Slashdot Mirror
FCC Indecency Ruling Struck Down
arbitraryaardvark writes "Reuters reports that the 2nd circuit has struck down the FCC's recent ruling on indecency, in a case brought by Fox. The court said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was 'arbitrary and capricious' in setting a new standard for defining indecency. 'Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience ... If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.' No word yet on whether the agency will appeal.
Supreme Court to FCC: "Fuck off"
Actually, one of the most amusing parts of the ruling was the court citing the fact that the words can't be that bad if George W Bush and Dick Cheney use them (to Tony Blair and Patrick Leahy respectively).
I am officially gone from
Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television...
No, he mentioned the words shit and fuck (see the article). It's ironic that someone felt the need to alter the (highly relevant) quotation in this supposedly uncensored medium.
I hear this claim a lot, but it doesn't hold. Fuck, shit, damn, etc. are words that if used sparingly, express one's frustration better than a full sentence. If your claim were really true, what would be so special about these words that prevents them from having meaning like other words?
Well, it's hard to tell in black-and-white...
r mer-rat-imp-cockatrice-floatingeye.
But I'd say "cat-you-cockatrice-kobold".
Then again, you can't say "cock", so that should be "cat-you-c@ckatrice-kobold"
And then we get "cat-you-cockactrice-you-cockatrice-kobold-ant-fa
Not censorship isn't about free speech -- it's about avoiding recursive pronounciation problems with censored nouns in the nethack/adom languages, as any geek should know.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Historically, during times of national emergency the government has taken on additional powers. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, and FDR raised taxes to fund WWII (and the Great Depression). The difference between then and now, in my book, is not the acquiring of those powers, but the basis by which they were acquired. Whereas the confederacy (1) actually threatened the stability of the US and (2) had a definite surrender date (Appomattox Courthouse, 1865), Bush & Co are acquiring the same power with the same reasoning but with no comparable foe. Al Qaeda's power pales in comparison to the threat the Nazis posed or to the threat succession posed. Nor can they actually surrender in any meaningful way.
In short, the difference here is taking temporary powers the executive has acquired in the past and extended them to permanent status via creation of an artificial war (the "war" on terror is no more a war than the "war" on drugs) in a 1984-esque fashion.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The problem is that the Republican party, as of the last decade or so, isn't precisely conservative at all. The Republicans have abandoned just about every "conservative" value or position, including small government (or at least opposing its increase), states' rights, individual freedoms, etc. (About the only thing an actual 'conservative' and a modern Republican would agree on is their stance on gun control.)
They are no longer, and haven't been for some time, "conservative." In fact they seem to want to change quite a lot. They're probably best described as 'authoritarian,' particularly on the social side. And IMO, "social conservatives" aren't conservatives at all; the title is a complete misnomer. They're not trying to prevent some sort of drastic change to the social fabric, they're trying to induce a drastic change. They are, by many objective definitions, actually quite radical. (Of course, they tend not to think so -- they prefer to think of themselves as trying to take the country back to some 1950s idyll that never existed outside their own imaginations.)
The actual conservative wing of the Republican party died with Barry Goldwater; what remains has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with pushing a transformative agenda. It's just a different transformative agenda than what the more far-left elements of the Democratic party want.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's not necessarily so; though they often have such a moral, the character giving voice is usually compromised at the end of the episode and made to appear unreliable.
The real problem with this quasi-subversive dreck is that it tears everything you consider sane apart by the end of the episode, subverting not just government and morality, but the idea of that people can be governed, can be loved, and can embody right action. The real losers at the end of a Family Guy or Simpsons episode are the characters that try to adjust this status quo. The message to the viewer is: The world is unjust and insane, and the worst thing you could possibly do is try to fix it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Actually, this is an example of the fundamental attribution error. Intelligence is not the same as one's manner of speech, or even necessarily of how articulate one is. Ideally, one should try to judge intelligence based on the content of ideas imparted by speech, not by the structure of the speech itself. In fact, judging a person on their speech is very much akin to judging them on their voluntary appearance, for example how they dress. Obviously manners of attire send social cues which reasonable people can be expected to have some familiarity with, but it is very possible that a person may be very different from the stereotype projected by how they dress.
The parent is simply saying "When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate. Neither reflects well on you".
They do reflect poorly in many contexts, and whether or not this is justified, people should indeed be cognizant of this and adjust their behavior accordingly. Still, even if its use is mostly gratuitous, there certainly are occasions when a word like "fuck" is exactly the right word to use.
English is easier said than done.
Things are defined vaguely in order to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear-- they want de facto suppression of that which cannot otherwise be legally and explicitly suppressed. However, draw the line clearly, and some hippy (from their point of view) will stand with his toes on that line giving them the raspberry.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...