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.
I thought fox was a republican lapdog?
My blog
How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
isn't it
"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"
If I'm not mistaken, thats the whole idea of freedom of speech right?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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
What the fack is facking fack?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
What he's leaving out is that the case was over the "fleeting" use of such words, such as during live events when something accidentally slips through. If a pre-recorded show has the words in there and it is deliberately broadcasted, the indecency rules still apply.
The problem is that currently, the FCC sometimes enforces the standard of "fleeting use," and sometimes it doesn't. The courts are just saying that it needs to be standardized and rationally applied.
Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Why would censorship be considered de-facto beneficial?
A Human Right
fatck => fact?
Also:
Holy Fucking Macedionian Shit Balls
Dongs Butts Dongs Dongs Dongs
I think it would sound something like F at chik or.. fatchick?
s/©//g
I believe it's pronounced as FSHIFT2CK!
Badass Resumes
They pander to the far right, too.
Damn, two years too late for Charles Rocket.
(If you know who he is you are *OLD*)
You remember that little warning at the beginning of the show? This show contains coarse language, sexual content, and violence? Yeah, that means don't let your kids watch it. That wasn't too difficult I hope!
Other than the fact that Hollywood tends to pander to the far left, I can't, for the life of me, imagine why this is a Bad Thing .
Far left? You Americans have really fucked up politics.
They are only words. Banning words is what gives the words power. My wife and I allow have told our kids that they are allowed to "cuss" around their friends and we don't have a problem with it. We'd like them to not cuss around us, but it is not "banned." We have asked that they not cuss around other adults, but it is not "banned." It is their own choice.
Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are. I don't have a problem with using those words, but I choose not to (except when one-on-one with my wife... go figure). I am 100% sure that my kids have never heard me use profanity, but I am 100% sure that they hear it every day in other places. I have no problem with others using profanity at all. Sometimes it is funny, mostly it says an awful lot about the person using it. It is just words.
Anyway, we have never heard any cussing from our kids and have never heard any comments from other parents/teachers.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Look how he describes it not as a federal court, but as a "New York court" in order to exploit the biases of the rest of the country.
Let's arbitrarily pick out some words and make them taboo! We can waste lots of time punishing children for saying them (while ironically preaching the good old "sticks and stones" line) AND we can waste oodles of hard-earned taxpayer cash on legislation and enforcement! This is great!
God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.
Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
This ruling applies to live event coverage where the broadcaster does not control the content. Pre-programmed material will continue to be subject to the same draconian and childish FCC rules as before.
This is no victory for free speech or free thought.
How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?
I believe it's pronounced as FSHIFT2CK!
I have one of those horrible JIS keyboards where @ gets its own key (to the right of the P) but you have to use shift to get the quote marks (' and ").
On these things, I can only surmise that it's pronounced as spelled: "FATCK".
Today's starting off pretty well--first the RIAA gets a small smackdown, and now this. It would be nice to live in a country where parents are actually expected to make decisions for themselves about what their kids watch. As a previous poster stated, we already have the annoying warnings about the content of upcoming programs--that means that if you don't want your kids absorbing and regurgitating TV filth, then don't let them watch it.
u-bend
Isn't that why we've got that first amendment there?
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.
So apparently a court thinks that the FCC can not arbitrarily define indecency, but /. submitters are self-censoring f@ckers ;)
If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/
What's latin for "pwned?"
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
From a Seinfeld episode
---
Kramer: Well, I have to say this seems capricious and arbitrary.
Dean Jones: You fly is open.
---
Don't you know?
In the "New Millennium" Free Speech isn't just A Bad Thing (TM) It's The Bad Thing (TM)
Isn't this one of the greatest freedoms we Americans have? Freedom of Speech? I can understand the concept of "indecent" and around kids agree, but not at the expense of censorship. It's up to parents to take care of their kids. If a show is kinda raunchy then don't allow your kids to watch it, if it's not in your personal beliefs. But don't limit people who want to express or see this form of expression.
I think we spend too much time and money in this country trying to make everyone happy and remove responsibility from those who are supposed to be in charge.
Just my $0.02
"eff at ck"
Best Slashdot Co
let them put whatever they want on television. if you don't like what they're showing, get off the couch and do something else.
"I did not fuck that woman."
"We are done fucking up Iraq."
mod me funny
Let me get this, even though this is more about government censorship and a rather trivial issue at best, the republican are crying foul but by their own free market approach this would be the logical outcome, the industry would regulate themselves yielding the optimal result. How about if they focus their faux moral outrage at more important issues such as the health care or the environment.
With those pronounciation rules, I sense a certain irony in the pronounciation of FCC.
Every country has really fucked up politics. Ours are just more visible at the moment.
The wide array of choice enabled by technology has made the FCC irrelevant. My kids watch a few cable channels and DVDs. It is all geared for kids. The channels I let my kid watch self select into programming that does not contain profanity because they know that is a factor in the purchase factor I make on behalf of my kids. So, you see, good old fashioned free market economics has provided a safe haven for kids. FCC? Who needs them!
I've never understood why you can watch someone get shot in a drama in prime time, someone could say something like "I'd like to put a fork into your eyeball" in prime time, yet a single word like the F-Bomb can't be said?
What is the actual purpose of "bad" words? Why not just consider that bad words don't exist and everyone can say any word they want and we just not "have a cow" over it?
Seems to me we're taught to take exception to the words. It's a learned behavior. How about just not learning it in the 1st place?
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.
*WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.
( 7, 5 and 3 year old girls )
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Hey Kevin Martin! It's not that the FCC can't stop swear words from primetime TV, it's that the FCC has to define what constitutes a swear word (here's the hard part) BEFORE they can slap a fine on a TV station. You can't be intentionally vague with the definition of indecency and then come down hard (to the tune of millions of $$$) on the TV stations who have no idea where the line is drawn.
Kevin buddy, write down what indecency is, and everyone will comply. It's a neat idea...give it a try.
Xesdeeni
And since this is a "free country" you will have every right and opportunity to NOT WATCH the television. You and your children can do something like READ A BOOK, or GO FOR A WALK, or LEARN TO PLAY AN INSTRUMENT, or any number of perfectly useful activities that do not include glotzing some retarded screen full of disinformation and jejune entertainment that reinforces a false consciousness that convinces people to act and live in a way that fosters the parasitic tapeworm economy.
Feh.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but care to illuminate your actual point?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Or is it the other way around; the Republicans are Fox's bitch. Either way, you're trying to be logical about politics, you yourself are being illogical.
Republicans are supposed to be political conservatives. Political conservatives are supposed to be against government interference in private lives. Terri Schaivo, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. show that they care more about their 'base', the social conservatives, than they care about political philosophy.
And the fact that Fox has been leading the charge when it comes to smutty, sensationalist television, which you think would offend the religious right, and they they get a free ride from the Republican Party because they're such whores about supporting the NeoCons is just another example of the hypocritical politics we have these days. Another reason why religion and politics are a bad, but historical, combination.
I'd love to support the Republicans (fiscal conservatives, political conservatives), but I don't dare support the whores and hypocrites in power right now.
Best regards.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6063897
So he thinks that every form of the versatile word "fuck" is inherently sexual. I keep wondering, is he fucking serious? That's a fucking ridiculous stance to take! If he is in charge of censoring our airwaves, things have gotten pretty fucked up.
In most of Europe, far left means pretty much a pure socialist state. Michael Moore is considered a slightly left leaning liberal, and most Democrats are considered pretty right wing.
American censorship is rampant. There are no censors where I come from and you can say any word you want on TV and Radio. What's the big deal?
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
As much as we kill it around here, we have a love for its strength. You can say exactly how you feel and be sure everyone knows how you feel. Unfortunetly, that sometimes requires the use of taboo explatives. By removing the taboo we remove their strength. I'm not sure about you but when the server crashes "Oh gosh and golly gee!" Does not express my feelings at the time. Then again, I don't want small children to hear me as I'm working on said pieces of crap.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
"The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience"
They said that there are limits to when those words can be broadcast, not that they can't be broadcast at all. I think I have read that after 10 PM it is possible to broadcast those words without fear of FCC sanction, but if someone has a reference to clarify that I'd appreciate it.
So as a parent who does have a child of the impressionable age i can agree that dropping the F-Bomb whenever possible in primetime is really not a good idea. On the other hand if you change the channel you are subjected to more violence and sexual behavior by just watching the evening news. If the news covers a story about the middle east or what the celebs are doing how is that "decent"? Why does the religious right think that they have the right to tell me what is appropriate? I like to think that i'm an intelligent individual who can make the best decisions about how i raise my child and the reality is.... the words shit and fuck are used quite often (especially here in Boston heh...www.townienews.com ) He knows that he is not supposed to use those words and if he hears them it will not scar him for life. I learned every bad word i know from my mother and i feel pretty well adjusted. Fuck the FCC, Fuck the Bush administration and Fuck the religious zealots who think they know what is right for me and my child Hell why not.......Fuck religion in general, it was a book! still is a book, will always be a book and will never be more than a book. Open you eyes we're slaughtering ourselves over a fuckin childrens story. FUCK FUCK FUCK !!!! there just for good measure
Most of these words are in common usage on the street.
Shit is a particularly stupid example since we use it every day. It's like a rated "G" word which is peculiarly forbidden.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want"
I thought that that was part of free speech - why is he complaining?
I never understood why the FCC has the powers it does. It seems to me that there isn't a single child over 6 I've ever met who hasn't heard f@ck or sh*t spoken aloud, and I grew up watching Mel Brooks movies over and over again.
If you want to monitor what YOUR child watches, then it is your job to do so, not the FCCs.
bastards the lot of 'em.
Everything and everyone is an aspect of Gd. So remember to show proper respect!
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
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I don't know, fucking can get pretty violent!
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Is another valid option :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. for the Wiki entry.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
Mmmm NetHack references... where are my mod points!?! :)
The rest of us should not have to be subjected to a vision of the Flanders view of the world just because your parents were capable of getting past their puritanical hangups regarding procreation. "obscenities" are just words. They're crude but not really special. More importantly, they're part of a complete view of reality. TV is already enough of a fantasy without injecting a greater level of fantasy into it.
Talk of "obscenity" stifles interesting discourse. Someone that has something interesting to say will eventually let something slip out that you find "shocking" for whatever reason. That "shock" is a necessary element of meaningful public discourse.
"fuck" is just a side effect of genuine openness.
ALL of us can filter based on content as we see fit.
Modern TV technology is especially useful in this regard.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Zonk slightly edited my journal entry, which read:
Reuters reports that the 2nd circuit has struck down the FCC's rules 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, "'shit' and 'fuck' bleep bleep children." The case is a victory for Nicole Richie and Bono and Cher, as some of the people Fox aired saying some of the 7 dirty words in casual conversation. No word yet on whether the agency will appeal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Hits_the_Fan
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
hello... language?
i swear to fucking god that you shitcocks on fucking slashdot have the worst goddamn language i have ever fucking seen.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
Because a lot of people don't want to believe that we have poverty, violence and ignorance in this country because our social systems like public schools, medical care and social services are failing. It is much easier to say it is because there is violence in video games, swearing on television and gays trying to get married than admit that we as a people need to either make some changes or else accept the fact that a significant portion of our population is falling towards third world status.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
I have an invisible friend in the clouds who loves me unconditionally. Even though he causes shitty things to happen to me all the time, I know it's because I was born bad and need to be punished. My invisible friend says you're a lying demon who wants to take me to this place of eternal torment my invisible friend made. He says you'll torment me eternally for the finite crime of listening to you. But my invisible friend is all knowing and all loving, so that sounds fair to me!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There, I fixed that for you.
I think the people claiming that TV must be censored are hilarious. We would have to monitor our kids every second that they are watching TV!!!! Really? Really? Of course not, that's just alarmist bullsh!t.
TV should be completely uncensored. It should be up to each parent to program their TV to block programs that they don't want their children to see. The required ratings are already embedded in each broadcast. The technology is already there.
Saying that TV should be censored, to me, is like saying that the internet should be censored. That's silly. Content providers should provide content, and viewers should have the right to decide what IS and ISN'T appropriate for their house.
When the FCC realizes this, and loosens the chains, it will be a good day for us all. Even the children.
burrocrisy
and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
I happen to think Fox's O'Reilly (not that *other* one) is obscene and indecent, regardless whether he does or doesn't use the words shit and fuck. Let's censor him in an arbitrary and capricious way.
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want
Yeah, that whole freedom of speech thing just keeps getting in the way of the theo-pub's religio-political agenda! We must squash any idea that it's okay to say what you think, ESPECIALLY if it differs from the teachings of the cross. What's next? Expecting parents to pay attention to what their kids watch and do? Jeebus help us, this country's heading down to that hot place in a handcart!
But, in all seriousness....oh, your god...my hope meter just blipped. First time in...mmmmmm...about 7 years since that happened...
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
The FCC mandates the so-called V-chip in most larger HDTVs. Why not allow anything on TV? Just mandate parental controls on all sets and require broadcasters to follow the rating system. Then everyone can filter out the shows they personally find unacceptable to themselves and their children. Of course this would take away the exclusivity of profanity and boobs that pay channels currently enjoy, so I don't really expect it to happen.
And the Brits arent exactly the party animals of Europe either. And America is still puritanical after 400 years.
This is backlash from the FCC's sole singleminded focus on boob accidents and naughty words and essentially turning over the entire business regulatory end of industry over to the lobbyists. The head of the FCC is an openly Evangelical Christian Bush appointee who's personal candidacy was soaked in calls for 'family values', 'restraint' and Christian wholesomeness.
Second grade in French Immersion was fun. We weren't allowed to swear, of course, because Swearing is Bad. But we could say "phoque" all we wanted. I'm sure it annoyed the teachers, but I guess we all got off on a technicality.
Also, "pencil" = "penis." Which made life interesting, given that we weren't allowed pens.
Kids an insatiable hunger for scatological humour. If their parents are doing their jobs, the kids will learn not to swear in inappropriate situations. But even if kids don't understand what sex is, they know it's "dirty" and they find it funny. It may not be perfectly polite, but it's normal.
That's the rationale for it, sure. But those laws aren't based on reality.
The laws on which you are basing that argument are utter absurd.
It's not like radio waves are just floating free in the sky, to be hooked onto. They are generated within a transmitter SOMEBODY OWNS, and sent out via an antenna SOMEBODY OWNS.
When you say "When a broadcast company like Fox acquires a license from the govt to broadcast, they agree to follow the FCC's rules and operate in the public's best interest,", the unstated premise is that it is in fact legitimate for the state to require a license to make radio broadcasts.
I reject that premise. I oppose those laws.
It's not enough to simply say "it's the law." You also need to explain why it SHOULD be the law.
As a point of fact, I can see a place in government initially allocating frequency space, sort of like it did with land in the 19th century--so, for instance, government could auction off the block of frequencies from 92.0 to 92.2 MHz over a circle with a radius of 250 statute miles centered over Moscow, Idaho or whatever, and then after that treating them just like land--so if your broadcast infringes upon frequency space owned by someone else, you're trespassing--so you'd better be sure you don't exceed your range or bandwidth limitations.
And after the initial allocation, it's theirs to do what they want with--just like land, they can resell it to whoever they wish, or transmit whatever they want on it.
My general point is, though, the laws on which you are basing your argument are themselves absurd. They are illegitimate, null, and void, and no one has any moral obligation to abide by them. I realize the courts have ruled otherwise--all that means is that the courts are wrong.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
oops, excu8se my language
sudden outburst, no excretory functions implied
!?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually "f@ck" translates to "f-at-ck" which in turn can be grouped as "fat ck". In the given context "ck" can be understood as the SMS abreviation for "cock" so "fat ck" turns into "fat cock".
....
Naturally we're talking about a big rooster here
Naturally
fATck or "fat chick"
Of course, you'd better not say that or fuck around the ladies.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
According to Eric Idle, it is dedicated to the FCC, and if they broadcast it, it will cost a quarter of a million dollars. Have a listen. :)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Oh no! Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want. Where do they think they live?! In a country with constitutionally protected freedom of speech?!
or rather, you had me, then lost me after that word
to be frank, your description of contemporary society is just as absurd and hysterical as how a fundamentalist would describe it
you know, fundamentalists, the people you were quoting above and reacting to
seems like you all like have something in common... another big word, like jejune: hyperbole
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want!
Why, it would be as if they had freedom of speech or something! Horrors!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
the opinion is here in pdf. here online commentary includes volokh
Am I the only one who wonders what harm, precisely, these words actually do to children? Does hearing these words (as opposed to substitutes like "shoot" and "fudge" spoken in the same tone of voice) cause children to be more aggressive? More likely to abuse their future spouse/children? More likely to become alcoholic? More prone to thyroid cancer?
Is there any, you know, actual evidence to back up whatever the theory is?
What precisely is the harm that has FCC Chairman Kevin Martin so concerned?
So as long as some other people vote to ban my ability to read certain books, it's not censorship? Decency is restraining your inner fascist and letting me make my own decisions on what I will watch, but it's too bad it's not the prevailing standard.
"Oh shit! I said shit!" .. "oh no, I said it again!"
NI!
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
howard bashman collects news reactions and has audio of the hearing. here
... in the top 5 most funny TV-moments (on Fox I think it was last week), the FCC song by Family Guy: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2683695
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
@ is based on the letter 'a', so f@ck is pronounced 'fack'
In other words, it's just a misspelling of FAQ, and everyone knows what a FAQ is. What's obscene about that? I mean, every FAQing site on the internet is full of FAQers telling people to Read the FAQing Manual.
You're right. Without television children wouldn't be able to emulate our drunken and slovenly celebrities. They'd have to emulate their drunken and slovenly neighbors and family members.
Let them say what they want. Words are not indecent.
Wait isn't that exactly the point of free speech?
No kidding, I was gonna mod him up +1 Magicbane
(Yah, I know you're not supposed to enchant it all, but what good is a +0 moderation?)
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The whole "left" vs. "right", "liberal" vs. "conservative" etc. labeling system is an arbitrary construct implemented by the governmedia to provide the illusion of political opposition and distract attention away from fundamental issues.
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."
Technically speaking Cher isn't a guy
I know. Damn those big city celebrities! And there's nothing you can possibly do to stop them. I mean, we tried, but then that pesky constitution has ruined it for everybody. Apparently even Cher is allowed to say anything she wants in this God forsaken country.
If only there were something you could to do stop your children from watching the television.
I guess someone needs to read the Constitution.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Well, I can't really speak for China, India or Africa, who account for most of the rest of the world, having never been to any of these places.
The VAST majority of Americans are NOT social conservatives and the government is shooting themselves in their collective, metaphorical foot. See also : Every damn politician who banked on socon's - and lost their re-election bid.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 4, 2007
STATEMENT OF FCC CHAIRMAN KEVIN MARTIN
ON 2ND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INDECENCY DECISION
Reaction
Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the use of the words "fuck" and "shit" by Cher and Nicole Richie was not indecent.
I completely disagree with the Court's ruling and am disappointed for American families. I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that "shit" and "fuck" are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.
The court even says the Commission is "divorced from reality." It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word "fuck" does not invoke a sexual connotation.
These words were used in prime time, when children were watching. Ironically, the court implies that the existence of blocking technologies is one reason the FCC shouldn't be so concerned. But even a vigilant parent using current blocking technologies such as the V-Chip couldn't have avoided this language, because they rely on the program's rating, and in this case the programs were rated appropriate for family viewing.
If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can't restrict the use of the words "fuck" and "shit" during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.
The Court Decision
As part of its March 15, 2006 Omnibus Indecency Order, the FCC determined that the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards broadcasts were indecent and profane.
During the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, the entertainer Cher made the following comment:
"I've had unbelievable support in my life, and I've worked really hard. I've had great people to work with. Oh, yeah, you know what? I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So fuck 'em. I still have a job and they don't."
During the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie took part in the following exchange:
Paris Hilton: "Now, Nicole, remember, this is a live show, watch the bad language."
Nicole Richie: "Okay, God."
Paris Hilton: "It feels so good to be standing here tonight."
Nicole Richie: "Yeah, instead of standing in mud and [audio blocked]. Why do they even call it 'The Simple Life?' Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."
Fundamentally, the Commission acted in accordance with its Congressional mandate to prohibit indecency and profanity on the airwaves, and in keeping with previous court decisions regarding indecency.
In the 1978 Pacifica case, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's finding that the broadcast of comedian George Carlin's monologue about the "seven dirty words you can't say on TV and radio" was indecent. In the case before the court today, the Commission was restricting only the use of two of those seven words. But as a result of this ruling, the New York court may have prohibited the Commission from enforcing any restrictions on language.
Potential Solution
Today's decision by the Court increases the importance of Congress considering content-neutral solutions to give parents more tools and consumers generally more control and choice over programming coming into their homes. By allowing them to choose the channels that come into their homes, Congress could deliver real power to American families.
Permitting parents to have more choice in the channels they receive may prove to be the best solution to content concerns. All of the potential versions of a la carte would avoid government regulation of content while enabling consumers, including parents, to receive only the programming they want and believe to be appropriate for their families. Providing consumers more choice would avoid the First Amendment concerns of content regulation, while pro
fuck an A. all you bitches and vagrents have warped my sense of decenty, makes my ass itch and balls hurt. besides, if a show has foul language why dont the parents say "NO". god forbid if parents stepped up and v-chiped or actually paid attention to what their kids do. and it isnt like they dont hear this is school or on the internet or even their own parents yelling "fuck you bastard" in the middle of an arguement. i guess when it hits TV thats when it is just wrong and will hurt out fragil unknowing children.
That's precisely why I love voice chat on XBox Live so much. Nothing motivates a good game like an 8-year-old screaming "holy fuck you fucking cheating fag fuckers!" at the top of his lungs.
Badass Resumes
Fox News owns the Republicans, not the other way around. Fox could break the Republican Party and build a new faux-conservative party in a few weeks. O'Reilly viewers alone could break the Republican Party, because they are depended on so heavily.
I don't envy the Republicans, or at least the real conservatives among them. Their party is beholden to a fickle TV news network and its viewers, and the religious right. You can't please both forever. Evangelicals are starting to wander, for different reasons. Some, because Republicans aren't right-wing enough, and some because they do care about the environment, the poor, etc. A near-death experience may be good for the GOP long term. Maybe they can get some conservatives in charge for a change, instead of all the visionary would-be world-shapers like Cheney and Rumsfeld.
I don't think the problem is curse words. I heard my nephew of 12 years old say 'Shit.' He used it appropriately. Did he get that from Television? I don't think so. "Indecency" of parents is far far worse than Movies let alone TV. If these words were on TV, parents should stop kids from watching those programs. Parents are GREAT moderators of kids (at least they should be). Even if these words were used on TV there would be no great damage done as parents would curtail anything that kids say if they pick it up. Do we need the FCC to moderate curses on TV? I don't think so.
My next point is the sensationalism, and sensational waste of time that TV really is. Who here doesn't watch TV? It is SO pervasive that it is just ASSUMED that you watch. Missing an episode of {whatever} is insignificant compared to the value of missing:
-time spent with kids
-exercising
-reading (paper or web)
-INTERACTING with people
There is just so much more that people can do and be if it weren't for TV. People will NEVER get those hours back. In 5 years those shows will have been forgotten. The implications of TV on politics is incalculable. Sound bites only mean know less after having heard it than before.
Give up TV and you'll have $50 in your pocket and 80 hours recovered PER MONTH. It's like suddenly having 11% more time in the day!
Ask your kids. I'm certain they'll know.
"Celebrities have absolutley no moral constraint and it's a blatantly horrible thing that our kids are using they as ROLE MODELS."
No wonder you're an anon coward. You sound like every other blathering, conservative idiot who wants to blame everyone else for being "immoral" yet take ZERO responsibility for your own kids. TV has proven to be bad for kids. Then why, as a parent, are you letting your kids watch so much? Who decided your kids "role models" were Cher and some rich girl named Nicole? Maybe you should have raised your kids not to worship celebs. Maybe We should sue you for raising stupid, ignorant kids. I don't know.
What's funny is that you think your perfect little kids aren't learning these curse words on the playground by the time they are 7. I have a reality wake up call for you holding on line 2.
I'm so sick of people blaming Hollywood and other forms of entertainment for destroying America. People like you are the ones eating it all up. If you raised your kids to see beyond the celebrity facade, maybe there would be no problem.
Anyway, if you don't like what's on TV, turn the damn thing off and make your kids read a book, you idiot.
I've grown up here my entire life and Shit and Fuck were the words after "mom" that i learned as a baby. Big fucking deal. We're in America are we not? Ever go to a baseball game in NY? I've been to countless Yankee games and a a few Mets games (86 world series) and if you bring your child, he or she is going to hear language you cant hear on tv. So what now?
Language is hardly a problem. There is nothing wrong with a kid hearing those words. The sooner we stop sheltering our kids and start educating them about the world they're bound to enter.... the better we'll be. Then we wont have to deal with this silly issue anymore. My parents said all kinds of things. I grew up just fine. I dont drink or smoke, i'm not a violent person and i am quite caring about the people of this planet. Hmmm GO FUCKING FIGURE huh?
Now sure.. When i visited Dad on the weekends, i watched my mouth... out of respect. When i was we had guests over, or we went out to dinner, i would watch what i would say... out of respect.... Somethings arent needed to be said all the time, but you sure as hell cant tell me when to say Fuck, or when to hear it....
I'll chose those moments myself.
Funny how republicans dont get it. Thats not to say the Democrats do.
As a parent, I did the only intelligent thing in my decision making matrix: unplug the TV.
My wife and I do not watch television nor do we allow our child to watch TV. If we decide to entertain ourselves with passive entertainment, we pop in a carefully selected DVD from our collection or Netflix. Our 2 year old seems to be all the better for not becoming another media sponge.
I don't know what the big deal is--just turn off the television instead of bitching about what's on it.
Ultimately, parents need to make the decision what they allow into their home and to what they expose their children. You can't legislate morality--people break the laws and regulations we already have.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
"Fox became a hard-core sex channel so gradually, I barely even noticed."
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
If you know the etymology of the term "nigger"(from the Latin niger, nigera, nigerum meaning black) you would know that the term has always been a reference to race/color. Though etymology is a horrible guide to modern usage("manufactured" comes from the Latin manufactus meaning "handmade") it's a good guide to historical usage. It never strictly referred to laziness. As for stopping its overall use, I'd be happy if we could bring Chris Rock onto all those TV shows that use it as a positive term and have the history of the word explained to them.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Apparently the good chairman's mother never told him that sticks and stones may break his bones, but words will never hurt him.
Kinda like the Religious Right is neither Religious nor right.
...the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can be subject to enforcement action.
So when the FCC chairman used "fuck" and "shit" to discuss the ruling with reporters, he meant that to be sexual?!!
What a dumbass.
I always look at it as speaking another language.
There's nothing wrong with being able to speak one way when you're with your friends and another when you're applying for a job. I'd say it's actually a benefit, as you can network with people who would otherwise shun you as either uppity in the first situation or uncouth in the second.
English dialect, the way you dress, the way you hold yourself, even what sports you know the rules to... it's all about communicating something about your social status and where you belong. I view it not much differently from being able to speak Spanish when you visit Mexico.
Don't see why kids can't be taught to avoid foul language when they're in front of someone who cares. I managed it eventually... probably would have a lot sooner if my mom hadn't just told me that it was a bad thing to say.
The real fuckin essence of the point behind goddamned censorship is to try and remind onesself to practice temperance. Some people use motherfuckin cuss words very casually and with little emotion, but for the asslickin majority of douchebags out there, shit talking cuss words represent a temporary indulgence of a sort of internal cunting anger, bitch. People draw on cocksuckin cuss words to add force to what they are saying, jackass, and that desire and willingness to add a cheap sort of force to words, rather than letting the fudgepacking, nutlicking words carry their own weight, is the real peril. This sort of buttramming neurolinguistic nuance is lost on dicksucking fundies tho.
'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, then American parents will have to actually parent and we can't have tnat."
A shout out to the "Dirt" band of Milwaukee...
"Eat, bite, fuck, suck, nibble, gobble, chew,
Finger fuck, hair pie, piss, cunt, screw"
Such uplifting lyrics!
From the pilot episode....
"Don't say "pig-fucker" in front of Jesus!"
when kids hear "shit" and "fuck", their heads explode
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
You mean Volkswagen Super Beetle--"fat chick" is a slang term to reference these cars. Apparently it's what can usually be found behind the wheel of one..
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Wouldn't that be c @ c @ c k a @ r i c e? (Not totally sure what a far mer would be... I'm guessing another @, given the context a t, but that's a trapper)
Too bad for you that you don't understand it. Instead you believe what Fox would have you believe - that they're merely centrist, or almost so whereas the rest is made up of raving loony lefties. It's too bad that you fell for it.
Going for the baseless ad hominem really doesn't help make your point of view look any more reasonable.
However, it mirrors most discussions, particularly about Fox, on Slashdot. Say anything rational that might be perceived as borderline pro-Fox, and clearly you're just a part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So as long as some other people vote to ban my ability to read certain books, it's not censorship?
Yes, that's censorship. It also has nothing to do with my post.
I don't want to tell you want to watch or read and frankly I don't care what decisions you make about your own life if it only affects you. But don't tell me I have to support your version of how best to use a public resource. We all get a say in that.
It's more fascistic for you to say taxpayers have no right to democratically control the use of a publicly owned asset than for me to suggest common-sense decency standards are acceptable when determining the best use of a public resource. If I woke up tomorrow and the FCC determined that the airwaves should be "anything goes", it would be fine with me as long as that decision goes through our democratic process. Since the FCC was created by Congress and is controlled by the executive, I can rest easy in knowing that yes, I did have a say in the use of this asset. If I think the FCC screwed up, I can vote for leaders who share my views.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
I think you make great points, and it's certainly a better system that what we have now. Private ownership is far preferable to submitting yourself to government authority and rules, which change with the political winds. But what you propose is not likely to ever happen; my comments were directed at dealing with the situation we have now.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
I think someone should FUCKING BOMB the FCC.
Kharma is like a boomerang. Mine is broken.
(And yes, I'm aware of the irony of my presuming to tell them what they can and can't say. If I were someone in such a position of power as to actually enforce it, then it would make me a hypocrite.)
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I disagree that Americans don't care. They do vote, and in increasing numbers. But I get your point; 'United States of Apathy' or 'United States of Amnesia'. Mostly, I think people want a general idea of which party will take care of what sort of issues, and they'll vote on that idea. The political arrangement used to be that Republicans were fiscal conservatives, and political conservatives, and the Democrats were the progressives. Republicans used to be social liberals.
My complaint is that the political system has been so totally gamed that Fox can curry favor with a political party and then get away with being the worst, by far, about violating decency standards because they've 'bought' their indulgence with that political party. The Republicans have been pandering to narrow constituencies in order to get political power. They'll sell their political support to the highest bidder. Again, nothing new, but why should we sit by and not remark about it?
As I said, I'd like to be a Republican, but the only thing that the Republicans really stand for is the wealthy. They don't do anything about abortion even when they had complete political power. Why would they? If they did something about abortion, the fundamentalist christians would no longer have a reason to vote for them.
The Republicans spend money like crazy, not just the administrations, but the various senators, congressmen all got involved in the pork. They label the Dems as 'tax and spend', but if you look at a chart of the national deficit and a timeline of political administration, you'd see just the opposite; the deficit goes up during Republican administrations.
The NeoCon Republicans are currently pandering to the social conservatives, but it turns out to be lip service. They did nothing about abortion, gay marriage, decency on the airwaves, and they themselves turn out to be a bunch of rotten apples; closet homosexuals preying on the young, liars and manipulators who have no compunction about sending troops into war, they claim that they 'support the troops' but there was inadequate preparation for the war in Iraq and there's been poor support of the troops after they come home. I'm heartsick about what's been happening and the fact that Fox is able to pimp the NeoCons is just another sign of what's wrong.
I don't think the Democrats are in a good position to fix this problem. I'd prefer to see someone like Chuck Hagel in the White House, or maybe even Thompson - a Regan Republican, but the current front runners in the Republican race for the primaries don't thrill me. More sellouts. Fox is still sitting pretty.
Best regards.
To me, the Europeans look like a bunch of reasonable people. And their countries have been doing a good job of caring for the welfare of their citizens. Here in the U.S. the trend is just the opposite; extremist behavior and a neglected population (since 2000). We have some reasonable people here in the U.S. but the reasonable Republicans got marginalized by the NeoCons.
The way we Americans carry on about little stuff like Clinton's involvement with Lewinski, and the way so many American went off on people like the Dixie Chicks, while we tolerate some despicable, vicious behavior at our highest political offices sometimes makes me wish I lived in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Spain, or someplace where a more reasonable, moderate political system was at work.
We're stuck with the best politicians that money can buy. I've been sending money to the ones I want to see in office. Too bad I have to spend my money to help get some fair political leadership.
Best regards.
So the FCC want No Fat Chicks? They should get a bumper sticker...
Cheers, Chris
That clumps of cells aren't children. You there, the brown suit and hat, when's you're birthday? Wow, what a coincidence, me too. On the left, the guy in a bee suit masturbating into a slice of baloney, when was you're birthday? Christmas? Appropriate. How about you Cheeto fingers? Thanks. Ok, who knows their conception day? One guy with a head shaped like a testtube. And it's been this way since the rise of agriculture? I think we have our answer. Not one of us until you get in (or out) the door.
>>> What could be more appropriate than "FUCK!" when you hit your finger with a hammer
"ow my finger"
>>>, lock your car keys inside the car with the motor running
"oh no, I've locked the keys in the car [again!]"
>>> or drop your laptop while walking up a flight of stairs?
"I hope that still works"
Seriously, chill out.
"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."
Good. Fuck you. They should be able to say anything they want, whenever they want. Read the First Amendment sometime.
There's a reason I despise the Republican party. If you guessed "stripping away our constitutional rights for the sake of catering to the moral majority/religious right" you win.
Care about privacy? Read this!
I'm a parent, so I have the right to say this:
The only people who can tell my kids what to watch (or what not to watch) are my wife, and myself.
The government has no business deciding what is decent and what is not. If you aren't enough of a parent to decide what is appropriate for your kids, you shouldn't have had them. Why do my tax dollars have to raise your kids?
If you can't regulate what your kids watch, how are you going to keep them out of the liquor cabinet, or prevent them from taking your car without permission, later in life?
Parents need to realize that raising kids is their responsibility, not the government's.
-ted
My God! Someone with common sense finally posted something rational! I was beginning to think every slashdotter is a lobotomized pimply-faced anarchist. You people might consider participating in "Your Government" instead of whining and blaming everything on Bush and O'Reilly. While you have a perfect right to flaunt your eighth-grade mentality, you might consider getting off your elitist (and spoiled) asses and doing something about what you consider wrong with the Government. End of Rant....
Tell me again why this isn't covered by freedom of speech? Also, isn't Hollywood already able to have their movie characters say whatever they want, whenever they want? I don't get it.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Where does the government's responsibility in "protecting children" end?
Movies, music, radio, bedtime, their friends....some of the many factors in a child's life that can help or hurt.
Where is the line drawn?
Governments have no business telling parents how to raise their children unless the parental actions are considered criminal. I agree with you, the government should step in if a child is in an environment that could endanger the child's life. Movies, music, and radio are not that severe and the Government should stay out.
I like Howard Stern as much as any guy, but I don't want my kids listening to him until they are older. That should be the parent's decision only, not the FCC's.
-ted