whine of some people that want to scream oppression and censorship to get publicity.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
PBS is about as non-commercial as Fox. The big difference is they call them "sponsors" and put them at the beginning or end of the program. Oh yeah, they also get tax dollars.
Let's face it, PBS could survive on basic (or pay) cable if it wanted to. But there's no reason for it to, with its mouth firmly planted on the government's teat. Plus they'd have to give up the tweed, which would be devastating.
You can only be modded as insightful becasue people have no idea about PBS...which is a shame. There are members in our (US) government that are stepping way out of bounds. So far in fact, that I believe it is news for everywhere. yes, 8 years ago it would have been different, but then the community wasn't trying to fight for basic rights. I would also like to point out that the FCC has never gone against the PBS, ever.They would show nudity, and foul language. Quite frankly, a government agency saying what you are not allow to say is, in fact, about one of the most basic freedoms in the consitution.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
This just in...
Cheney, representing the Administeration, offered a response to Richard Dreyfuss's charges.
"Go fuck yourself Dreyfuss"
It's not censorship if you have another, legal means of expressing your opinion/work of art/etc...
Dreyfuss is pissed that his labor of love won't be shown to the masses in it's 'pristine' form; so what does he do? He cries 'censorship!'
"Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! The big evil government won't let me say 'fuck, shit, or blow-job' on the same channel that kids watch Sesseme Street on!!"
Dude, that's why we have HBO, Showtime, and dozens of other channels on cable/sat tv. Go show your freak show there.
Nothing to see here.... move along....
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Actually, what you're suggesting (from a different viewpoint) is that poor people's children should be able to go from Sesame Street to foul language, with no voice from some parents (who are actually concerned about bad language in their household) being heard. At least that would be the liberal viewpoint
Like it or not, the norm in American households, especially those with children in them, is to refrain from using what most people (wether they use it or not) deem to be foul language. I can't speak for all Americans, obviously, but I would wager that most agree they don't want it on public television, especially public television funded with their hard earned tax dollars.
Spend a little less time trying to make the simplest of events a "Republican vs. Democrat" issue and realize this one is more an issue of enforcing what has been enforced in the past, nothing more.
I, for one, appreciate the fact that I can still count on PBS being a channel that my children can watch without hearing language that isn't appropriate for a 10 year old to use daily, or being subject to Dennis Franz' ass.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
You can also get pretty good economic advice and news on PBS on Friday.
"I'm going to go pick up my girlfriend."
"I'm going to go pick up my bitch."
Hate to say it, but the latter is becoming synonymous with the former in many urban areas.
So urban dog ownership is on the rise, eh?
Michael.Powell@fcc.gov
Hey, at least you'll make some wanker at the FCC waste their time deleting email, rather than finding more stuff to censor.
Personally, I told him I know of another group that gets pissed off when a woman shows too much skin. They are called the Taliban.
If you take away the right to say "fuck" you take away the right say "fuck Bush".
You may think it's a troll. Laugh yourself silly all the way to global destruction
Years ago, I think it was Radiohead, they commented on this in regard to censorship in U.S. media. Do you recall that video with the corporate type in the gimp outfit who cuts off his legs, drowns and runs into a mermaid?
Well, it ran into a censorship kafuffle. Not because of the axe, not because of the blood, but because the mermaid had nipples.
S&M, kinky sex acts, dismemberment and death are o.k. for children, but nipples! I think the band commented something to the effect of "American children are going to grow up thinking that women don't have nipples!"
1. The questionable dialog was removed by the show producers and PBS, not the government. This was a choice they made. Yes, I know, based on their fear of retribution, but I didn't see any FCC edicts demanding they change the show's dialog. If they're so concerned about "censorship," why didn't they leave it in and challenge the regulations?
2. PBS is partially funded with taxpayer money and private contributions. I suppose they feared losing their taxpayer dollars, which they should if the thumb their noses at FCC policy. No matter what your beliefs on this issue are or what your political positions happen to be, rules are rules. If you don't want to follow them, get into another line of work. As for the private funding, there may be a fear of losing some of that support as well. Just becasue someone contributes to PBS doesn't mean they aren't sensitive to these things.
3. If this show is so damn good, what's it doing on PBS anyway? If they sold it to Showtime or HBO, they'd have a smaller audience but all the so-called artistic freedom they want. Heck, The Sporanos isn't seen by a lot of people based on the reach of broadcast and non-premium cable channels, but do you know anyone who hasn't heard of it? Think of the DVD deals that would be possible...
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
Pornography is indecent. I think any sane person agrees with that.
Yup. Of course, your definition of pornography might be different than mine.
It has no role in public or private life.
What you mean to say is that you think it shouldn't have a role in public or private life. Pornography is a very sucessful business. I'd say it most certainly plays a role in public and private life. That doesn't mean it is good, of course. Death, poverty, hunger...these things also play a role in public and private life.
It demeans women, turns them into toys.
No it doesn't.
It glamorizes sex.
Yup.
That's the problem.
Why is it a problem to glamorize sex?
I can think of only two bad effects this might have:
a) People might be disappointed because they were expecting something better? I doubt that's your concern.
b) People will seek out sex because it has been made to seem more desirable than it really is.
I can see how you might be worried about B but a better bet than making porn illegal would be to distribute drugs to kill people's sex drive.
It is the sex drive that causes people to seek out pornography, not vice versa.
I guess if you believe that sex is something that should be done outside of marriage, then you probably don't have a problem with pornography.
Yup!
If our nation turns into one where the majority don't value the sanctity of life or the sanctity of the institution created by God to bring forth that life, pornography is the least of our worries.
Why?
Lewd talk and foul language have no place in public discourse. You can express yourself better if you use clean language.
If you're talking to a bunch of Puritans your message will be delivered much more effectively if you avoid using "foul" language. Why? Because they'll stop listening to you if you don't cater to their preferences. It's like that with any group.
My favorite author, Isaac Asimov, agreed with your sentiment. He felt it unnecessary to include a great deal of swearing in his stories. I remember one of his characters would go around screaming "Unprintable!" all the time. It was funny.
But it was INTENDED to be funny.
A lot of TV shows, movies, books, etc...will use foul language simply because having people shout "Fiddlesticks!" or "Golly jeepers!" when they're being shot at would just be comical. That (generally) isn't the intended effect.
They did do (roughly) that in "O Brother Where Art Thou?" And people laughed. Point made, I hope?
The fact is that this these particular stories are generally about "coarse" people and that's the way they speak.
"SHAFT! You're gosh-darn-tootin' right."
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
There is no need to use sailor talk in front on women or children, or even men for that matter.
Hmmm....sure is interesting that you lump women and children in the same group. Unconsciously too, I'll bet.
It is a crime to defecate in public places, so it should be a crime to defecate foul language with your mouth in public places.
You do know that "defecate" means exactly the same thing as "shit", right? Except that "shit" will work as a verb OR a noun.
You've decided that saying "shit" will somehow destroy society but that saying "defectate" is okay.
Weird.
That said, if I'm visiting an elementary school I'm not going to go around yelling "Shit!" all the time.
But not because I think it's going to hurt anyone.
I just don't want to cause a scene because people like you get so riled up about it sometimes.
I know this peeves you so-called "liberals" and libertarians out there, but let's face the facts.
Why don't we? All you've mentioned so far are your opinions. I'd love to hear some facts.
America was founded on religious principles, that rights come from God, that government is supposed to p
Richard Dreyfus insisted that he is, in fact, still alive and is a well known actor who we might know from such movies as "Jaws" and "The Making of Jaws."
[-- Trust the Monkey --]
The apostrophe in possesives replaces the letter 'e'. Back in the day, English, like Latin and German, has a system of 'cases', changed word endings used to denote different uses of words. The genetive (possesive) ending was 'es'. At some point, we stopped using cases, but we still needed a way to denote the possesive, and the apostrophe-s was born.
This is just another example of where people need to stop and think about their worship of Hollywood. Dryfuss and his ilk are *insisting* that the American people need to have the most vulgar of words pumped into their homes whether the officials they elected want it or not. Are we really to believe that the artistic glory of this program will be somehow tarnished by the omission of this trash? And yet we're also supposed to listen to their political opinions as defenders of the common man and representatives of goodness. Pathetic hypocrites.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Emphasis mine.
If it were only as Mr. Dreyfuss states, then fix would be easy and attendent politically inflammatory overtone would be fully warrented, but unfortunatly not the case.
Let me explain in a non-partisan statement of frustration from an FCC broadcast license holder (and if you call me a DJ, I'll subject Seattle drive time to the lost treasures of radio - Boy Band phone interviews circa 2001 and a capella in-studio "performances" for a week straight, something arguably a crime in and of itself, but I digress):
From the FCC website,
These 5 Commissioners are charged with protecting the public's interest of the public airways and regulating conflicts between competing uses and interests - it is unspecified with respect to what exactly any of those things may be.
The next opportunity for appointments comes June 30, 2006, and the Commissioners are not subject to oversight - they, in their unspecified but sweeping jurisidiction are the oversight. This common unspecified theme is the bane of all broadcasters, big and small.
If you've read this far, you undoubtedly have indentified the problem, a marked absence traditional checks and balances-style controls - so while political pressures are undoubtedly present, a given President does not have the legal authority to remove an FCC Commissioner or direct the FCC's actions.
So, yes, it is censorship - but forget the partisan BS for the moment, this is a larger issue:
5 more or less untouchable Commissioners able to decide what all Americans can or cannot air... not matter how well-intended, if this sounds like a raw deal to you (the public they are protecting), then write your Congressional Representative and let them know.
Also: I wonder if one could make a movie so violent it couldn't be shown on American Television. Probably not, though the stuff that passes for kid's programming in Japan (Based on what I saw while living there in the 70s) has to be quietly played after midnight here in the states. What's so wrong with animated decapitation, anyway?
Finally for the more prudish of the audience: I wanted to finish this post with gratuitous pictures of penisses but Slashdot doesn't allow that, so just take the penisses as read. Thanks.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The Federalist Papers, the DoI, and the Bible, while very important documents, do not have the force of law in this country. The Constitution, however, does. In God We Trust isn't a Christian saying, rather it was an anti-godless-Communism, McCarthy-era addition to our currency.
Christianity is not now, nor has ever been, a requirement for citizenship in the USA.
And I'd like to quote:
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Seems to me that we've been on the defensive for far too long. It's always been assumed that the public airwaves have to be censored into some transient notion of acceptability. Those who want to view programming as originally created need to pay to get it, through cable, satellite, and so forth.
What we need is a movement that will force the information sanitization types to pay for what _they_ want...censorship. Why shouldn't they be the ones who have to subscribe to censorship services?
A simple black box, connected to an appropriate service, can censor the TV picture and sound at will. Good old private industry can provide the censorship. Everybody's happy!
Oh, wait. As if it was about controlling what _they_ see. It's really about controlling what the rest of us do with our lives...
Well shit, we thought the yank's where nuts for pushing this reality tv shite. I wonder who does like it...
#### ## Laroue ####
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I think the title says it all; I think this is a violation of the moderation guidelines. I still think you're wrong, but you're mostly on topic and you're reasonably coherent. You've garnered ten responses, which I find a better indicator of excellence than how many points you get.
Alas, it looks like someone's neglected to read the moderation guidelines. I'm emailing taco - are you?
"I don't agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." - Voltaire.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Well, for what it's worth, not me.
I personally believe that if something is really that repugnant, that awful, then by all means, drag it out into the light where we can all see it. Where it can be properly (refuted|laughed at|buried in vomit).
There is NO need for the government to feed the trolls by letting them cloak themselves in martyrdom. You wanna say some ugly shit? Go ahead. Now I know you're an asshole, and I can deal with you appropriately. Remember that you cannot be a responsible adult unless you can make informed decisions. No information = No decisions = No responsibility. (Unless you're a coward who actually wants it that way?)
Meanwhile, we must also make sure that we don't ever suppress something that must be said. We must make sure that Truth can be spoken to Power. And we must make sure that Power isn't allowed to shoot the Messenger.
It's about time people began to speak out against censorship. Indecency is a personal moral judgement. Enforcing your personal beliefs through political means is just plain wrong. If you're offended, change the channel. If you're worried about your children, change the channel--I'm sure there's a channel out there that you won't find offensive and that will help to "educate" your children in the manner you prefer. After all, there's always reality TV.
As far as I know, fuck and shit have never been allowed on public television. If you want to hear those words en masse, pay for HBO and watch the Sopranos.
"Fuck" is rare to the point of extinction on PBS. "Shit" is not so rare, as implied by this transcript of an interview with PBS producer Rebecca Eaton.
Usually, it's the broadcast networks who've been squeamish about "bad language," for fear of offending advertisers. PBS's sponsors have usually done so for the prestige factor-- and pulling one's sponsorship or insisting on censorship can have a tendency to backfire.
For instance, my local public television station was quite willing to show Blackadder episodes uncut. When Comedy Central shows them, some of the coarser dialogue may get cut, which, of course, interferes with the delayed punchlines two scenes later.
HBO is a commercial enterprise, and as such, is not immune from commercial pressure. The films HBO shows are almost invariably ones with a proven commercial record of success, while PBS, at least occasionally, shows material of some artistic but little commercial value.
Given, also, that Dreyfuss and Black read from prepared statements, I would suggest that they planned for such an event, and had hoped to use it to gain publicity for a program that, being aired on PBS, was guaranteed a low Nielson rating.
There's little sense in not being prepared. Perhaps these preparations were started because of rumors. BTW, PBS doesn't use Neilson ratings. The individual stations may occasionally survey their members, however.
Well, that ought to be modded informative.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Why does that rich bastard Dreyfuss think he has carte blanche (sp?) with my tax dollars? He can do whatever the f*ck he wants to, but not if I'm paying for it. And if any of my tax money goes to PBS, the I DESERVE A SAY in how it is used. And I don't want to hear any left- or right- wing bullshit about freedom of expression. Go express yourself on your own f*cking dime. BC
Picture a decrepit room maybe an old office in an abondonned factory. Various though guys handling weapons and calling each other various colors are obviously preparing for something. Now in the corner is playing a tv. Right before they move out a Dutch tv program with boobies comes on. Will the men A. go out and commit murder or B. go oooh bouncies and be couch potatoes for the rest of the evening.
Boobies for peace! Instead of a dove we should have a tittie. During the olympics instead of realsing a thousand white doves all the women bare their breasts. Colors of the world UNITE and jiggle for peace!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I honestly think that if Bush is way down in the polls in November, he will find a way to postpone the election under some guise of national security. There were already articles about how Tom Ridge has been instructed to postpone the election in case of "disaster".
If you want to reverse the censorship of this administration, vote against them. I remember watching Alaister Cooke Masterpiece Theater as a kid and routinely hearing the f-bomb or seeing some topless woman in some victorian romance. Hell, there is a classic Monty Python sketch where Palin walks into a smoke shop and the news clerk is a topless woman. Saw that when I was like 10 years old on PBS.
If Bush has his way, we will need streaming video over the internet to watch a PBS that has been driven offshore because it's been replaced with 24/7 programming about Jesus and how Darwin was wrong.
Word up.
With one exception. The Fox News Sunday 'round-table' is actually pretty good. They usually have Mara Liasson & Juan Williams from NPR across the table from Brit Hume (Fox) and another conservative (whose name I fail to recollect). Good commentary, similar to the McLaughlin group.
Of course, someone now is going to say 'see! public radio & public television are tools of the Left.' On the sunday morning panel, Juan is definately taking a 'leftie' view, while Mara is more neutral. During his day job, I'd say Juan is largely neutral.
Richard Dreyfuss made a movie for public television. If he can't understand what the guidelines are for language or content according to the FCC and PBS rules, he's not being a competent director or editor. The FCC and PBS are simply asking the production company of the movie to adhere to the FCC and PBS standards and practices, and to use good taste and common sense. This is perfectly normal. Richard, calm down and behave.
Oh and to people that use "prOn". DIE, you are one step away from people like bush and it is a step on the wrong side. Wether it is the holocaust, communist dictatorships, McCarthy trials, catholic priest child abuse, badly bodged police investigate of the Dutroux case, they all got one thing in common. Censorhip being attempted and accepted.
Most of us can do very little but the little we can do is not censor ourselves.
Oh well I am having bad hope that this will all blow over. Dutch tv was way way way more liberal then anything american and we now too got people going about morality. Strangely enough the ones complaining about morals always are the same people that take funding away from hospitals and education. Odd that.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Then watch parents squirm and whine...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Now thats funny. You rightly suggest that a mod bump up the AC parent to your post & get the 'Offtopic'. Apparently that one forgot to follow the suggestion that points be used to mod up rather than down.
I for one am mighty impressed with Richard Dreyfus's words on this censortship. Kudos to him for that.
It's getting so that one can scarcely hear oneself think over the din of Liberals loudly proclaiming how they've been censored.
(Hint for the irony-impaired: think before you mod.)
The problem with your questions is that he's held to a *lower* standard.
Were that I say, pancakes?
> post and times are not liberal
Yes, they are.
The Army reading list
"...tell me what freedom's we've lost that used to be written in law?"
Amendment 10, 1792:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means EVERY SINGLE RIGHT AND POWER IS OURS UNTIL THE GOVERNEMENT IS GIVEN THAT POWER. It is up to US to keep them from doing so. So far we haven't don't a good job.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
This may seem offtopic, but I can remember learning about the McCarthy era in school, and wondering how my parents' generation could have let something like that happen in America. And now my generation is going through the exact same thing, except replacing our irrational fear of "Communism" with an irrational fear of "Terrorism". It's sad to think that in a country like America, with all of our talk of Freedom, that the citizens would let stuff like this happen. It's even sadder that we've been down this road before and we never learned from our mistakes. When I have kids of my own, and they learn about Bush and Ashcroft and the crazy things we did in the name of a War on Terror, I'm going to be so embarassed.
In another totally offtopic rant, I feel the exact same way about the way we currently treat homosexuals in this country. I mean, it's hard to imagine how ignorant people must have been during the Civil Rights Movement to actually think that blacks didn't deserve the same treatment as whites, and yet our current administration is actively trying to introduce a Constitutional Amendment to deny gays the right to get married. Once again, I'll be very ashamed of my generation when my kids learn about this stuff in school.
-Mike
Of course your main point, that the President's spokesperson was declaring a censored "off limits" topic is completely valid.
yes, let's not have them say anything about it beforehand. let's wait for them to get hit with the new $3000000US fine first, then they (and us!) have a right to complain about it
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Perhaps not in america, over here in the free world we didn't use to believe in censorship. (sadly that is changing, the bbc now has the most idiotic warnings, even warning in news programs that some of the news may be upsetting, geez what the fuck? Next instead of images from war we show images of fluffy kittens and tell people all is well and good? Even in holland this kind of stuff is happening wich is why I am aggresive about it) Apart from some rules about hardcore porn not before a certain time it was pretty much let up to the tv-station and the viewer to decide what was appropriate. So the EO (christian) didn't swear or show nudity, the VPRO (liberal) has had some childeren shows with full frontal nudity. Veronica (youth) had a program when AIDS was a hot item that showed everything related to sex and aids. Including how to use a condom. Various sex acts were enacted for real by pornstars.
Other more recent programs also show that in holland pretty much anything goes. And while I don't want to watch a girl getting a piercing thought her labia (with her dad holding her hand for encouragement for some reason I couldn't fathom) I certainly don't want the state to tell me I can't watch it.
Being told what can be said and what can't is a slippery slope. What next, a ban on programs dealing with homosexuality? A ban on a critical movie of american soldiers? Or far more subtle a ban on a tv-show about the KKK because the word nigger is not allowed?
America has an odd history in that it never really been under the control of an oppressor. Most of the rest of the world has and we know that once people stop you from saying things the next step is to stop you from breathing. Fuck and shit may not be much in the grandscheme of things. But I am thinking that someone else is thinking "babysteps".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Certainly very few online sources censor themselves this way. See Salon, Slate, et al.
In addition, the Washington Post's print edition printed "Fuck You" in all its un-asterisked glory. I heard it was only the third time that newspaper has done so (the other two being contained in transcripts of President Nixon's White House conversations)
American isn't under a complete blanket of self-censorship. You simply must find responsible sources and support them - which is why I subscribe to Salon and give subscriptions as gifts.
The FCC and gang is just a bunch of bast....
Sorry, we must interrupt this post due to graphical language that may not be acceptable to all viewing audiences. We now return you to the remainder of the post.
And that's all I have to say about that!
"It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs."
I wish people would not bring politics into this. It is not un-American for TV shows to be censored nor is it a Republican or Democrat issue.
Censorship to television has been happening ever since television started, same for radio. See, they use public airwaves, which makes them defferent from other media, like newspapers. Since over the air programing is free to view, it must contain contant that is free to view by all people, childeren encluded. If you want something stronger, pay for it.
Several decades ago, people sleept is seperate beds and you could not say pregnat on the air. So I do not buy the argument that we are censoring more now then before.
Also, Wasn't it the Clinton Administration that wanted to censor talk radio a decade ago? Where was Richard Dryfus then? Now one likes to see there project get censored but lets be fair about it! Its been going on for decades.
media responds to the audience, media is not trying to corrupt the american audience, the audience is simply what it is and simply responds to what it wants, and if there were not an audience for a particular show, it wouldn't survive
it's as simple as that jack, it's a marketplace of ideas, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, the american media market is in a feedback cycle played against what the audience wants
so you don't like what's on tv? you're blaming the wrong thing: blame your fellow american, because that's what they want to see
if you don't happen to like what is on television, you turn the thing off
yes, nancy, it really is that simple
what you propose is that government somehow should filter what we see and hear because 1. they know better than we do, and 2. gosh, we are so weak and frail a bad work will simply knock us over, a nipple will corrupt our minds... all the while, the level of violence which seems perfectly acceptable on television and the movies doesn't seem to register a peep ("the passion of the christ" was the single most violent movie i've ever seen, and church pastors were telling their flcoks' CHILDREN to see that movie... but a nipple for 3 seconds? AAAAHHH THE IMMORAL HORROR!)
well, my friend, the way you think about your world and your relationship with your government is simply undemocratic, it's censorial: you think the government should tell you what to see and hear
you would fit in well in china or iran, where the government does exactly what you think it should do
to use a term flung about by the far right against its critics but in truth really fits well with your rationale: you're unamerican
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Last paragraph should read "pro-Nazi" not "Nazy". I've been at work too long today. :-)
I really don't think that article proves anything. Maybe they're focusing on Bush a little more than neccesary, but Bush campaign is doing a lot of negative campaigning.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
The obvious solution is that instead of saying "blow job" you look away from the camera, cover the side of your face and whisper quietly and spell it out.
b-l-o-w j-o-b
Or you could just call it "oral sex" which is a phrase heard on the news at least a few times. It's okay to say that and not "blow job" for the same reason it's okay to say "penis" but not "cock."
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Some may consider this a rant, but I hope someone finds it enlightening.
As a filmmaker (Director, producer, writer, editor), my productions are not G-rated, but they're not pr0n either. I create full-length low-budget (but good!) vampire movies. PG-13 to R-rated films only.
The content of the film is there for a reason. If I wanted to take an f-word out of it, I would have done it in the editing process. I find it offensive that the FCC, a branch of the United State Government has the right to require the cut of my film against my wishes just so someone of an extreme religious belief would not be offended. Trust me, I'm TRYING to offend them.
As we all know, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that Congress shall make no laws pertaining to the excercise of free speech. Oh, but Congress can make the FCC that will do that for them so Congress looks innocent.
Why isn't the world's directors, studios, actors, producers and so on begging and funding the ACLU to take this on? If I drive over the border to Canada right now and be interviewed on radio, I can say "Fuck" all night long on it. They don't care. They believe that of you don't like the speech, don't listen to it. Good rule.
America, land of the semi-free, is the most free country on the face of the earth. Then why are we not allowed to speak to the public any way we want? Why MUST the government censor us?
Ask the Vatican...
(I make no apologies to those I may have offended. My speech is free. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. If I didn't mean it, i wouldn't have written it in the first place.)
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Doesn't it sound absurd, that you're not allowed to say "fuck" on public frequencies (that you can't use anyway but for a very limited portion) yet you can say "fuck" on cable TV ?
What's the difference ? Can't you just tune to another station or use the almighty remote (the last and least power we still have) like every people with half a brain does ?
And given that public frequencies are public, why are they subject to the desires of just a portion (a minority I guess) of the population ?
Hey a show about cops!
Alan: Right, OK. 'Shoestring', 'Taggart', 'Spender', 'Bergerac', 'Morse'. What does that say to you about regional detective series'?
Tony: There's too many of them?
Alan: That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is, 'people like them, let's make some more of them'.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
When you're not allowed to say 'fuck', you're not allowed to say 'fuck the government'.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
... when people's idea of what constitutes a violation of free speech comes down to being stopping from saying "Fuck" on television. If saying "Fuck" is so pivotal to the show that telling them to bleep it out would somehow distort the message then the writers of that show are no talent hacks and deserve to be censored if only to spare the rest of us from their schlock. A truly talented writer or director would work around this hurdle and make something memorable. Someone already brought up Monty Python so I'll use them again as an example: having little or no budget restricted them from using more expensive props and sets. Much had to be improvised and then left up to the audience to appreciate. The Holy Grail would have been much different had the budget been larger. George Lucas is another example: give a man everything he needs and put no obstacles in front of him and you'll end up with something far inferior than if you actually made him work.
Yeah, and our generation was the first one to discovers sex!
Try the 1920s and early 30s (pre WWII). While perhaps public nudity wasn't exactly allowed, the youth of the 20s and 30s really knew how to party. Everything goes in cycles and it is naive to assume that everything before us was conservative and that we are asymptotically moving to a more permissive society.
...you can say a thing, doesn't mean you should.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Responsible parents control what their children watch on TV. If you're naive enough to misunderstand the connection between this censorship and the Republican morality takeover, ask your parents to explain it to you.
--
make install -not war
An apostrophe is used in a possessive. Always, with two exceptions. (This is current usage in the United States, as defined by the most recent version of Strunk & White. There are other opinions, but yours isn't even on the radar.)
The first exception is irregular pronoun possessives, such as 'its', 'her', 'their', 'my', and so forth. The only one of those that is confusing is 'its', unless you find it necessary to say 'their's bike'
Jason's bike is bigger than her bike, but my bike's tires are bigger than its entire frame. (Which is actually not a great example, because it's not 100% clear what the 'its' is referring to, but oh well.)
The second exception is the possessive form of a plural noun that ends in s. A decent but not perfect guideline here is that if you pronounce the possessive, the word ends in apostrophe-s, whereas if you don't, it doesn't.
If you're a normal American, you pronounce those both the same way, despite the fact that one is the possessive of dress and one is the possessive of dresses.
So, the dress's buttons [one dress] were ripped off in a freak salami accident.
She wanted to find the dresses' manufacturer [several dresses] but he had been deported to South America for execrable taste.
More examples:
My brother's [one brother] earlobes need to be waxed again.
My brothers' [several brothers] shares of the inheritance are currently sitting in a bank in Nigeria.
The media's terrible liberal bias was never more evident than when they all cooperated to destroy Al Gore. [Media is a plural, but since it doesn't end with an s, it gets an apostrophe-s. Same with, for example, women's, men's, etc.]
Where do names come into it? Well, there are some weird things with plural last names (the Joneses' car? The Jones's car? The Joneses's car?) but on the whole... nowhere.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Slashdot.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Perhaps you meant the letter 3 and the number Fuck You!
Kramit de Frog!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
No? Is that an exaggeration? Thought so. So is saying those papers maintain America is evil. I seriously doubt there's any evidence of that in the entire output of either paper, but do feel free to keep looking (here's a hint: that article wasn't it).
The parent post gets modded:
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
70% Flamebait
30% Informative
Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 0
So the people who'd also find it informative can't see it as it's modded down. Bad system.
--
make install -not war
PBS Feels Thrill Of Screaming "Censorship," gains free publicity for lame cop show.
It's just you. I guess you missed the day in poly-sci where they discussed governmental neologisms and press handling. The typical sound bite is only 7 seconds, and to fit into that time frame, the Government has adopted some official abbreviations:
Patriotic Supporting the President, no matter how erroneous or immoral the action. Un-American Something that the President doesn't like. Terrorist activity A more serious form of being Un-American, this occurs when two or more people in a room question US foreign policy. Terrorism Charges Not an actual crime per se, but rather, a way of slandering a person's character without telling anyone what, exactly, the accused allegedly did wrong. Terrorism Charges may also indicate the person engaged in un-American activities. War on Terror A blanket justification for whatever the Government feels like doing at the moment. If a government action is identified as part of the War on Terror, this implies that criticism of said action would be unpatriotic and un-American. Terrorist Country A country which did not support the US invasion of Iraq. Enemy Combatant Someone who disagrees with the President. May also be used to denote a citizen of a Terrorist Country. Note that this implies the person is un-American, meaning they could be subject to Terrorism Charges. To qualify as an Enemy Combatant, one merely needs to disagree with US foreign policy and have visited a Terrorist Country in their lifetime. Someone who has never left the US may qualify as an Enemy Combatant if they meet certain ethnic, racial, religious or political criteria, or if they have ever had contact with such individuals. Known Terrorist Some the US suspects of planning terrorist activities, but remains at large because the US either cannot locate the person, or because the prosecutor needs more time to gather evidence of terrorist activity. Links to Terrorism A Link to Terrorism is established whenever a country, person, or organization comes in contact with a Known Terrorist. The contact need not be intentional to qualify.With these definitions, you should be able to make sense of any government press release. In the odd circumstance when these terms aren't used, you should suspect the Government of telling the truth. Next time, I'll go into Conspiracy-speak.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
tell me about it.. I'm no karma watcher but I was modded -1 Offtopic less than a minute after posting, it makes me wonder
Speak truth to power.
From: Merriam-Webster
Gee, I don't see any mention of government in there, do you?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I'm sick of hearing lazy, uneducated parents bitch about the inconvience of explaining things like sex and swear-words to their kids. If you don't like having that responsibility, maybe you shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place. Stop putting the burden of your demonseed on the rest of us.
Besides, the television is not a suitable replacement for a parent, though someone will have to point out to me how it's much worse than the lazy breeders who try to pass off the raising of their spawn to everyone else. If you're trying to mold mainstream media into something that can raise your kids, you need to protect your children from yourself.
Pry your brat away from the TV and maybe read a book to it instead...if you can read.
The problem with our full-time lawmaking body isn't that they think they need to continually make new laws. They often do; the world changes quite a bit. I might agree that they don't need to make quite as many as they do, but they certainly do need to make them.
The problem is that they never get rid of the old, useless, and ridiculous ones, nor update any of the old ones for new situations. So, for example, the state of California can sue Greenpeace for interacting with boats in harbor under a law that was intended solely to keep whores from going out to boats at anchor in the nineteenth century and plying their trade.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Another mindless 'we festering cannibals have a better culture than you' post. Methinks it could use a moderation.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
It's "you're," not "your."
Yes you are right, and in future I will make sure that all my posts are grammatically correct just so wankers like you, with nothing better to do, don't go off on one.
What is CSSRepublic
Fuck.
As far as I know, there has been no real attempt to challenge the FCC's fine authority in the courts. Howard Stern has been complaining about the arbitrariness of the fines for almost a decade as he allegedly sees other shows rip off his style and bits without getting the same indecency complaints for them. He said that nobody has bothered challenging the FCC's authority in the past because the fines were relatively token amounts. But now that this is changing, I think we will finally see some good court challenges.
Table-ized A.I.
Whoever "they" are.
Tech Public Policy stuff
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
So what? The president's press secretary can criticize the media all he wants. That's free speech as well. Ari never said the Americans "can't" say anything, just that it shouldn't say certain things. Ari was right and Maher is an ass. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, accountability. You can say whatever you want, but you are held accountable for it.
Contrary to what a lot of the Left like to argue, not all opinions are equal, and free speech doesn't mean you get to say what you want without criticism.
Tough criticism in a free society is not McCarthyism; it's free speech.
-- Andrew Sullivan
The law often allows what honor forbids.
-- Bernard Joseph Saurin
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
With the excising of three not-so-little terms -- "s -- ," "f -- "....
I wonder why sfgate is itself censoring the facts of this story?
"s -- "= shit (I think)"
"f -- "= fuck (I would definetly say so)
If there are any childern present I'd suggest you learn these words. Not that they should be overused but they are definitely part of our linguistic culture. Don't watch too much television. The quality stuff is elsewhere.
You claim that the govt. deserves to have control over the public airwaves. Well, the govt. owns the public libraries operated in every city in this country.
I assume that you're in the United States. Local governments operate the public libraries, not the federal government. However, the fed. gov't influences the policies of local libraries by providing funds to libraries that meet certain qualifications (read: establish certain policies). Of course, any local library is free to reject the federal provisions (and the funds that go with them).
For some reason, though, the government does not apply FCC restrictions to the content of the books it buys to fill these libraries.
The way federal law is written, the FCC isn't part of the library-funding structure, so their rules don't apply.
At some point, our society decided that books=art and regulating the content of the printed page is censorship. Dreyfuss is pushing for his medium (public television) to also qualify as art.
There is a general principle used by the courts that covers this. Books, paintings, statues, etc. existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and are considered to be covered by the first amendment as an existing form of expression that was intended to be covered. Newer technologies are looked upon more skeptically by the courts and are not automatically covered by Constitutional protections--they have to be argued into being protected by really good lawyers. (One day I'll try to find some example court cases, but don't have the energy to do it now.)
In 1996, PBS aired a production of Moll Flanders. It featured numerous topless scenes. Not just fleeting glances, either, but reasonably lengthy scenes with the star's very visible breasts filling a good portion of the screen. There may have been a few scattered complaints, but nothing notable.
Now they can't even say a four-letter word?
Times have changed.
and kids probably don't have to go to the library to read one...
(Well, I'm assuming that commonly available dictionaries aren't censored in the US - they aren't in Australia. We were looking up dictionary definitons of "swear" words in primary school.)
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Yes, Saddam is a war-monger. Why is that an argument against Bush being a war-monger, too?
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I'm offended by the word 'the' and 'is'... Therefore I'm going to get the FCC to censor that as well from TV. :-/ I agree, let those watching TV censor it if it's that bad... Besides they're going to learn about 'bad' words and titties eventually.
Before you critisize someone, try walking a mile in their shoes. Then when you do critisize them, you're a mile away and
Even if you don't agree with what's happening, it's fun to watch people walk a mile in "our" shoes. Now suddenly they don't like restrictive governement rules and regualtions. :D
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Same for NPR.
PBS doesn't stand for pornographic broadcasting system.
They are free to stop taking Taxpayer dollars, else Taxpayers should be able to call the tune as long as they pay the piper.
They should move to cable, put R ratings on their shows so the V chip can cut them out and use whatever language they want. Barney and Big Bird should be public domain since I paid for them.
But they would fold tomorrow without the subsidy. Let them. Or let them quit complaining. Corporations have to follow the stockholders wishes, GSEs have to follow congressional whims.
Let them stop taking taxpayer money and they would be really free.
I know it's late in the thread, but whatever.
I say let them put all the profanity, sex, and violence on American television that they can.
I say let TV be filled with the abominable things we've been discussing. That way when people get sick of it, they will turn off their televisions, stop being so complacent and have room to think, possibly improving life for themselves and their neighbors (via politics, religion, or whatever it is that people don't like to talk about).
If it takes people to be offended to make them turn their TV off and start caring about what happens in real life, that's fine by me.
It could be a change for the better if TV "goes to hell".
Universities get government money, too. Does that mean that the gvt has the right to censor them as well?
John Kerry didn't mumble it. He in fact authorized that the expletives be published. In fact, I believe that if you search for expletives on John Kerry's own website, you will find numerous articles quoting John Kerry. At least it was that way a while ago.
So what? It doesn't do a damn thing to change the fact that they are hypocrites, or that you are a pathetic appologist for them.
The role of the government is ultimately a philosophical position based on worldview. I think that protecting the populous includes restricting things like usury, gambling, prostitution, and what is broadcast by the media.
:)
That's my position, and as a citizen, it's my privilege to communicate that to our nations leaders. It's yours to disagree with me. That's what makes America great!
BTW - what's to stop them from censoring political views? The first amendment.
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Riiiight. It's a decency issue that everyone was perfectly content to let slide forever -- until one day when Howard Stern decided he was going to rag (in his lame, crude, boneheaded way) on the Bush administration and the Iraq war. Then, ta-dum, he suddenly became a threat to decency that we just had to make an example of.
Because, you know, it's really important to turn the screws down on Howard Stern when Janet Jackson's outfit opens. There's a crystal clear connection there.
Fifty years ago, to use your number, the Breen code was muzzling Hollywood. Gee, 1954 -- can you think of anything that was happening politically back then?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Sounds like it's time to googlebomb 'FCC' as something like 'Fucking Censorship Committee' or 'Fucking Channel Censorers' or something.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Um... I am a responsible parent, and I do control what my children watch. In the past, PBS has been a channel that I could be comfortable with them watching without me filtering content. And guess what... it's still going to be that kind of channel. When my tax dollars are used to fund tv, it's going to be something everyone can watch, not just liberally minded people who think children should be subjected to foul language.
And once again, the political spin comes in. Here's something you should ask your parents... "What's the difference between being Republican and being conservative?" I am a conservative person by nature, but have been known to vote Democrat on occasion, as long as they weren't extremely liberal, which is a viewpoint I've never sided with. Some Republican's are liberal too. If everything is Rep/Dem to you, you've got some self education to administer.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
This November, everything will be Republican vs. Democrat, most obviously at the "President/VP" question. Which boolean will you decide? Because the Bush answer means that your PBS channel will feature apocalyptic corporate "christian" shows. Or, in the longer term, something that anyone could watch: a blank channel, when the budget "dries up" in favor of commercial TV.
Why should that channel, that most every American adult pays for, be limited to content appropriate only for children, and their parents who won't filter them? Why shouldn't the public channel reflect public interests and attitudes, mostly adult? If not, are you in favor of policing public spaces, real and virtual, until it's safe for unfiltered access by children?
--
make install -not war
I didn't realize that boolean logic included 4 choices, which the November election will certainly carry. Since I don't like Bush or Kerry, I will choose between the other two options. Unfortunately, most American's think as you do... that Rep and Dem are the only choices available.
The reason for the filtering is this channel is paid for by most American adults with no chance for them to opt out of paying for it. When people pay of their own free will for something, their vote is simple... paying for it == yes, not paying for it == no. A channel with content not suitable for children, sush as Spice, will make some money from people who are willing to pay for it, but the public as a whole doesn't have to worry about filtering its content... they simply don't pay for it. When they have no choice whatsoever, such as the public highways, then everyone gets more of a say as to what their tax dollar is being used for. If your senator/representative (be they Dem, Rep, Green, Libertarian, Ind.) is not representing your best interest, then you cast your vote. If the majority feels the way you do, then guess what... you get different representation, and maybe that highway you use most of the time will finally be widened. If the one tv channel that's paid for out of your tax dollars is not airing what you think is appropriate, then guess what. Your congressperson gets a phone call or e-mail. If the majority of their constituents feel the same way, then guess what. The programming will change.
So if you have a problem with PBS not airing foul language, call your congressperson and demand foul language on the channel that hosts such other shows as Sesame Street, NOVA (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), History Detectives (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), American Woodshop (not, as you put it, content appropriate only for children), etc...
I doubt they'll get many calls from their constituents feeling the same way.
I also don't think public interest and attitudes, especially those that actually tune into PBS, include the desire to hear foul language. Frankly, it's trashy, and wholly unnecessary (unless you're Donald Rumsfeld evidently). I, who would be included in the "mostly adult" don't care to hear it. The English language is full of descriptive words, and shit and fuck are not necessary at all to make a point.
I am in favor of policing public spaces, in the sense that I don't want the words shit and fuck showing up on the door to the public library, nor the sign atop the city capital. I also don't want to see the words on billboard signs, because I don't have much of a choice in wether or not my children see them. So yes, in that sence, I am wholly in favor of policing public spaces. Maybe I'm in the minority. Then again, maybe I'm not, as congress is weighed more heavily toward the conservative side.
Why don't you start your own public channel? Then you can say shit and fuck as often as you deem necessary... as long as your advertisers or funders agree of course.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
In our winner-take-all system, we have a "tyranny of the largest minority" at the ballot box. Until the voting system reflects accurately the actual priorities of voters, or the parties represent real minorities of voters, we're voting for only one of the top two candidates. Political theory aside, this November, we're collectively voting to reelect Bush, or to replace him with Kerry, whichever of the four or more choices appear on the ballot. Or would you care to bet me on Nader winning, even if I give you 50:1 odds?
The difference between the real public space, which is appropriate to keep rated "G", and the virtual, which has ample place for any kind of consensual conduct, is the difference between active and passive control. Sure, you could thwart your kids' development by keeping them away from any uncontrolled public space. But on TV, you can control their access to some public spaces. V-Chips, adult supervision, and any balance of technology and parenting allow us to have public TV that represents the public, not just its lowest common denominator of sensibilities. I don't demand adult language on TV. But I want the choice of consuming it to appear on my TV, not in Congress. The eagerness of "conservatives" to let someone else make their decisions for them these days is dismaying. It's absurd that the same people, who want to get rid of all but the infinitesimal government necessary to administer a nation of hundreds of millions, also want the government to control their access to the media. It's a corporate trick to draft people into supporting corporate welfare at the expense of personal freedom.
--
make install -not war
I think the differing viewpoints we have surrounds "public television." There is a difference between public televison, and television that is free to view by the public. The latter being ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/WB etc... while the former is PBS and local public access, if it's available. The former is also paid for by taxpayer dollars. You'll find a much narrower view across America as to what should be allowed on a channel paid for by the people, given you can get Dennis Franz butt on another "free" channel, available to both rich and poor people alike.
The term "Public Television" has nothing to do with real and virtual public space. It's because it's paid for by the public, wether they like to or not.
V-Chips were designed for filtering shows made available to people, on both "free" and paid for tv. But public television is very different from "free" and paid for tv. While people "vote" for shows in the "free tv" arena by tuning in/not tuning in and buying/not buying from sponsors, they "vote" for taxpayer supported television by calling their representation. If PBS doesn't like that, they can simply stop accepting taxpayer dollars and look for more money from sponsors.
It's become obvious that we are both arguers, and also that we've both fallen short of being compelling enough to with the other over to our side. So maybe we should just end with this... I appreciate your opinion but don't share it, and I hope you appreciate mine. As neither of us will be swayed, I say good luck to you and yours.
Regards.
Jeff
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
I hit google news for more info and let me tell you, i found an article from the 'word socialist web site'... Ha! there were good tidbits of information I was unaware of (FEMA for practicing for instantance) but that's an article fire-breathing libertarians would love. Anyways, It's kindof amazing how they 'soft-launched' this idea last thursday and newspapers didn't pick up the ball till this week!
if they want to delay elections, do it so diebold can clean up it's act otherwise, leave it to individual states and Congress.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Oddly enough, adding an 's' to election seems to fix that problem. Otherwise, almost all combinations of 'homeland' 'security' 'ridge' 'delay(s)' and 'election' (even all of them at once) produce articles with some variation on this:
I merely record this here for posterity[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
sweet! i'm a freak!
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I feel the same way about paying the state to censor my, and my neighbors', media choices. And I've been to the Netherlands many times, among many other countries across the world, so I have an informed opinion of the superior degree (maybe the highest) of civilization there. But in America, we just celebrated two weeks ago our victory over the British opressors. Dutch people had a great hand in that victory, from the Amsterdam financiers in negotiation with Ben Franklin, back to the New Amsterdam cultural influence on New York and beyond. And most of the people who peopled our new country took the risk of immigration to leave behind tyranny, even genocide. America's example inspired many people who stayed under oppressors to rise up, or just grow out of oppression.
But America is influential in many ways, from liberation to slavery. We created artificial people, corporations, in the 1800s, and they are now first-class citizens all over the world. We once led the way in overthrowing the European tyranny of governments over people, and now we are the battlefield for overthrowing the tyranny of corporations over people. Transnational corporations make this battle as transnational as the last wave of revolutions was national. People joined together are as much a match for corporations as we were for governments. A nation with millions of people who believe we are free, and who fight for freedom, is a powerful ally - don't give up on us lightly.
--
make install -not war
Blinding yourself to the fact that the FCC's action against Howard Stern was politically motivated -- because the attempt was inept, to hear you argue it -- doesn't change that this was the FCC cracking down on someone for berating the political establishment. Does that bother you at all? Is there anything conservative about this "decency" position of yours, or do the ends justify the means -- even when the ends aren't what the FCC says they are?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
"50 years ago" is a reference to the approximate beginning of general TV broadcasting.
Again -- the "Breen code" in Hollywood was around for a long time, it just wasn't enforced. The situations are pretty comparable.
They aren't even remotely comparable and you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about. The "Breen code," as you call it, was something the MPAA created to self-police the movie industry. The Production Code (it's real name) was created in 1930 as a voluntary standard for the member production companies. It went through various changes until it was replaced in 1968 by the MPAA film rating system. It wasn't administered by anyone in government, it was not mandatory (films were released without compliance--they just didn't get an MPAA seal-of-approval), and it had nothing to do with politics. Far from it, it had more to do with marketing to a concerned audience. Take a look at the Wikipedia article.
Blinding yourself to the fact that the FCC's action against Howard Stern was politically motivated
You still have provided no proof. Only wild-eyed assumption. You do realize that Stern is now heard in more markets than he was before, right? You also realize, I'm sure, that the FCC only takes action in compliance with FEDERAL LAW after receiving, vetting, and investigating complaints from listeners. In Stern's case, this meant fining Clear Channel. Clear Channel then dropped him from 6 of the MANY stations on which his program was broadcast. As you know, he picked up 6 replacements, plus 3 more stations.
because the attempt was inept, to hear you argue it
I argue no such thing. I argue that if the FCC were pursuing a policy of censoring political opponents, Howard Stern would not be on the air at all, and that others who say FAR worse things would be removed from the airwaves as well. Consider the case of Al Franken, for example. Then there is Pacifica radio. Don't forget NPR. NPR news programs make critical statements of the administration all the time. And they have far more impact and credibility than Howard Stern. If this were a politically motivated hit job, All Things Considered would be gone long before Howard Stern.
To bring you back on-topic, however, I still contend that making critical comments about the Administration, then saying that no one is allowed to disagree with the Administration, is a silly position to take. That's what started this thread.