Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Fine Curses More Than Nuke Violations
DiZNoG writes "With Congress debating new higher fines for broadcast indecency in the wake
of last year's 'wardrobe malfunction' and Howard Stern's antics, Rolling
Stone has published
an interesting perspective on things. Rolling Stone did a review of fines
levied by other federal regulatory bodies, and has found the new indecency fines
disproportionately large compared to other fines. According to the article,
if the bill passes then 'for the price of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'
during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient
in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps
at two nuclear reactors.' The article further states the largest fine the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission levied last year was $60,000, this new bill would
allow broadcast indecency fines up to $500,000. Glad I keep my broadcast cursing
to a minimum, now if I could only get a handle on those pesky dangerous nuclear
mishaps."
They're seperate of any nuclear commission. Why compare the two?
Shit
piss
fuck
cunt
cocksucker
motherfucker
Lots of people see and hear things they term "indecent" when those things are broadcast over TV or radio.
And that results in lots of letters to Senators, Congressman, and the FCC.
It's democracy in action. Otherwise known as the tyranny of the masses.
Isn't wrongfully causing a death the same as murder?
What do you call the person who graduated last from medical school?
Doctor!
I have always thought most of the sentences handed down for drug crimes are completely out of whack as well. People convicted of marijuana possession seem to get more time than ones convicted of, what seems to me anyway, far more serious crimes. So why should fines being handed down by two separate departments make much sense when compared.
I think the think general idea is that the broadcasters, the studios, etc., have a lot more money than some of the other federal agencies. If the fines were any lower then they broken as a matter of course because the profit would outweigh the punishment. Sort of what Microsoft does each time it skirts or breaks another law.
Not that I think either the government or the broadcasters are sinless.
from the punishment-fits-the-crime dept.
You mean the punishment-fits-the-bra dept.? I think this says a lot, though, about the hypocrisy of our country--we bomb others who have nukes, we punish nuclear gaffes for a lot, but we allow violence over sex and must punish boob-revelations and the like for 4* as much? *sigh*...I apologize, I just still don't get it.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
The entertainment industry brings in far more capital than a powerstation does.
This is just an example of proportionate fines. Like charging a person for speeding based on their income. Why should someone not fear the penalty if they can easily afford the fine? I see no problem with this practice.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Playboy magazine had an article some years back during the war on drugs (boy, I'm glad we killed all those drugs and only have partially nude pop stars and terrorists to deal with) comparing typical prison sentences for murder and rape vs. selling LSD to an undercover cop. Guess who the government thinks is more dangerous --- as measured by length of time served?
Broadcast companies tend to have a lot more money than your average nuke violator. They are fined more because it takes more to make them listen.
And stern's switching to XM anyway, which just shows that the problem isn't the cursing, it's using a public resource to broadcast your curses.
I'm a fan of Howard Stern, but at the same time I can understand why we have an FCC. The airwaves are a public resource, and as such they pretty much have to be regulated.
The best thing WE can do is to contact the FCC and let them know that we disagree (yes, use the American Family Association's website against them). The bulk of the feedback they get tells them that showing a naked breast on TV or speaking a certain word is the most horrific thing that could happen to the populus.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Well if fines for indecency are going up in price then so should fines for the other "more serious" matters. A company that has a nuclear accident through negligence (just one example) should not be $60,000 --- it should be more like $6,000,000.
smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to
...this is an indication that those responsible for nuclear reactors have their act together to a greater extent than the media.
It just goes to show you where our (since I live in the US) priorities are.
We are a puritanical society.
When it comes to sex, language, drugs, and violence, the US will always favor violence over sex and language any day.
Violence directly helps the NRA & gun lobbyists.
Drugs directly help the pharmaceutical companies.
You don't see Hugh Heffner making big contributions to campaigns do you? Or the porn industry in general.
Ergo, there's no money in sex as far as politicians are concerned (other than paying for it.)
Even methamphetamines help the pharmaceutical companies. Who do you think makes methadone?
As for the nukes... well, our religious leaders yearn for all our children to be born in nuclear families. What do you expect?
The article mistakenly compares the proposed maximum fine of $500,000 to the largest fine actually levied by the NRC last year. What they should have told us was how the NRC's maximum fine compares to the FCC's maximum.
"Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology" -- Search and Destroy -- Iggy Pop
The chairman of the FCC was appointed by Bill Clinton.
You're joking, right? I don't think our country can easily afford to have our own special Chernobyl.
Safety issues should be part of doing business for a nuclear powerplant. If a power station can't compete with other energy sources and maintain safety, perhaps they shouldn't be doing business at all.
Congress makes the law and determines the possible min and max fines for various violations. Congress decides what a maximum fine for a nuke violation will be and what a maximum fine for a indecency violation will be. In many cases, the fine levels were set decades ago and have not been updated.
The regulatory body (like FCC or NRC) simply looks at the particular instance of violation and decides where it falls in the spectrum set by Congress.
So if you have a beef with how Congress decides to make a law, you have two options. Persuade your current congressman to support new legislation now, or failing that show up at the polls November 2006 to elect one who will.
Maybe the American government should stop trying to solve problems through money. AOL-Time-Warner or whoever can easily afford $500,000, just the same as they can afford $500. It doesn't affect them, they'll find a way to make up the losses from share holders.
StrayByte.Net
Showing a breast on national TV... $500,000
Killing an elderly person...$100,000
Screwing up at a nuclear power plant...$60,000
Running a red light...$250.00
Getting your story posted to Slashdot...Priceless
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
There's a nice unbiased source of information if I've ever seen one . If we're going to start using sources like this, shouldn't these topics be on politics./.org?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
... they'd be fucking loaded, a single 30 minute show would net them about $20m, the fines would soon equate to the combined GDP of all the third-world nations combined. US guests are sometimes amazed with what's being said, Jonathan Ross seems to faze them most... imagine Stern doing the Letterman at 8pm primetime on the biggest network... saying whatever he fucking likes and without no bloody adverts!
I thought it odd that Radio 1 now says during certain shows "this show contains strong language, if you easily offended please turn off your radio, if NOT please turn it up!"... now that's unreasonable, they just to do all that without warning or apology before, it's a bloody outrage... cunts.
The IDEA is to make it expensive to make a mistake for the industry in question so they won't do it. 60,000 is a lot of money to a nuclear company. It's a drop in the bucket for the entertainment industry.
FCC to Fine Curses More Then Nuke Violations
Uh, maybe the nuclear power industry is better at following government guidelines?
(is it me or is this a non-story?)
We chimps and near-chimps deeply resent being compared to that muderous and retarded demonstration of the importance of women's right to choose! Ook!! #:(
XM does use the public airwaves. The fact that you need the correct decryption keys doesn't change that. Heck, your computer and DVD player uses the public airwaves though a person would need about $10,000 of SIGINT equipment to receive and decode the signals your monitor, CPU, and video card put out.
Much as I loathe some of the stupid things the FCC does, and makes broadcasters do, they're not the ones to blame here.
Congress is pushing the stepped-up enforcement.
Congress is responsible for the raise in fines.
If you've got a problem with this, write your two senators, and representative.
Furthermore, there is one group who are responsible for 99.9% of the FCC indecency complaints. Perhaps there's a problem not with the government, but with some ninnies who have nothing better to do than worry about what people are watching on TV, or listening to on the radio.
(Yes, I am a broadcaster, no I'm not speaking on behalf of my employer, yadda, yadda, yadda).
I'm not religious. But I'm right. :-P
I still kept Kerry out of the W-house.
Why is anything that a left-winger or European (Ha!) disagrees with immediately decided to be the workings of the mystical "religious right"? None of my family is religious. But none of us voted for Kerry. Are we just seriously fucked up then? On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?
One of the people on the FCC who keeps pushing for these fines is a Democrat. Not that the facts matter in your little rant as you forget all the laws that Liberman has supported. It is much easier to just blame one side, when both are guilty I mean we can't hold OUR SIDE to the same rules as the BAD GUYS, now can we?
after all, only bad people say bad things and good poeple obey authority without question after all, if it wasn't right, it wouldn't be telling you what to do!
So you accidentally spilled something naughty from your nuclear reactor, it was an accident! you are innocent and not like those bad people who swear while in the nude on tv!
Only naked terrorists say fuck.
After all, you can for copyright infrigement and redistribution (aka, copying bits and bytes when not authorised) get a stiffer penalty and prison stay than , say, when doing a rape or killing somebody.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Perhaps more like the tyranny of the conservative-supported Parent's Television Council, which makes between 21-99% of complaints against TV indecency.
I do agree with their unsuccessful "'a la carte' programming option" plan though; hopefully soon I won't have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't need.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
XM does use the public airwaves.
True, but the broadcast isn't open to the public. That said, XM might very well be regulated (as strictly as FM) one day, and probably should be.
That's much better than the your way: a vulgar display of power and rapid collapse into a theocracy.
Fines are a deterrent to bad behaviour. Sure, the "average" nuclear accident might be small and non-lethal, but if the fines aren't large, there's no incentive to keep standards high to prevent a huge accident. If a bad nuclear accident was to happen, the total cost on the environment and human lives would be far greater than what one TV or Radio show was worth or could affect.
In the UK the price of a human life is about 5 years in prison, maybe let off to 3 years with good behaviour. But rob a bank (i.e. go against the state) you will be looking at a minimum of 25 years in prison.
Same sort of story there.. You get less time if you actually commit a crime and steal a cd then if you commit a copyright violation and copy the same thing.
Its all about who has more money..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was appointed as chairman by GW Bush in his first term, though he was made a commisioner of the FCC (but not chariman) by Clinton.
Michael K. Powell is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on November 3, 1997. He was designated chairman by President George W. Bush on January 22, 2001.
a phy.html
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biogr
Don't be so quick to blame things on those who oppose your views.
I wonder how much it would cost to broadcast Eric Idle's FCC Song after this...
The same should apply to DVD players and computers including the Internet then. Every electronic device gives off radio signals that with the proper equipment can be decoded. Even ignoring the TEMPEST issue, if XM can and should be regulated as strictly as FM then why shouldn't the internet be regulated that way as well.
...
Profit!
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Make sure the FCC knows you want them to keep their grubby paws of satellite radio. The religious right are coming after satellite radio as well.
And it gets worse. The terresterial broadcasters are now saying that they won't be able to compete against satellite unless the FCC levies the same restrictions against satellite that they do on regular radio.
I'm a very happy XM subscriber and I'd hate to think that they might get sucked into this rediculous quagmire as well.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Being religious is a bad thing when you decide to run a country based on your deity's responses to your prayers, trusting faithfully that it was the right course of action.
Jeez.
That's a strong statement, very interesting. Can you point to some references to back it up? Would be intriguing to see these stats, plus some other crime ones for the UK.
Both of the "sides" you mention are "the BAD GUYS". Not everyone in America buys the myth that Democrats and Republicans are our only choices. Some of us are Greens. Others are Libertarians.
We vote with our conscience because we cannot stomach the neo-fascist posturing and legislating done by Bush, Ashcroft, Cheny, Kerry, Liberman, Clinton, etc.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
I say we build a power plant next to the FCC offices and eliminate NRC fines altogether.
This year sucked BAD! The game sucked, the comercials sucked, the half-time show sucked... and I blame it all on her wrinkled old tit.
The use of curses has always been a freedom taken for granted by most geeks on Unix systems. Next thing you know they'll be going after CUPS as well.
:-)
Oh! You mean those #*&@%ing curses. Well, I better look out when the feds start spying on my WiFi network
I think for me, it's about risk. The risk of my heart going into defib due to looking at Janet Jackson's nipples is pretty small. The risk of a nuclear accident causing death, cancer, and birth defects is somewhere above that.
I also tend to feel that just because something didn't happen yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen in the future.
Finally, I'm not anti-nuclear power by any means. France has done a great job keeping it clean and safe over the years. I also feel that the cost of coal and oil powerplants don't reflect their true cost in pollution, deaths from respiratory disease, and contribution to global climate change.
Because it, by and large, is.
Yay.
Boo.
You may be suffering from the "'Mrrica are teh great" syndrome.
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 invisible guy tossing those around as punishment for getting into other people's preserved mammoth.
That being said, would you like to buy a flower to benefit our temple?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
If you want a comparison between the US and the UK take on the whole Boobsgate incident just take a look at the BBC news website every time the whole thing gets another airing (no pun intended!). They will, without doubt, put a picture in the story of said exposed breast. Every time they do it in a story regarding the fine or the 'outrage' they reall y do seem to be saying 'hey guys, c'mon! It's just a breast for goodness sake. Look around you at the world you are living in. Is it really worth making such a fuss about?!'
:)
It's things like this that make me appreciate the BBC all the more
RikF
DVD players and computers giving off radio signals don't significantly impair our radio waves. And even then, regulating language wouldn't make any sense, because people don't regularly interpret those signals. The FCC does regulate your DVD player and computer. But they don't regulate what language gets transmitted by them, because the transmission of language is unintentional.
Even ignoring the TEMPEST issue, if XM can and should be regulated as strictly as FM then why shouldn't the internet be regulated that way as well.
Because the internet is a private resource. The cables carrying the content are privately owned (I suppose there are some public portions, and to that extent the government could presumably regulate the communications going over them, but if that happened it would be trivial to route around them).
I don't know how wide the band is for XM/Sirius, so maybe there's enough to go around. There certainly isn't very much contention for the band compared to FM, which in many cities is essentially full, and that's probably why the FCC hasn't regulated it as strictly.
This is just part of the general corruption of the U.S. government.
From the article: Free expression and First Amendment rights are the real target of this legislation," declared Rep. Bernie Sanders (Ind-Vt.) during the debate over the bill. "This is not what America is about."
A better description is that the real target is anyone who might say things that are not accepted by those who control the government.
Also, large fines for using negative words gets votes from those who think they are superior because of their religion. Such people and their anger are easily manipulated.
The government is being sold to anyone who has the money. Huge amounts of money are being borrowed and transferred to the pockets of those in power. The U.S. government is now far more in debt than ever before: Debt Clock. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected to pay. Those who want corruption in the U.S. government want the government to borrow. The corrupters find ways to transfer the money to their pockets.
The origin of the present problems was in the 40s and 50s, when U.S. government leaders made two decisions. It is likely that those in power then did not understand that their decisions would eventually corrupt the entire government. At the time, the decisions seemed logical.
First, the government decided that it could act in other countries in secret. Second, the U.S. government decided it could act in secret to protect U.S. businesses in other countries.
What probably no one realized then was how much that would come to be a corrupting influence on the government. Probably no one realized then how much additional profit big multinational businesses could make by arranging, in secret, for U.S. taxpayers to pay for the security arrangements needed by U.S. multinational businesses.
Soon huge businesses were arguing that the U.S. government should subvert democratically elected leaders, as the government did in Iran in the 70s. Soon U.S. businesses would arrange unfair contracts with corrupt leaders, and when there was a protest, call for U.S. government intervention in the name of patriotism.
That's partly how we got to the present situation, where two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government, even though there is conflict of interest in such an arrangement.
*slowly removes tape* ...
&#*!?@# I $%!?!@ am going to *#@?!@#%
What was that you said?
*puts tape back on*
Ah, now I understand why they keep that guy taped up! Slashdot would go bankrupt if I let him loose for 3 minutes.
Now, this is more like. Yesterday it took someone nearly 3 hours to blame Clinton. Today it is 15 minutes. Keep up the good work.
"On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?"
.... I could go on and on.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Since the Salem Witch trials?
Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people?
Since the Crusades?
Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children?
Since the Inquisition?
Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals?
Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)?
Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Since
When does following a worldview or belief system which is responsible for such acts become ethically and moraly indefensible? Those are some pretty bad things if you ask me. It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Wasn't that 500,000 a total for the fines of a large number of affiliate stations that carried the boob incident?
Laws were made for the benefit of the few.
smack!
Forgot the 3rd option: Be a lobbying group with deep pockets.
A couple of weeks of the Italian equivalents of Saturday Night (Nite?) Live and 11 pm talk shows would cover all expenses for N. Korea, Iran and Syria cleansing.
Only last night, I think I heard at least 10 top-notch curses, then I saw a nice pair of boobs covered only by half-inch dots on the nipples. The girl was in an infant-sized thong, too.
That was all in mainstream network television... Funny thing is, our channels have self-regulated and agreed not to air prophanities or naked bodies before 11 pm. We're protecting the children, here, not the 50-year-olds.
Violating decency rules is intentional. Accidents at nuclear plants are accidents. Accidental deaths at nursing homes are also accidents.
Why shouldn't the punishment for a deliberate action be higher than for an accidental one?
She's not that old, and her tit was FUGLY.
My god, it drooped like something out of national geographic.
Why would she be willing to show a pathetic old pancacke like that?
UGGGGH.
Ah, now you're just blaming what some religious people did on religion itself. I tend to blame the people. Not the religion. The church out here (Which I used to attend) isn't full of people who burn old women, hijack airplanes, or mutilate children.
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
You must get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions all the time. I'm not a member of the "religious right" and I voted for Bush. And I know a lot of people who did who aren't religious fanatics.
What is it that you (and your kind) have against common decency? Do you really want a coarse society? And why are you so full of hate for anybody who dares stand for good against evil? Does your mother know how perverted you are? Do you curse in public? Would you curse in court? Exactly how evil are you?
Methinks you protest too much for some reason.
The quicker this drives the viewers and the programming to cable/satellite and out from under government regulation, the better.
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 invisible guy tossing those around as punishment for getting into other people's preserved mammoth.
Yes, and this is exactly what everyone who claims religion thinks.
I have a challenge for you. You seem to claim no religion, yet I highly doubt you have no beliefs. You want to know why people of some religions think the way they do? Research it. And don't only research one religion or one denomination and assume every other one is the same. If you do that, you're bypassing the scientific method and coming to a conclusion you cannot uphold.
I believe in God... I'm also a scientist. My beliefs tie well into logic and reason, and are closely related to those of Baptists in general. My faith comes from not knowing all the answers. I hope nobody claims that position, because if you do, I can guarantee that you are dead wrong.
"and probably should be."
Why would you think that?
Good for you. Seriously.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
"that's probably why the FCC hasn't regulated it as strictly"
This is incorrect.
They can't "regulate" Sirius/XM for the same reason they can't "regular" HBO/Skinamax and a bunch of porn channels on cable TV.
I was talking about the present especially strong corruption.
True, but the FCC is actually a part of the Executive Branch and is therefore ultimately responsible to Bush and his staff. I'm sure Powell knows which way the wind blows.
The problem isn't soley Bush nor is soley Powell. They're just lightning rods because they're easily identifiable. The problem is the whole puritanical attitude of the entire administration. While Bush has real power, in many cases he's also a figure head because one doesn't get elected President of the United States by himself; it's a massive team effort. The Prez is only one person out of many that is guiding this administration and setting priorities. It's reasonable to assume that if Gore had been elected, the FCC's marching orders might have been a bit different.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
To have any fines at all for displaying nipples on television is ridiculous.
Ni, Peng, Neee... Wom!, and Neeeow...Wum...Ping, debate is still continuing on whether or not to ban the word it.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.
Its not like the FCC is giving Sirius/XM a "free ride" with their puritanical views.
Its just that they aren't allowed to regulate speech on these services.
The whole reason they have been given the ability to regulate speech on regular radio and TV has to do with a precident "Pacifica vs FCC". Look it up.
The bottom line is the reasoning the supreme court applied to allowing the FCC to regulate speech on broadcast TV/Radio has nothing to do with the myth of "scare spectrum".
I mean, they sound like a snack, man.
bun-fhuinneog agam!
I've always found it hilarious what they actually *beep* out of a British TV show... They can curse all they want, but they can't say: "Oh my G*beep*"
What's in the 'G' word that's so offensive?
The broadcast is open only those those who tune it in. Don't like Stern? Don't listen. It's not like he's standing on your front step shouting cuss words, you have to explictly choose to listen.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"What is it that you (and your kind) have against common decency?"
What is "your kind"? Define common decency, and I'll tell you if you disagre.
"Methinks you protest too much for some reason."
Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.
I find it fascinating the people who are most "against" porn are those who feel dirty about it and really screwed up inside.
There's nothing dirty about naked people. There's nothing dirty *at all* about sex.
Right now, there are pre-broadcast editors at some places who will edit the small time buffer between the live person and the broadcast.
:-)
Get one of these "pre-editors" to mark a spot in the buffer as possibly offensive. An audio mark is played exactly 2 seconds ahead of the offensive word in the broadcast. This causes the stream of new "smart-receivers" to "rot13" the audio or video.
This gives an audio signal (like a doorbell) that can warn people that something is coming and for them to mute their sound, turn away, or otherwise cover their small-minded heads or eyes. If this is done in a consistent manner, new "smart-receivers" could recognize the warning sound and automatically do an audio or video equivalent of rot13 on the signal beginning two seconds from receipt.
Being a country of free-speech this would be the default rather than scrambling the signal and having smart-receivers unscramble it.
Admittedly the use of technology to solve what's fundamentally a morality issuehasn't worked well in solving other morality issues, but it would cause the target group to massively upgrade (be it Pat Robertson branded radios for encoding offensive words or Howard Stern branded radios for decoding them). It would cause a massive upgrade cycle.
*Heh* I can imagine an iPod attachment that plays "uncensored" Howard Stern radio. It could be a very popular plug-in
What's amusing about all this is that ClearChannel has been seen as heavily pro-Bush. But it seems that Bush's "activist FCC" may not be good for business, as they reported a huge one-time loss. That same article reports that their radio business is stagnating. Frank Rich said it best: Basically, FCC regulation is on the upswing, but you get between the people and their "Desperate Housewives" at the risk of your business model.
But religion gives those who would do those things a hotline to people's hearts.
What do you think would fly better:
"I want to ban gay marriage because I don't like them"
"I want to ban gay marriage because it says so in the bible"
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized.
Religion doesn't kill people. People who misuse religion as an excuse for murder kill people.
The origin of the present problems was the New Deal. It was decided that implementing our well-meaning progressive notions was more important than constitutionally-limited government. The neocons are more than willing to take that baton from the progressives and their blatant disregard for states rights and constitutional limits.
Ah, America - Home of the puritans.
:).
In Denmark we can say anything we want on TV, and we do - i hear the word 'fuck' & 'shit' daily when i watch 'Boogie' a music show for young ppl that runs around 4-6pm. Primettime for the kids to learn new words
And travelling around europe, this is how it works most places, maybe perhaps with the exception of Germany (i wouldent have understood it if they used profanity anyways)
I thought puritans died out with the last victorians - but they just sailed to America it seems, heh.
But seriously, cant you sue the FCC for violating the freedom of speech? It would seem obvious that they are enforcing censorship.
I can't believe I had to scroll to the 70th post before someone noticed this.
s /1997/97-180.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/new
NRC levied a 2.1 million fine in 1997.
Here we are in an information age that demands the unrestricted flow of information. Yet all to many people are trying harder than ever to controll the free flow of information. It seems to me that it's just the same poor belief system poping its head up in another ugly way.
The broadcast is open only those those who tune it in.
There's a difference, but I agree it shouldn't make a difference on the regulation. I suspect the real reason for the difference in regulation is that Sirius/XM are paying a lot more in licensing fees than FM broadcasters. I just looked it up and FM broadcasters only have to pay $500/year. Still haven't found how much Sirius is paying, but if it's anything like the cell phone companies (who also carry private communications), it's a lot more than $500/year.
It's not like he's standing on your front step shouting cuss words, you have to explictly choose to listen.
No more than I have to explicitly choose to download and read spam.
"Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission"
Slashdot rule #13: if the government does anything bad, make it degenerate into a republican/democrat mudslinging match.
It the same government folks, no matter which figurehead is trying to run it this year.
"The Hanford site in Washington, which had a rather lengthy history of very serious "accidents", releases 25,000 gallons of water contaminated with plutonium in 1997. Fined? $140,625."
But is that a comment against the FCC or a comment against the Nuclear regulatory authority?
That fine seems to be 100 times too low to me.
If it was $14 million fine, that would be 28 times more serious and much more in proportion to a major industry putting people at risk.
While I agree that religion is (thankfully) going out of style, I don't think most of those are fair points. In fact, most of those have more to do with politics than with religion; religion is just used as a scapegoat to avoid the real issues. Or maybe you are just looking at the glass as half empty. Billions upon billions of people over the millenia have been devout believers in one religion or another. While the points you bring up are atrocious, they account for only a very tiny percentage of all worshippers. What you're saying is similar to calling driving stupid because a small percentage of people drive drunk and kill people. Driving in itself is not a bad thing, and neither is religion. It is only when the wrong person becomes involved does shit happen. It is a shame that your comment is modded up, although I would expect nothing less on Slantdot.
While the vast majority of human beings have differing beliefs and viewpoints on almost everything, the one thing that they all have in common is that they believe in or practice a religion. When you don't understand the real reason for something, it is easy to blame religion because it is so widespread and diverse. Maybe the death of religion would be a good thing because it would (hopefully) force us to look at the real issues of the world.
Just looked it up. Sirius payed $83.4 million for its slice of the radio network. XM payed $89.9 million. For all intents and purposes, it is a private resource, not a public one (just like your backyard).
Why does the report compare maximum fines for one violation with levied fines for another? Wouldn't it be more interesting to compare maximum fines with maximum fines. Then we'd have something to talk about. (well,.. some of us) \\Greg
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized
I could say the same thing about labour.
For those interested, there was an interesting article last July in The Globe And Mail, a Canadian national newspaper, about the differences on how the two countries handle censorship.
On the other hand, twat should be included. Unlike the othere words, twat has no other meaning.
I'm no fan of homosexuals. However, I can't quite bring myself to say "You can't be married." because I have no satisfying (to me) answer as to why that should be so. There is a moral that has been instilled in me that there is something wrong with homosexuals. If I were religious, I could point to the bible, which is a physical object where one could derive their morals.
To me, religion serves two purposes... it gives someone meaning to life, and it is a source of basic morals.
I am the same as any religious individual who wants to ban gay marriage, except I can't point you to where my morals saying "This is wrong" came from.
The government a LONG time ago got into the act of legislating more than just basic morality. Those morals have to come from somewhere, and for a lot of people, that place is the bible. Whether that's better or worse than anyone else's set of morals, is a moral question, is something that varies from person to person. But in any case...
The FCC is the government's wing of legislating what is morally acceptable and unacceptable to be on public television during (I assume) daylight hours.
The set of morals they use will either be mine, which you find ridiculous, or yours, which I find inappropriate. Morality is typically not something you simply hold for yourself, you want your whole world (country in this case) to be moral.
Is there anything wrong with showing hardcore porn on channel 8 at 11:00am when I used to be getting ready to go to school? What about romantic sex? What about dry humping? What abound fondling? What about talking about it? What about talking about it scientifically? What about talking about love?
You have to draw a line somewhere... Where you draw that line is dictated by your morals, not your logic, though sometimes logic is used in an attempt to justify or disprove someone's morals.
I have forgotten what I was responding to.
I thought that was rule number 12? Rule number 13 is "Any large organization is always out to get you."
That's so screwed up.
Even if it was my car I'd settle for a _new_ car + damages + pay for my transport costs (till I get the car), in lieu of jail for him. If I really was pissed off - car had sentimental value etc. I'd just be happy with a max 1 year jail time (coz jail time often means a bigger mark in your record).
I don't see how it benefits anyone to send him to jail for 22 years 8 months. Even the min 7 years is rather long.
If you set fire to 3 people, to me that'll be really different. But 3 SUVs?
While random damage to property should be discouraged, I think the judge is doing a lot more damage than Jeff did to the SUVs and the owners.
If the judge can't tell the difference between the seriousness of damaging cars and directly damaging people, I think the judge should be put in prison to keep the public safe from him.
Because over the past few decades the religious nuts have highjacked the republican party, which used to be a great party...on the same token the tree-huggers and hollywood morons have highjacked the democratic party.
And since you asked, when is being religious a bad thing? I guess by itself it isn't a bad thing...but considering that more people have been killed in the name of God then anything else (go back and look at history...a few examples there), it can spiral out of control to where it IS a bad thing.
But if there is someone out there that is religious and they keep it to themselves and practice it without harming or condemning or judging others, hey, you're my kind of people. Haven't met that person yet though.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
didn't it come out that ~99%+ of all complaints to the fcc regarding objectionable content are from one special interest group. they are responsible for the staggering growth in complaints over the lastr couple of years which is the ratinale this sudden hike. while i am sure this is costing the fcc dearly to follow-up on the complaints, imho it makes more sense to fine this group for their abuse of the system.
their is a serious definciency in logical thinking in the us today.
sum.zero
To me, religion serves two purposes... it gives someone meaning to life, and it is a source of basic morals.
I can't imagine feeling that a mythology is my only sense of morality. That to me is right up there with consulting a a Superman comic book for guidance whenever you are given the opportunity to do evil. I can't help thinking that most people would find the guy with the well worn Superman comic to be a bit less than sane-n-stable.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
They do not fear the penalty because they can easily afford the fine.
Being religious is a _stupid_ thing.
Organised religion is not merely stupid, but also bad.
You didn't answer the question at all. The OP asked what's wrong with being religious.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Religious fanaticism is not "being religious" any more than liking sex makes you a pedophile.
Since the Salem Witch trials? Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people? Since the Crusades? Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children? Since the Inquisition? Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals? Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)? Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Again, this completely avoids the question. Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different? Look at the horrors committed under Stalin in the name of atheism... how is that any different--or better?
When you talk about religion you're missing something very important. The word "religion" has two separate definitions: religion as a system of beliefs and religion as an institution, which consists of fallible men. Judging Christians on the basis of immoral actions of the institution of Catholicism is like you accountable for the actions of the United States under George W. Bush.
Are all religions (as systems of beliefs) are equal? No. Obviously some are better than others. And some are undeniably evil. But to group them all into a single group called "religion" and classify it as "morally indefensible" is unfair.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
-Grym
No, that's rule 14. Rule 13 is "No poofters!"
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different?
Because the true believers think their deity gives the green light for such activity, and that even if the government doesn't sanction it, they're still good with their buddy upstairs and will be rewarded with eternal paradise. That makes these people particularly dangerous.
Exactly. That extreme disrespect for another government caused many of the problems that came later: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.
The U.S. government's CIA calls the problems caused by their involvement, "blowback". United States taxpayers pay for both the initial involvement and the blowback.
Can any of you Americans explain to us in the rest of the world why this has turned into such a big deal ?
If J. Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' had happened here in the UK, we would all have had a big laugh about it, and then... errr.... nothing. It would have been forgotten about by now.
Even if it had happened in the middle of a kids program, there would have been some comments, but really - nothing like the mess you seem to have got yourselves into. As for imposing fines for this, well, that's just plain stupid !
And I dare say that this would have been the reaction in most of the rest of the world; I mean, in Holland, you can get porn on TV !
Why is this such a big deal for you Americans ? We're talking about a naked breast here. That's all !
regards,
Puzzled.
Living in your incredible arrogance is pretty bad. I am agnostic - I do not believe that in the absense of any evidence in either direction that we can make statements about a deity or deities. Of course, many people try to spin scientific discovery (or lack thereof) to suit their own interpretation of the facts but the bottom line is that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. To do so would really cheapen the whole thing, because it's not about fact but about faith.
Some people seem to need something to cling to, and there is always a religion around waiting to take advantage of and profit from that particular element of the human condition. In return the religion offers the sheeple a support network and a sense of well-being. Basically every organization exists to fulfill this purpose. The thing I find amusing about religion is that it asks you to accept something unprovable. In other words it operates on the irrational side of existence which makes it particularly attractive to those who are experiencing a life crisis.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d). Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why would not knowing result in you assuming one specific hypothesis is true? You may be a scientist in certain realms of your life, but not in your magical beliefs.
If you look inside yourself and cannot honestly determine the basis for your prejudice against homosexuals, you may want to consider the possibility that you have been brainwashed. I've known some homosexuals, and they generally had the same types of strengths and weaknesses that anyone else has.
Don't forget that dems brought us "PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT LYRICS" stickers, too. Both parties are constantly trying to control our thoughts. Dems want us to be PC and reps want us to be good lil' christians. In either case it's to make us easier to control; if the whole fold is on the same side of the field it's easier to line 'em up for shearing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That is why profanity is punished--because those in control want to stay in control. Profane political speech can be very moving. By removing profanity from public politics, they make most people apathetic about politics. Which means less people vote. Which is what they want.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
But the article is comparing apples and oranges in one important respect: it's comparing the highest fine actually issued by the NRC last year, to the highest fine allowed for the FCC to issue under the new regulations. That's as deceptive (deliberately or not) as saying "I'm selling these PC cases at $120 each! You might think that's expensive, but just look at my competitor! Items in his store can cost up to $75,000!!" That may be completely technically true -- but it doesn't tell you what the competitor's price on PC cases is, just that there is something you could buy from the competitor which is $75,000.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Modded flamebait probably by the same people you refer to. Some people hate to be put in their place. 'Nuff said. Proves the point in a way.
What's the age of the typical slashdot reader?
Having a seat on the commission and being given its chairmanship are two entirely different things, no matter how much bold you use. Ludicrous fining did not occur until junior Powell took control. So, yes, I do blame you and your party.
All throughout history tyrannical leaders have been limiting their subjects' access to information in order to keep them productive. It's the mushroom principle: If you keep them in the dark and feed them shit they will grow nonetheless. Then you can consume them. "The Church" used to discourage people from reading the bible, pretty much up until global literacy was a real concern at which point you couldn't stop people any more. Rule #1 of command is to never give an order that won't be followed. Slave owners would punish their slaves for learning to read to prevent them from being able to organize. I'm not sure what's being served by preventing people from seeing a televised breast, but it'll come to me eventually.
Information is power. In the case of copying media illicitly, I guess it's the power to be freed from being a "consumer". You are not a consumer, you are a citizen. You are a person. I'm not sure ultimately how I feel about the morality of copyright laws, though I know that the current system is broken. Just keep in mind that we're discussing the morality and not the legality.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Playboy has articles written by some fantastic writers, and of course fantastic naked women. I have oftenthought that Playboy should market a second magazine with the same articles, but without the distracting images, that make reading it in public something of an impossibility these days.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
A few of them do think so, yes. Stop making absurd generalizations.
Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
While applicant of low pressure to a rooster might be an odd job description, who knows if these people exist, and how much pride they might take in their work?
"I was a cock-teaser for Roosterama. I used to enrage the bantams."
- Firesign Theater
The problem is, if you are using what religious people/institutions did as a way to attack religion, you should look at what atheistic people/institutions did as well.
Remember Stalin? Mao Zedong? Just more than a few notable atheists who have participated in crimes against humanity.
Newsflash: Most doctrines can be abused to support whatever you want to do. Religion doctrine and the lack of religion doctrine can as well. Did Stalin kill millions because he was an atheist? Or did he kill millions because he was an evil man who chose a system of personal philosophy that he could use to justify it?
Any institution of power can be abused. While there isn't many traditional institutions that promote atheism, some 'religions' could be considered atheistic -- most notably, some sects of Buddhism, Confuscianism, and Taoism. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the dogma of the 'Eastern' religions is weak -- so I can't tell you when specific groups did horrible things while not believing in any sort of deities. But I have no doubt that if those institutions had power, some people used that power to abuse others.
Humanity, isn't it great?
Footnote: I don't want to imply that every system of religious philosophy or atheistic philosophy is evil -- there are notable atheists and religious people who have done a great deal of good.
I'm pretty sure the FCC wouldn't approve of that! And I don't think either Letterman or Stern swing that way.
All these complaints about the FCC and "freedom of expression" on /. are completely bogus. Ask yourself: who's freedom of expression is the FCC curtailing? Yours? No, you are just the boob sitting in front of the tube. You aren't expressing anything. Janet Jackson's? Justin Timberlake's? Howard Stern's? No, they aren't the ones that the FCC is fining.
The FCC is fining corporations, not individuals. Do corporations have a right to freedom of expression? Of course not. They don't even have a right to broadcast. What (a few) corporations do have is a license to broadcast. Licensing of broadcasters is absolutely necessary, because the broadcast spectrum is limited. Licensing broadcasters in a controlled way is what allows broadcast to work in the first place.
You may argue (you corporation-lover you) that, even though licensing is necessary, the FCC should not include regulate content in any way. But the broadcast spectrrum is a public trust, no different that any other public trust. As such, it must be controlled so that the public - the entire public - retains safe and effective use of it. You can not dynamite Mount Rushmore, you cannot erect a sculture in the middle of a highway, and you cannot broadcast just anything you want. "Won't somebody think of the children?" Do you think that it'd be okay to broadcast a cartoon about a team of White Supremicist superheros making the world safe for whitey? Maybe it'd be funny to create a show telling children about the tasty flavors of the cleaners stored under the kitchen sink! Or, since you are a corporate shill and all, maybe you think that all cartoons should be 30 minute ads for toys or cereal with no educational content whatsoever?
Or perhaps you're really shedding all your tears over poor Howard Stern (or Janet Jackson and Justin Timerblake, who will never get another shot at a superbowl half-time show). Well, dry your eyes, bucko - the FCC didn't fine or censor those folks, the corporation did. And that is really the point, isn't it. Because in the end, nobody has ever had the right to say whatever they want on the broadcast channels - the content of the broadcast channel is completely under the control of the corporate licensee! If you don't believe me, try to get a few minutes on the CBS evening news some time based on your "freedom of expression". Good luck! Howard Stern does not and should not have any more rights than you have, so neither of you has a right to be broadcast.
Now what's left over for you to complain about? I suppose there's always the specifics of the FCC regulations themselves. Perhaps you think there should be more ads, or maybe more violence, or more profanity. Good for you! I happen to disagree, but I believe in democracy - let's vote on it.
Oops, too bad. Sorry that didn't work out for you - maybe next time! In the meantime, I feel just awful that there is nowhere you can go to get all the ads and porn that your heart desires. Maybe If we just sit here and think a while, maybe just maybe we can think of somewhere....
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
...A "nuclear mishap" won't gain the power company more young male viewers.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think the peversion of this whole thing is that we treat a natural part of human body like some horror from hell itself. The real horror is in the souls of the people who when the look upon a women's breast see perversion and idecency instead of the wonderment of God's creation. They are the ones who I think need to be dealt with. I am to the point where I think that if you do not want to see it turn it off, otherwise there should be no more overseers.
How about:
"Homosexuals are mentally defective, and guess who gets a trip to the mental hospital/gulag?"
Worked for more than one (officially atheistic) communist state.
Anyone who lets a book, or their spiritual advisor (or their government, for that matter) do their thinking for them is dangerous because they have traded reason for the illusion of safety.
if I shout "Fuck the FCC motherfuckers up their shitty asses with rubber cocks!" on TV or radio?
Does that count as political speech, or would I (and/or the station) get fined?
Entergy Corp- a nuke plant operator 909.5 Million
Clear Channel Communications- a media conglomerate, former owner of Howard Stern 845.8 Million
Right A read an artcile (linked from /. IIRC) that analyzed that if you take out the complaints filed from this SINGLE ORGANIZATION that the number of complaints is barely higher than before the "nipplegate" incident.
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/ 06/231234&tid=153&tid=219Found it
you left out mekrob
Clearchannel is worth slightly more, but I suppose the other factors are more important than how much money the company has.
Religion is the result of the fusion of several social behaviours and which, according to me at least, is part of human evolution (as a social result not a biological feature). One of the more primitive social phenomenon still present in religion being magic, i.e. the imaginary explanation of reality. One aspect of religion, that I think is both paramount and its primary function, is that it teaches the masses lessons without the people actually learning them from their own experience. The "good" thing about it is that people can behave in a sensible way without being sensible themselves. Religion is the most common form that experience has taken to pass on to the next generation. The sensible behaviours that I have already mentioned I ritualised so that a huge amount of individuals can adopt them and benefit from them when their original motivations have been lost for years. But there comes the harmful side of it, if those behaviours are unhistoricised and repeated in a mechanic way, then there is no possibility of adapting them when they are obsolete. The consequence is that religion can be the vehicle of an enormous proportion of useless, if not harmful, attitudes. I suppose that what I am trying to explain will not be clear until I give an example. So let us consider the case of marriage and fidelity a feature which is common to at least all Judeo-Christian religions. We can assume that the original motivation for fidelity is to prevent the spread of VDs. I believe (notice the choice in the term) that it is anterior to religion as we know it today. It is first present in the old testament, VDs being explained by demons and the alleged impurity of the female body, especially "loose women" (see magic explanation). The idea is developed in parallel with the concept of marriage and fidelity, being "good", i.e "God's will", i.e "what you should do, even if you don't know why". As an illustration of the split between ritual behaviour and actual motivation, we can notice that no direct and explicit link between VDs/demons and fidelity is made - to my knowledge. From that point, we can understand how religious "advices" may be misinterpreted, so that instead of thinking that unfaithful people will be punished because demons will possess them, believers come to think they should enact God's will themselves by stoning unfaithful people (generally women). Still in the sexual area and for the same reasons, thousands of years later, when society and technology have evolved so much that VDs can be prevented (condoms, for those a bit slow on the uptake), we can understand why the commandment "be fruitful, and multiply" (Ge:1:28) can be harmful when the fidelity aspect is considered as a given. This was only a very brief introduction of my views on religion and is criticisable, which is a good thing since I am open to critic. I developed what I considered to be the most important point of my opinion and stop there for the time being because it must be tedious to read already. I hope that I made myself clear and that I will not be misinterpreted myself.
Wouldnt eliminating exclusive contracts for stuff like the super bowl eliminate this problem. Like for example howard stern dont like it dont listen to it but with the super bowl, cant really do that. If there was a 'christian right' channel that showed it as well with their own halftime show / ads etc...
It's not democracy when it's 2 people complaining. 99% of all complaints to the FCC come from one organization of about 16 people, called the "Coalition for values" or something like that. They feel the first amendment is invalid, that you need the government to be your parent, and are pressing their extreme minority view on everyone.
I want to ban gay marriage because it says so in Sloshdat"
Hmm, both of those sources are more authoritative than the Holy Bible, but you are right, they don't have the same ring to them.
Oh well, what the hell...
Since the rightest admenistration is lowering taxes and increasing spending too much money on stupid things (war, helping the RIAA, Bush's propaganda mailings) they have to make money sdomehow. What better to do than make Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and friends happy, and at the same time refuse to cure real social injustices and dangers to society. I hope I can get out of this country while leaving it without a millitary passport is still legal.
Religion is the result of the fusion of several social behaviours and which, according to me at least, is part of human evolution (as a social result not a biological feature). One of the more primitive social phenomenon still present in religion being magic, i.e. the imaginary explanation of reality.
One aspect of religion, that I think is both paramount and its primary function, is that it teaches the masses lessons without the people
Beautifully put. Using rational arguments against religious institutions without degrading to insults. I could not have said it better myself.
Grandparent poster seems to live under the "us and them" delusion that anyone who does not share his unprovable beliefs must be a sad, sorry wretch. Parent poster puts him firmly but politely in his place.
Don't get me wrong, I probably have a lower opinion of Clinton than most here. He's almost as bad as Bush. But Powell did his damage under Bush. Who knows what Clinton was thinking (more likely schemeing) with this appointment?
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
I hope you're not seriously arguing that this is the case of non-religious people.
The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
Sigh. Here we go again:
Religion requires some spiritual belief. Belief in a god or gods is used as an example.
If there is a scientific test that could be performed to confirm the existence of god(s), that belief would no longer be spiritual, and so would not help religion/faith.
If there is no scientific test to confirm the existence of god(s), then their existence is completely undetectable.
A completely undetectable god or gods is exactly equivalent to no god(s) at all.
Gore Vidal was working on his surrealistic follow-up to Myra Breckinridge when the US Supreme Court ruled that 'communities could set local standards' for naughty words. Since the same book would be on sale everywhere, this presented a problem of being exposed to legal action on the whim of any local prosecutor.
He approached this problem by substituing the names of the Supreme Court judges for the naughty words. Burger, Rehnquist, Powell, Whizzer White and Blackmun became nouns and verbs for, well, you know.
Brilliant. Text came out like this:
"He Burgered her lustfully. His mighty Rehnquist thrusting deep into her forbidden, intimate Blackmum. She tried to stop him by grabbing his Powell's. She enjoyed it in the Whizzer White, but detested Burgering as against nature..."
Future versions of Myron, and foreign editions, lacked this feature. But it was wild in the original hardback.
Am I safe to assume that this only applies to English-language swearwords? After all, there are plenty of curses in plenty of languages, and the FCC would be none the wiser...or...?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
What the hell kind of reasonable person really thinks that seeing Janet Jacksons Nipple is truly more harmful to society then the Nuclear violations?
Talk about screwed priorities.
There are more important concerns in this day and age then bad words and naked people. I just hope Canada has more sense then this with respect to their own regulatory laws.
END COMMUNICATION
It is much easier to just blame one side
Yes, it is. There's Liberman and the guy on the FCC. How many other Democrats can you name that are luddites? Here's some Republicans I can name off the top of my head: Powell, Santorum, Fallwell, Bennett, Hatch, Coburn. Want to take any bets on the political affiliation of groups like the Parents Television Council? Next I suppose you'll imply that Democrats are as much to blame for the gay marriage hysteria because there are a couple of Democrats who supported the bans.
Luddites are now the dominant wing in the dominant Republican party. Take away those few Democrats, and nothing would change - you'd still have Republicans in Congress trying to pass huge fines. Take away the Republicans, and this issue goes nowhere.
Does this mean I excuse Liberman for being a luddite? No, of course not. But I do have a sense of proportion and know where to put most of the blame.
Probably because it is absolutely indisputible that the religious right -- organizations like the American Family Association and Focus on the Family -- are behind the latest attempts to limit what can be shown on television.
Really - the communist states ceased to be left-wing when they turned into totalitarian regimes. A lot of people use Soviet Russia as an example of left wingers out of control, but you tell me that Stalin's viewpoints aren't more in line with the right than the rest.
I was one of the Florida voters who voted for a third party instead of the Democrats because this was not the way I wanted to see the Democratic party go - Gore and Lieberman, censorholics. I still don't know if it was a mistake. But by far, it's more common in the right.
The best posts are both flamebait and informative.
more like sex obsessed.
The words "I got a hard-on over that tittie shot and I ain't not letting anyone impeach me for this." could be overheard from the Whitehouse as congress went in to vote.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
There's nothing wrong with religion [...]
Repeat three times, click your heels and you'll be back in Kansas.
Yes, and this is exactly what everyone who claims religion thinks.
Yup, you do. The above senario - speaking out of your ass to explain things you don't understand - is the basis for every religion.
You want to know why people of some religions think the way they do? Research it.
And your point is...what? They're all variations on thunderbolts and mammoths.
If you do that, you're bypassing the scientific method and coming to a conclusion you cannot uphold.
What, like buying a bunch of crap that was made up by people living thousands of years ago?
My faith comes from not knowing all the answers. I hope nobody claims that position, because if you do, I can guarantee that you are dead wrong.
I don't know if you noticed, but your faith (Baptist) is all about telling people what the answers are. That's what religion does.
A few of them do think so, yes. Stop making absurd generalizations.
Don't Christians belive that when they die, they'll go to heaven? What's that? They do? Doesn't that make you a complete moron? Yes, it does!
Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children?
Why'd you only bring up female circumcision? Male circumcision is just as pointless and just as painfull.
Is airwaves any more of a public resource than newspapers?
Yes. If I don't like what your newspaper has to say, or it has naked people or something and I don't want my family to see that, I just won't buy it. If I don't like what your broadcast TV or radio station has to say, too bad - the signals are in my house whether I want them or not, and unless I throw out my TV and radio, my family will be able to see whatever's being broadcast. Maybe kids are cursing a lot, but who are you to decide that that makes it okay for my (theoretical) family?
I do think the fines for indecency are kinda high, and we do have more important things to worry about than Janet Jackson's chest. At the same time, though, I feel that the fines are necessary: many stations would see them as a necessary cost of business and ignore them otherwise. That's probably not the same with, say, nuclear reactors; the bad publicity alone (not to mention the threat of being totally shut down and, if the owners have any decency at all, the threat to people's lives) is reason to for people to keep your reactor safe. INAL, but I'm assuming that when there's a problem at a reactor, the people running it get a lot more than a fine.
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
My organization is mobilizing people to speak up and fight back. We have two current actions -- those of you who are pissed off, well, do something about it.
First, you can write your Senator and ask them to vote against the Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act. (http://speakspeak.org/senators/)
Then, you can help put a stop to the Parents Television Council's hijacking of the complaint process. (Remember the PTC? They're responsible for 99.9% of FCC complaints? Ring a bell?)
Anyway, they're currently pushing for the maximum fine against CBS and all of its affiliates as punishment for the CSI episode that ran on 2/17. We're fighting back with a letter explaining why the episode was not indecent. http://speakspeak.org/letter/
The FCC is required to evaluate indecency complaints using "contemporary community standards." If the only community they hear from is the PTC, we're all screwed.
So, fight back. Please.
This is bullshit. Of course, both sides are to blame, but it's pretty fucking clear based on TFA what the priorities of the current administration are. There are many hardworking people in the US government who just want to do their jobs well, but how can they with such PURE incompetence above them?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Sure, when compared on the basis of public harm, the FCC's fines look silly next to the the NRC's finger waggling efforts that were hard coded into what, 1950's dollars? Why all the focus on FCC anyway? Does anyone really enjoy most of the garbage offered as entertainment?
Fines for "indecency," raise 'em! Provide incentive to develop meangingful programming... Socially valuable content renders expletives useless, and if you like p(.)rn there's no shortage. Educational content and thoughtful social commentary doesn't usually appeal to stupid consumers? Good.
Focus on governmental agency tactics for a minute. Fines are the poor man's control "schtick." Seems like it should work, but it's past facto and even the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent for those who can't see past their hormones or the next 5 minutes.
That having been said, negative incentives work best when they are levied upon the correct individuals and proportionate to the wealth of the violator. See that happening anywhere? In the U.S., we don't fine the shareholders. Without that ability NRC's fines would be little more than token bones to public perception because they would be passed through to consumers as a price increase.
(Witness the multiplier effect of an increase in the cost of energy. Cost of consumption is going up people! Of course if you are heavily diversifled enough you don't take the hit.)
The only reasonable way to get at the problems of nuclear power, without a revolution, is to make clean alternatives financially viable while requiring enforcement of health, safety and environmental law.
IN the mean time focusing on such trivial conversation, just like network programming does, you serve only to deflect focus from more important issues.
Grow Up Slashdot
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
The problem with religon is that forcing people to convert to said religon. Just this morning I had people harrasing me (even after I told them never to return again) to convert on my own property. In Columbus' time, many people were forcably converted in South America and Africa and here in America. This was church policy, not just 'some people.' See also the Inquisition.
I think that the cocksucker, male or female, fulfills a sacred role in society.
We know that the male, due to excess testosterone, is more prone to violence and generally flipping out. But with the power off well-timed blowjobs, late-afternoon boss rants, road rage, acts of Congress, and even preemptive wars could be avoided! What man is going to push the red button when his primary member is getting sucked like a heifer's teat?
Cocksucker is not a dirty word--it is a title of honor. All hail the cocksuckers!
What if I use ncurses? I've been using ncurses for years now and actually prefer it to curses. Can I still get fined for using this?
You have to draw a line somewhere... Where you draw that line is dictated by your morals, not your logic, though sometimes logic is used in an attempt to justify or disprove someone's morals.
Please, explain why you have to draw a line somewhere. Explain why, if you don't want to see those things at 11am why you can't just avoid those channels. There are plenty of ways you can avoid it; v-chip, using tv.yahoo.com to see what programming is on, almost every TV today allows you to 'list' the channels you want to cycle through as you press Up and down. Why do you have to force what you dislike off the air, when there are so many means available to you to avoid it if its there?
You may not like those things, but you shouldn't be trying to force your morals on others. Believe it or not, you can derive morals from logic as well, and my logic says 'leave other people alone.'
No, it was probably modded flamebait because of your utterly retarded statement that "Society has to have some standards of decency or we're right back to caveman civilization."
While I agree with your point I'd also like to point out that the US did the EXACT same thing sometime between the 20s - 60s.
In some circles you cant even make a very bleak curse while in some you are completely ignored even if you are expressing yourself that may cause most people to turn their heads.
From my point of view I find the censoring that occurs in some TV shows more indecent than it they had been showing the real thing or broadcasting the real expression instead of a -beep-...
Some examples: The OCC(Orange County Choppers) has a poster on their wall, which is blurred by somebody because it is indecent or something. Same goes with some blurring of soda cans in the Mythbusters series. So what if they are using Pepsi or Coke... I wouldn't care less. The Janet Jackson incident isn't worth more than a yawn from me... So if some kids were watching, well they can probably see more in some magazines. It seems to me that some naked bodyparts are more annoying to some people than cutting someones throat during dinner.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
These are terrible things, but don't so much have to do with being religious as having large, organized religion. Usually these occur when people ignore the teachings of a religion (for example, the Christian Bible says "Love your neighbor as yourself") and try to justify it to the masses. If religious leaders weren't seen as infalliable as they often are, then the situation woulodn't be so bad. There is an important differnce between being religious (believing in God) and following a religious leader blindly, without checking to see if he practices what he preaches. The bad stuff usually happens in the latter case. I will agree that blind faith in religious leaders is bad, but that isn't true of all religous people.
SAILING MISHAP
Here's the deal. None of "us" consider Liberman to be on "our" "side". He is DINO, big time.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Fines aren't set according to somebody's idea about their relative importance. They are set to the level that encourages compliance. For nuclear industries and such, that level does not need to be enormous. After all, the whole point of regulations in those industries is prevent harm. If they really accomplish that, most members of the industry will already try to comply with most regulations most of the time even without fines. After all, if real harm should occur, the costs to the organization through civil lawsuits and perhaps even criminal prosecution would be enormous - much larger than any regulator fine would be.
For those industries, the benefits of regulatory fines are two-fold: first, they ensure that every organization in the industry lives to the same standards, thereby leveling the playing field and reducing the competitive pressure to cut corners on safety; and second, they provide a financial incentive to fund compliance activities. After all, if it costs $100,000 to comply, and $200,000 in fines if you don't, what industry wouldn't comply?
On the other hand, in the broadcast industry, the only incentive that the industry has to comply with regulations is the FCC and it's fines. What, do you think it would be possible to win a lawsuit alleging harm against a broadcaster? No matter what they broadcast, any suit like that would lose. Don't believe me? Look at how long and difficult it was to win against the tobacco industry, one which provably harms the public health! Do you think that the anti-fast-food lawsuits and anti-handgun lawsuits are going to succeed? The harm done by both of those industries are more direct and provable than the harm done by ads, porn, and violence TV content.
Because the FCC fines have to enforce compliance all by themselves, those fines have to be pretty high. If not, then they are little more than slaps on the wrist - worse, actually: they become little more than advertisements.
A personal story: my father was raised in a dry county back in the woods of Tennessee. Like a lot of boys back then (this was during the Great Depression), he collected bottles and jars, and sold them to the local moonshiner. One day he asked the man what he thought about the sheriff, who periodically busted up his still. According to my dad, the old man just laughed, and said that, since the newspaper published his name and address every time he got busted, that in his opinion the product that he lost, the damage he had to repair, and the fine he had to pay were all cheaper and more effective than any ad that he could run.
So comparing fines in on industry against fines in another is like comparing apples and haircuts. If the fines in the nuclear industry work at one level, and the fines in the broadcast industry have to be much higher to make them work, so be it. They have no relationship to one another.
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
A lot of this ironically, has to do with one organization with an exaggerated membership, that peddles smut on their own web site that systemmatically harasses the FCC over these issues. The goofy, right wing, Parents Television Council, whose leadership seem to primarily sit around all day and watch/document every sleazy media moment they can get their sweaty eyeballs on.
At last! Does it apply to ncurses too? What about S-Lang? newt? Can we be rid of turbo vision, too?
in the case concerned, it wasn't even going to cause the premature expiration of any kittens.
See my journal, I write things there
How about when totalitarian atheist regimes such as Stalin's USSR and Mao's PRC systematically suppress dissidents, indoctrinate children, and disappear millions of people? I don't think it's fair to blame those atrocities on atheism any more than it is fair to blame the various atrocities on religiousness in general. Perhaps if you blamed all these atrocities on belief in something absolute (such as existence or non-existence of deity), you'd have an argument. However, if you don't believe in any absolute truth at all, can you make a moral argument?
Yes but you don't understand, it wasnt just one old lady or a few small towns contaminated, it was MILLIONS of people, CHILDREN, scarred for life FOR LIFE! you can treat radiation sickness and people die, but you can never EVER fix the scarring from a child seeing a breast, even if they have breasts themselves, it will haunt them for EVER. Can you even imagine what it would have been like to see something like that at a young age, or to hear words like 'fuck'?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This is from the country that considers an unclothed human body to be more offensive than graphic images ofe rment. This is all perfectly in character for modern Amerikan society.
assault/abuse/shooting/killing/bleeding/dismemb
"On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?"
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?..Crusades...molestation scandals...Those are some pretty bad things if you ask me. It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed
Flying planes into buildings was an anti-US thing. They didn't fly into the vadican to kill the pope or get back at any countries that had crusades against them. It would've happened even if the US was a predominatly muslim nation. Americans like to blame religion for this rather than admit the real reason was because people hated the US.
Just because religion has been used as mask for doing some pretty horrible things doesn't mean it is bad, just that it can't really transform people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, whether you're a King or a Pope. I don't think the christianity or muslim relgions have sections in their books saying it's ok to ignore the rules about not killing and start wars... Bad things happen. Wars happen. There have been plenty of wars, searches for scapegoats, and invasions not in the name of xxx.
Molestation happens with sports coaches, scout leaders, teachers, or even weathly pop stars. Molestation isn't done in the name of xxx and no religion I'm aware of supports any form of it. Just a case of bad people who happened to be religious.
Basically your list seems to be a reflection of human nature. And with traditionally religion playing a major part in people's lives it was incorporated into those events. With the soviets they tore down many beautiful churches in the name of removing religion from the state. Then they went are their own inquisitions in the name of totalatarism and communism as it was the major thing at the time. Like you said, blind faith.
I guess what I'm getting at is how does that largely historical list relate to people's lives today? There was only one valid example in your list, discrimination of homosexuals and it is fortunately changing.
What about the good things people do in the name of religion? In my city of 2million probably 75% of the free meals to homeless are provided by the Church or xxx or St. somebody's chunch. My vehicle has been broken into a couple times. I'm pretty sure that theif isn't worried that there is an all seeing being (be it god or santa's elves) that saw him do bad stuff and will give him an afterlife of burning in fire for eterinity for sinning.
In my contact with religion it generally makes people do good things like give time to charities and not do bad things like steal. I'm not worried about walking around late at night and being mugged by a christian, jew, muslim, or buddist.
The hypocrisy of fining people for swearing - it makes absolutely no sense unless they also fine you for swearing in the street - some kid could be walking along and someone could say 'mother fucker' because their car wouldn't start or something and the kid would hear that and be totally scarred for life and the person would totally get away with it! what if you shout it in a crowded area? what if you shout it on a PR system? people should be fined for swearing in public otherwise the whole thing falls apart.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people?
If I remember my history classes correctly, the conquerors didn't force the natives to convert, they had a fair chance to say no (or course, then their head would be chopped off, but that's another story - about a strange link between religious freaks and murdering disbelievers).
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Most people murder because they have an immediate an extremely personal problem. Once they murder they remove the problem and they don't do it again. There are excetions such as Dr. Shipman. Thieves tend to do so again and again.
See my journal, I write things there
I hope you're not seriously arguing that this is the case of non-religious people.
No. It was a rhetorical point. The parent suggested that believing in religion led to blind faith, which is dangerous. I'm saying that atheism, can lead to feeling as if your life has no meaning or purpose, which is equally dangerous.
My point wasn't to declare that being religious was somehow better. I was just point out that such a criticism is unfair.
-Grym
Since the FCC and the NRC have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, is this supposed to be anything other than a pointless comparison?
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized
I could say the same thing about labour.
There is a subtle difference.
Organized labour amplifies what the people say.
Organized religion dictates what the people say.
"Hey boy, you'd better fine those filthy hethens or I'm gonna show you what Colon Pow is all about!" - Colin Powell
the farther left you go, the closer it comes to wraping around to the far-right.
Both ends are just plain crazy.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
Why would someone without blind faith necessarily live in dispair? Enjoying life doesn't require that some unfathomable being is responsible for everything. That doesn't give any more reason to the world than it already has.
I happen to agree with your political observations, FuturePower, but in this case a little clarity (and charity) would go a long way.
-kgj
-kgj
The Iran coup was actually in 1953 with the removal from power of democratically elected Mossadegh and his replacement with the shah.
Correct.
See my further comments here.
-kgj
We all know you can't say "motherfucker" on the airwaves, but how about:
* Nigger
* Kike
* Faggot
etc.?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
In short, the voters deserve this. And more. When it reaches an intolerable level for the average fool on the street, or enough of the not-so-average types unify and take up arms, it'll change. Until then, of course the government is irrational and stupid. Look who runs it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
I'm not defending organized religion. Where in my post did I try to defend the excesses of the Catholic church? I, in fact, declared that the Catholic church, being an organization made by fallible men, has undeniably made mistakes. In fact, on that point, I'm fairly certain that all religions as institutions have made mistakes.
I'm not so sure where, on this point, you're disagreeing with me. The OP was saying that "being religious" was a "bad thing," because being religious required faith which is dangerous. Such a statement could just as well apply to agnostics as it could to Christians.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d).
Not necessarily. What about Taoism? If someone chooses to live a certain way of their own free will, how is that a system of control or domination?
Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
Me? Right now? No. But, unfortunately that isn't the case for all individuals all of the time.
First of all, self-reflection is a skill, and something that I think gets lost in these types of discussions among learned individuals is that not everyone is capable of productively exploring their faith on their own. Interacting with others in their religious community benefits these people greatly by providing perspectives that they, otherwise, may not have experienced.
Moreover, life isn't easy. Sometimes, it's easy to lose your faith/spirituality when you're upset or depressed. A religious community can really be of a benefit and help you keep things in perspective by being there when times are rough.
-Grym
You're absolutely right that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. However, facts and faith are not mutually exclusive. I have faith in many things because of past experience or facts that have been taught to me. For instance, I have faith that things in the physical universe (such as gravity and mass) will continue to work the way I've experienced before or how others have observed them (and expressed in laws of physics). When I observe something that doesn't fit in my mental model, I don't throw out the laws, but try to find where my observation or interpretation was flawed.
I agree with that analysis for most religious organizations. However, please let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sturgeon said 90% of everything is crud", which applies to religions just like anything else.
Are you saying that it could never be valid for an organization to ask people to accept something unprovable? Do you think no one should accept anything as true unless it is an absolutely hard, provable fact? I don't think it's humanly possible to operate that way. Consider how much progress in science and technology has taken place based on Newtonian mechanics, which we now know to be false (or at least incomplete). Though F=MA was once thought to be an absolutely proven fact, it has since been disproven.
Though most religions are indeed about control (as are most large human organizations), a valid religion, IMHO, is one that has as its goal to connect people to God, and therefore with their spiritual selves. Christ
It is true that people who want to rape pillage and kill will tend to do so, and religion only provides the excuse, but it is a powerful excuse. Raping heathens that are going are dammed anyone is nearly as bad as raping women from your own religion. Killing people who are not the direct decendents of G-d to save the direct decendents of G-d is surely not a bad thing. Denigrating half of the population is perfectly reasonable when you have book that says it is the natural order of things.
From a rational humanist point of view, all these things are bad. Even though they are sometimes justfied, the responsibility for the justification is on the individual, not diluted into some large group with a common mass insanity. The fact is that most people will not commit the horrible act, but that does not mean they do not approve, at least tacitly. Most would not kill a million people, but many say the tsunami was devine retribution. Most would not say the 9/11 attacks were divine retributions, but we have seen muslims and christians come together in agreement on this, as some muslims use this as the excuse, and Falwell seems as rich as ever.
So until i see chritians in the street protesting against Bush's stance on the death penalty(it is the providence of the lord to judge and kill, not humans), or his hypocrisy in prayer(from the text:
i will continue to blame the religion itself as a structural impediment to an enlightened world that does not go about opressing people just because some old book said it is ok to so do."She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized.
If it weren't, it would become so automatically. Whenever you put a lot of people together on a shared task, they form power structures and rules that govern interaction. It is inevitable.
Christianity didn't start out organized at all. The canon of the new testament wasn't finalized until centuries after Jesus' death. There were many interpretations of Jesus' teachings that strongly diverged from orthodox christianity (like gnosticism). And yet here we are, a faith so organized they can even dictate what those who don't hold their views can do in their own homes.
You can't stop people from organizing, and you can't stop them from believing what they wish to believe. What you can do is hold your own beliefs and opinions, organize with people like you, and make sure that your voice is heard and respected, because in the end, what the majority of those who speak out want is what is done.
Fuck those fucking fuckers.
On one hand: yeah, so? on the other hand, exactly!
Yes, FUCK the FCC!
I still play "nasties" on MY radio show, as do several of my fellow programmers, and WE are NOT AFRAID of the Indecency Nazis.
FUCK THEM!
My country is STILL America... land of the FREE .
FUCK the FCC and all the other narrow minded dimwitted assholes, we'll PLAY what WE want to on the PUBLIC airwaves.
In over 26 years in RADIO, I've NEVER recieved a phone call from a listener complaining about ANY song I've played, no matter HOW "racy".
Check out Ken Silverstein's "The Radioactive Boy Scout". Seems that David Hahn, a Michigan teenager managed to build a neutron gun with some americium he'd gotten from over 100 smoke detectors, and some berillyum a friend at a local college had purloined for him.
He also purified enough thorium from gas lantern mantles to represent some seriously radioactive stuff. He was trying to build a breeder reactor.
The interesting part of the book is how the NRC didn't know how to deal with an unlicensed nuclear reactor. To this day, I bet they still don't know. In Hahn's case they just hauled it all to a nuclear waste dump, including the potting shed in which he did most of his nuclear experimentation.
I cannot believe we're more concerned with what is carried over the RF band than what potential nuclear threats exist. For example, you could bombard the the thorium with neutrons to create fissionable material. Nice huh?
Plus, from my perspective, the feeling of meaning or purpose provided by religion is illusory (notably, it's reported by people of different, mutually exclusive religious views, which suggests that it's the belief itself, and not the content of the belief, which is responsible). Yes, it feels nice to believe in a comforting illusion, just as it feels nice as a child to believe in Santa Claus, but I'd much rather have my eyes open even if it means a little despair every now and then.
But that's just me. I don't really care what you believe, so long as you don't use those beliefs as a basis for public policy, or try to convert people against their will (whether "for their own good" or not). If it makes you happy, and being happy is that important to you, by all means go for it.
Lieberman is not a liberal. He may technically be a democrat, but that doesn't mean his actions reflect the views of the left.
In fact, I think Liberman does more harm than good to the left. Every time he sides with conservatives, the result gets called "bipartisan", when it is really the Republicians and Lieberman.
Thanks! It was a typo. I totally missed what he was saying, that I had written 70s, and the CIA action was in 1953. I don't know how "70s" crept into what I wrote.
The energy industry isn't even the worst. Sites like this show just how useful Americans consider their drinking water as compared to truly important things like, say, family television and missile defence pipe dreams.
And before anyone points out "They don't only have to pay a piddling sum in fines, they have to pay $x million to fix the problem"...there never should have been a problem in the first place. None of these places is operating at a loss, I guarantee you. That's like saying "He's a much better person then you- he has to fight every day against the urge to murder someone, and you don't even have to try!"
Murder on TV: ok
Rape on TV: ok
Abuse on TV: ok
A bit of tit: OMG RUN FOR THE HILLS
When did we start caring more about things that offend us than about things that can hurt us?
Less controversial. I feel the same way though.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
They don't call it the F-bomb for nothing.
Sometime someone is going to have to explain to me hows the Greens policy of a MAXIMUM wages isn't fascist.
If you didn't ignore the proper meaning of the word 'fascist' (particularly the authoritarian aspect of it) you would know.
To be regulated by the government is not the same as to be tied in to the government, much less to own the government (as it does in latter-day america).
posted anon to avoid the off-topic banhammer.
Mostly good examples of religion being used for the wrong purposes there. One nitpick though (and I'm sure I'll be flamed big time for this.) The haulocaust was not the world's worst genocide. Terrible yes, but compared to other recent genocides, it was hardly in the top 5. It is definitely the world's most publicized genocide. Sadly, it's the only one most people in America have ever heard of.
Lieberman is one of those people who really needs to change parties, Zell Miller too. Remember how when walking out from the State of the Union George W. practicly French kissed him.
I suspect that they are really Republican moles. The Republicans early in their lives started paying them under the table to join the Democratic party and then spend their entire career being whiny, pathetic and embarrassing just to see how much damage they could do to the Democratic party from inside. I suspect that Lieberman, probably more than any other single person, helped insure George W. won the 2000 election. And so I've explained the mystery behind the kiss at the state of the union. It was a big fat, belated, thank you for helping getting George W. elected in 2000.
Zell Miller did his part in 2004 by his lunatic ranting at the Republican convention, saying things that Republicans were reluctant to say out loud, but were delighted to give their mole prime time to rant at the top of his lungs stuff that was basicly slander.
@de_machina
What's the difference?
If the argument is scare public airwaves, I'm using the same amount of I broadcast to 10 people or 1,000,000 people.
The argument doesn't hold water.
"It's illegal to show nipple in public places"
No its not. I showed them today in public, althought it was cold. I was switching from my T-shirt to a sweatshirt.
If this gets challenged, the moral crusaders will lose, because you can't treat women differently than men. Equal Protection clause.
I mean, come on, those fines didn't put a dent in the pockets of the major networks. I wouldn't call them unreasonable. Fines for dangerous situations at nuclear powerplants being only 60k, on the other hand, is a situation that needs to be remedied.
Fine 'em!
"Provide incentive to develop meangingful programming"
Like what? Who desides who is meaningful? Why are you afraid of people watching what appeals to them?
"Socially valuable content renders expletives useless"
Why do you fear the word "fuck"?
Explain it to me.
Its similar to the word "truck" or "fork", and those don't upset you.
Its simply a shorter word that describes "intercourse" or "Sex"
So, a reasonable conclusion is that the word "fuck" or "shit" or "cunt" have magic properties. Effectively, they're magic spells to you, since they have power out of proportion to their meaning or sound.
In that regard, you're no different than some primative tribesman who fears a shaman putting a curse on you.
Why does the phrase "Fuck you, asshole" frighten you? I really really don't get it.
If it weren't, it would become so automatically. (...) It is inevitable.
I understand that, and I understand that a world with religion and no organized religion is utopic and impossible.
Perhaps the corolary of my original phrase is that there's actually something wrong with religion after all, and the world would be better off without gods.
You can't stop people from organizing (...) What you can do is hold your own beliefs and opinions, organize with people like you.
Exactly, which is why I've organized with other atheists in my country. Free speech is a beautifull thing, but it serves nothing if you have nothing to say.
- Krusty: Here are the names of some funny places: Walla Walla, Keokuk, Kookamunga, Seattle!
- Homer: Bhahahhahaha! Seattle
Shut up you fucking commie prick.
Ok Slashdottereens, lets explain why the parents comment was a troll!
Shut up was used to open the single sentence in this post. A less agressive and more helpful comment along the lines of "Be quiet" or "What you say is wrong" or even "I disagree" would have made a far more sensible opener.
commie was not the most tactful choice of words, nor was it the most accurate. The grandparent never once quoted any significant texts by Marx, nor did he declare membership of any registered communist organisations. fucking commie was hardly called for either. "You are a charletonrous communist" might have given more respectability to the post.
prick would seem out place in such a post. Not only has the parent incorrectly used the noun after the preceeding, verbalised, noun, he has also made a rather tasteless choice, when, "man", "annoying person" and/or "rouge" would easily have sufficed.
Now I understand that a great many slashdottereens may have modded the comment as funny, as the, tart and less than tasteful tone no doubt produced a few giggles, but such comments ultimately lower the quailty of the overall discussion and should be modded downm, lest the funny mod itself be called into disrepute.
May the Maths Be with you!
mortals!
Ok Slashdottereens, lets explain why the parents comment was a troll!
As a kindergarten teacher might say, "Children, let's not listen to this bad man"---he wants to take away your sense of humour and tell you 2+2=5, as long as it's politely said.
It's bad enough that funny mod is broken (AFAIK, funny doesn't give you any karma, while other measures to mod the same post down burns it), you shouldn't be encouraging the karma burn any jokester risks.
Also, usually real trolls, I should say, are more polite on the outside than a hilarious post as GP. Just look at the "BSD is dying" troll....wait a minute---you are a troll, aren't you?
I should stop feeding you then.
What the fuck?
I don't think the parent's comment was trying to lessen the horrors of "female circumcision". Just draw attention to the fact that "the other circumcision" is also not a good thing.
Flamebait? Fuckwits...
I've never been to the USA, but all this hysteria over more than a year has me wondering - is it illegal for women to breast feed in public in the USA? That would explain a few things, weird stuff like it's OK to see strippers but only if they have little stickers named after Cornish miners pies on their nipples.
Let me play devils advocate... Evil is evil. It doesn't matter whether it comes under the guise of religion or not, it's still evil. If you look beyond the details that people making a profit tell you, the message is good. However, in many cases, we're better off killing the messanger, or at least not listening to him.
No good man of god got rich off of god. No good man of god will teach you to hate. No good man of god is adorned in gold and/or often on tv.
If you're looking for a democratically elected leader overthrown in the 70's, there's a couple to choose from. I'd go with Allende given the monstrosity they replaced him with.
Lieberman is no Democrat.
Lieberman is loyal only to the Likud-wing of the Republican Party.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes. The amount of U.S. government intervention in the governments of other countries is so extensive that it is difficult to document it all. And that's just the intervention that has become known. The U.S. government has become one of inability to make effective relationships and secrecy and adversarial behavior.
Fuck off. Uh oh, I just got myself fined into oblivion! OH NOES!
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Becuase we are expecting the Americal Inquisition!
"Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition"
Being politically conservative, I support ironclad enforcement of a few, reasonable laws. Once we decide that something "shouldn't be done," the penalty for doing so should not be so light as to be considered a "cost of doing business." This threshold might well be different for the entertainment industry than for other industries. On the other hand, I think that the FCC's obscenity standards are unreasonable. Stern's shows make money, because people seem to enjoy his antics. (I'm not a fan, but I'm not anti-Stern, either)
Being an economic conservative, I tend to view the Bush administration as favoring a few select businesses (his campaign contributors), as opposed to supporting an economic environment conducive to business in general. The FCC seems to be strongly favoring Cable television and Satellite radio over traditional broadcast media. The majority of the public seems to prefer a boob or a cuss word here and there, and are willing to pay for a subscription, rather than get "boring" content for free. The economically conservative view would be to relax the broadcast standards, and let radio and television stations provide content to meet market demand, as they see fit.
After all, if you owned a cable or satellite business, wouldn't you want (free) radio and TV to be as boring as possible? Wouldn't you contribute to a candidate who promised to do so?
"If show breasts, swearing, etc. only cost $60,000 per incident most networks would seriously consider running Sex and the City, the Sopranoes or uncut R-rate movies on prime time TV, because they'd make that cost up and more in viewership."
Yes. Heaven forbid that TV put on what people actually want to watch rather than what 5 people sitting on an appointed board that answers to no one.
Why...that would be too much like democracy, choice and responsibility.
More important, it would irritate repressed nut cases who think god is sending them messages that boobies are dirty!
n 1: a man who is a stupid incompetent fool [syn: fathead, goof, goofball, bozo, jackass, goose, cuckoo, zany]
I wonder what the total fine would be for broadcasting this on the air...
. swf
http://www.stfunoob.com/movies/Fuck%20Shit%20Piss
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
I hate getting involved in "You must be at least this committed to the Party Line to play..." type games, but Lieberman is hardly a Democrat.
He supports Bush's plan to dismantle Social Security also, but that doesn't mean the Democrats are just as guilty in that as the Republicans. A party shouldn't have to force everyone to be completely committed to the Party Line in order to claim it supports or opposes a certain position.
The thing with the DMCA doesn't really prove anyone's point, by the way. Nobody elected understands the DMCA. (Maybe Feingold, my senator, does... maybe...) Nobody really understands it at all except the techies and the corporations. Unfortunately.
YOU FAIL IT
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
abridging the freedom of speech.
Isn't that part of the US constitution? Doesn't the FCC hold power by sole virtue of federal legislation? After all, federal law requires compliance with FCC regulations for television and radio broadcasts.
How can federal legislation upholding the FCC's role in censorship of unpopular speech (such as Howard Stern's comments) be legal under the US constitution? Ordering someone not to say certain things certainly consists of an "abrigement of freedom of speech", I would think.
Are there any US lawyers or legal scholars out there who can explain this to me? I must confess that I don't understand it at all.
--
AC