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.'"
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'."
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."
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.
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.
And apo'strophe's exi'st to prove that there i's an 's coming up.
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.
Well, to be fair, we're only#17 in terms of media freedom. Of course, that's out of 139. While I'd rather we be up there with Finland, I'm just glad we're not down there anywhere from Israel (#92) to North Korea (dead last at #139).
"If there was an antonym to 'Elon Musk', it would be 'Richard Branson'."
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?
>>Talk about a made up controversy.
>Why not - look what it did for Michael Moore.
Yeah, the war in Iraq wasn't at all controversial until Michael Moore came along.
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Not on PBS, they're not prohibited.
That's the great thing about PBS. They don't censor themselves; they don't have to watch their fucking mouth. The reason you haven't seen swearing and nudity on private channels is because folks sue when they find nudity or profanity. No lawyer, no matter how slimy he is, is going to take the case of suing PBS. It's like suing Habitat for Humanity or the Salvation Army.
On TV, we can show somebody having their fucking brains blown out and show the grey goop dripping off the wall. That's fine for kids to see. Yet somehow, it's not okay to say "blow job" and a naked person. I don't know about you, but I'd rather my daughter be more comfortable with nudity and be willing to talk about sex than have her be comfortable with ultra-violence. If you honestly think that violence is better than nudity, you have a serious flaw in your brain.
As for the leftwards slant, I've got good karma and I'll not burn it on the likes of you.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Then, one day, the fanatics and freaks got control of congress. They complained about money being spent on the PBS and said it was used to promote non-US values. They insisted that the US was a Christian country, which is news to the Jews and Muslims and Buddhist and Atheists and Taoists and you get the idea, and proceeded to gut the funding for PBS and used the money to increase funding to their personal religious projects.
Now, for many, the fact that PBS no longer has cultural freedom is a small thing. One might think it means that a word can't be said, or a breast can't be shown, or certain political conversations cannot occur. Many would cheer the day when we no longer had to hear about Mrs. Slocombe's pussy. But, as someone that was, as we say, raised on TV, and particularly on PBS, I can tell you the change is chilling. PBS is one place for a kid stuck in the inner city to attain a wider culture, a sense that the world is more than the streets. I consider this good, but clearly many think inner city kids are just another brick on the wall, and need no more culture than what is needed to die in a the street or a war, or, perhaps, to slave away on an assembly line.
Everyone was good until the pompous assholes starting imposing their beliefs on everyone.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I have 2 kids. I watch what they watch to make sure it's appropriate, regardless of what the FCC or Walt Disney say. If *I* think a show is too violent, they will not watch it - bottom line. When my kids hear a "bad" word, I explain to them why they shouldn't use that word. I don't rely on our wonderful (note sarcasm) government to raise my children.
As the article says, "let the people vote with their remotes." Leave the shows uncensored - if people don't like it, they won't watch it which will force the networks to tame down their content.
This is a serious issue: The FCC is essentially defining moral standards for the country. While the FCC reports to Congress, the commissioners are appointed by the President, and the chair is also selected by the President. Thus, the FCC is largely an implementor of the President's policies while being subject to Congressional oversight.
Either way, the five members of the FCC should not define moral codes for the entire country, deciding which words and ideas are fit for consumers and which are not.
Yes, ideas: The words "blow" and "job" are not inherently offensive in the way that "f---" and "sh--" are. Why bleep them when combined, then? Because the idea is inherently offensive and immoral, according to the commission.
This is a scary thought, that five people appointed by the President can essentially kill free speech through certain mass media for the five years they are in office.
The next step of course is for the FCC to declare certain unpatriotic words as inappropriate and offensive, or non-Christian ideas as offensive. Honest broadcasters like PBS would be unable to air things that were out of favor with the current administration (yes, the Big Bad Bush administration) because they would not be able to pay the fines.
Publicity stunt, or another battle in the war on free speech terrorists (oh, did I say that out loud)?
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
"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.
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
Apparently it's not too bad, since you just did it. For real censorship, see China or, perhaps, Syria.
There are two problems with this.
First, countries don't go downhill overnight. If Bush and Company had a press conference where they all twirled their thick black mustaches and laughed, "MUAHahahahaha!", everyone would know they were the bad guys.
Instead, they tell us that we need to be defend against terrorism, or that they're protecting children, or so on. They start by attacking unsympathetic people, advocates of the most radical changes, the most overtly threatening speakers. For instance, those people who worked with Iraq or Afghanistan being held at Guantanamo without access to counsel, or political radicals, or pornographers. They have the right to counsel under US law and US legal tradition. But they're working with the enemy, or anarchists, or sleaze-peddlers, so we can look the other way just a little bit on this whole due process concept, right?
Over time censorship goes up and free speech goes down. A little at a time, a little here, a little there... they sneak it in, so it only offends the strongest free speech advocates, also known as "next on our list". Eventually you can't criticize at all without risking jail time or worse.
And if you think that the current administration thinks of censorship as a necessary evil, something we have to endure for the crisis, remember this: when Bill Maher called US pilots "cowards", White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "... they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is." (Emphasis added.)
Second... China or Syria? "Oh, hey, sure we're less free, but look at China and Syria! They're way worse than us!" is not the smartest way to approach this issue. The United States is dedicated to being the most open and most free society ever created. We're supposed to work for something more than "better than these other guys". We're supposed to strive to embody in concrete reality our highest abstract aspirations.
The idea that we can get away with a barely passing grade on free expression is profoundly unpatriotic. It is an abandonment of the rights that were held sacred by the founders of this country.
Five percent of one year's DoD budget puts us on Mars.
So they can't say s__t and f__k on public television or show titties.
This harms no one.
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.
Unlike this.
People who are offended by certain words are offended by them because they were taught to be and for no other reason. It is an irrational, entirely emotional response. They are offended by the words themselves and not the ideas they convey.
Proof:
1) There are other words which mean the same exact thing which are not considered offensive (fuck == sex, coitus, intercourse; shit == feces, crap, dung).
2) They are still offended by the words even when they are not used to convey the supposedly offensive ideas ("That's fucking brilliant!" == "That's absolutely brilliant", "Oh shit, I fucked up." == "Rats, I made a mistake.").
These people are holding others responsible for their inability to deal with the reactions they have to these words (strictly, the specific sequence of letters). To take your example, writing "f__k" is okay but typing out the word "fuck" is not even though the first is readily recognizable as the second.
It's blind superstition and people refuse to recognize it as such. It's time to grow up.
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
That is actually an older article (2002). Here is a link to a newer report, dated 2003. Interestingly enough, the US slipped from 17th place in 2002 to 31st place, tied with Greece, in 2003...
Apparently it's not too bad, since you just did it. For real censorship, see China or, perhaps, Syria.
This all-too-common response is congenitally stupid.
Yes, censorship is worse in China and Syria. That doesn't mean that censorship doesn't happen in the U.S., that it isn't a bad thing, and that we shouldn't do what we can to stop it. Or are your highest aspirations for the U.S., when it comes to free speech and censorship, really only to be better than China and Syria?
Every time I read a reply like this, saying "you think X is bad here? Just look at country Y! It's really bad there!" I imagine someone shrugging off spousal abuse by saying "in Afghanistan, they cut off women's heads!!!" Yes, that's true; now can we get back to the subject, and discuss how we make things better here?
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.
But back to censorship, two of the original infamous "seven" dirty words, the phrase "blow job", and the FCC...
What it comes down to (and this has been batted around so many times that I'm not sure why this latest PBS concession is news), is that public broadcasting stations have different standards that they have to adhere to than private (cable, scrambled satellite) broadcasters do. There are 2 main reasons for it: anybody can watch/listen, and no two communities have quite the same standards for what constitutes indecency as far as speech is concerned.
The reason that the FCC came out with the guidelines that they just about never have to enforce is so people in the more modest of these communities can watch television or listen to the radio during a certain timeframe without having to worry too much about seeing something that they might find offensive. Later at night (when most kids are sleeping), the rules relax, and there have been a number of similar concessions made over the years that have slowly allowed what would traditionally be considered risqe' words, apparel, or behavior to show up on public broadcasts.
It seems to fly in the face of the first amendment, but it is a long standing concession to the problems that decency standards and country-wide media programming have when they butt heads. I personally have no problem with the fact that boobs or other body parts may show up on TV, but I'd rather know about it ahead of time...that's me. I also have no particular problem with swear words (and the phrase "blow job"...whoever bleeped that one was a plain and simple asshat) on TV, although, again, advance warning would be nice. The system is there to protect those at the lower end of the tolerance-for-what-they-call-indecency spectrum. Yes, they can turn it off, or turn the channel, but should they *expect* to see some boobie with their superbowl? I know I didn't.
The reason I would like advance warning is that I consider the words to be a bit too rude to use in the company of people you don't know, and I don't want my kids to inadvertently see that happen. I'd like the opportunity to have them not watch that content until they're a bit older and a little more socially aware (probably 7 or so), and can actually discuss the words with me.
Some people think that's silly and uneccesary, and that's okay. Some people think it's too lax and irresponsible, and that's okay, too. Us disagreeing is fine with me.
So, since the f-word and the s-word are traditionally not heard on the airwaves (for various reasons), why is there so much commotion over the bleeping?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Those other countries mostly don't call themselves "The Land of the Free".