Senate Committee Passes FCC Indecency Bill

An anonymous reader writes "US Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for slip of the tongue expletives, negating a ruling by federal appeals court in New York that commission's policy on 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious. 'A mandate by Congress that a "fleeting expletive" can now be found indecent will create a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech, the advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology claims. CDT points out that prior to this bill and the FCC's policy change, the FCC exercised discretion in determining which utterances were indecent, and consistently found that one-time uses of curse words were not indecent.'"

Comments

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is really, really fucking brilliant." (Unfortunately not meant in the same spirit as the original utterer used it.)

Re:Obligatory

[Dachannien]

BEEEEP You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.

Re:Obligatory

[orclevegam]

Oh good, I needed some toilet paper.

Am I the only one who's STILL wondering exactly how the three seashells worked?

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

The first amendment, emphasis mine:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment. Therefore, this law is illegitimate. Because it is illegitimate, it is also without authority — no authority is provided by the constitution, therefore no authority transfers to the law. Consequently it is a law of coercion, using only force and the threat of force as the means to accomplish its goal, which is specifically abridging freedom of speech.

The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either.

Note that there is a path that could make this kind of action legitimate; that would require amendment of the constitution. Without such amendment, the federal government is not legally authorized to make a law of this type. Amendment is a procedure that is defined in Article Five of the constitution.

One more ironclad example of our federal government wildly out of control.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit.

You forgot the link. Fixed.

Re:Obligatory

[Xanius]

No and last time I checked they were sharp so I wouldn't want to go down the trial and error road either.

Re:Obligatory

[Dausha]

"The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either."

First, that is a hack created by SCOTUS to enforce itself on the states. Second, the Second Amendment has not yet been "constructed" to apply to the states. This is why states have been able to ban/control private ownership of firearms (although when it comes to 'keep and bear arms,' it could also mean butcher's knives). Third, the 10th amendment says powers not given to Congress, nor denied the states, are powers of the state or the people. How do you "construct" that to apply to states?!

As a hack, I mean the Equal Protection clause has been used to impose all sorts of odd rules on states. It does not say that those amendments are extended. It says "put a law on the book and apply it to everybody equally." So, if public education K-12 applies to any citizen of a state, then it does not matter what color the citizen is.

More importantly, enforcement authority for the 14th Amendment rests in Congress, not SCOTUS: "Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." That means that every ruling of SCOTUS linked to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional unless supported by a statute (e.g. the Equal Rights law).

Why? Because the Constitution is a document that gives limited power to the Federal Government---only enough to do the job in the areas in which the government is granted that authority. This means that Congress can't command troops, the President can't declare war, and SCOTUS can't coin money. Because the 14th Amendment adds a new enumerated power to Congress, it denies that power to the President and SCOTUS. Each branch is supposed to jealously defend it's turf---which Congress does not do involving SCOTUS because it can get away with making unpopular decisions and serve as Congress' scapegoat.

Just because this perspective is not honored by our legal system does not mean it's wrong.

Re:Obligatory

[mybecq]

The first amendment, emphasis mine:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment.

And yet there are plenty of restrictions on "free" speech. Interpretation of the constitution's meaning and intent is the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

Re:Obligatory

[Mal-2]

The problem is that the FCC is not a part of the Legislative branch, it is part of the Executive branch, and the Constitution clearly says that it is Congress that shall not make such a law. This means all the "strict constructionists" that support the "Unitary Executive" (in quotes because these two stances are mutually exclusive) will say that no violation of the Constitution is taking place.

Either that or they will just have a massive "failure to recall" when questioned on the point.

Mal-2

Re:Obligatory

[lgw]

In other words, the Constitution doesn mean what it clearly and obviously says, because some of the smartest people in America have been finding clever excuses to insert their personal politics for centuries. Sad, really, but what the Constitution clearly says isn't really important these days.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

And yet there are plenty of restrictions on "free" speech.

Yes, there are. And every one of them is illegitimate. There is nothing to "interpret" about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. anyone who thinks there is has simply demonstrated they are unqualified to read, much less "interpret" basic English. And that includes partisan, special-interest sycophants who we have had the misfortune of having appointed to the supreme court.

You seem to be of the persuasion that if it is law, it is OK. The fact is, if the constitution forbids it, and it is done anyway, it is wrong and illegitimate and coercive, and no amount of "interpretation" can make it any better. There is no authority given to abridge the freedom of speech; congress is not allowed to make any such law. End of story as far as legitimacy goes, barring constitutional amendment.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

The problem is that the FCC is not a part of the Legislative branch, it is part of the Executive branch, and the Constitution clearly says that it is Congress that shall not make such a law

So... where does the constitution give the executive branch the power to make law? Aside from the fact that in this particular case, this is law made by congress. Read the FA.

Re:Obligatory

[Planesdragon]

And every one of them is illegitimate. Wrong.

You seem to think that anytime you open you mouth, it's "Speech." That simply isn't so.

To use the easiest example -- if your interpretation were true, then there could be no federal penalty for telling our enemy in a time of war precisely what our battle plans are, because it's "protected speech."

Re:Obligatory

[Libertarian001]

Did your armchair civics course also explain to you that nothing in the Constitution is absolute or that everything is based on a standard of reasonableness? I think this law fucking sucks, just pointing this out. And why is there not the same outrage when it's a 2nd Amendment issue? You know, the one that empowers the people and allows them to protect and defend the 1st Amendment.

Fuck I really fucking hate my fucking government sometimes. Fuckers.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Which under the constitution is exactly, totally, and completely true.

As long as you've not agreed not to release those plans, there is NO constitutional way for the government to do ANYTHING about you releasing them to anyone you want. Any law stating otherwise is unconstitutional.

Every time you open your mouth, it IS speech, and you have an ABSOLUTE right to it.

Even when you make some utterly stupid statement claiming that it isn't, you have the absolute right to make that idiotic utterance. And I have the absolute right to inform everyone else that you are a moron for making it.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

...if your interpretation were true, then there could be no federal penalty for telling our enemy in a time of war precisely what our battle plans are, because it's "protected speech."

Nonsense. That is what oaths and contracts are for. Military and political roles carry extra restrictions which the individuals involved agree to by signing various documents and taking various oaths. Any number of provisions can be taken to restrict speech voluntarily, what can't be done legitimately is the feds legislating speech itself. Period.

If you want to be cleared top secret (or any other level... including commercial secrets), you'll sign documents saying you agree both to the restrictions on distribution of those materials, and that you are aware that you are subjecting yourself to various penalties should you violate those restrictions. If that's not acceptable, then don't sign, and (a) you won't know anything of that nature, and (b) you can't say anything about what you don't know and (c) the state has no legitimate interest in regulating what you say.

It is blatantly obvious that this is exactly how it should work, also. No need arises for the government to have any authority to restrict speech; were such an actual need to arise (though I can't think of one, only the usual strawmen such as the entirely specious and trivially disposed of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" chestnut) then the constitution would need amendment.

Otherwise, we're stuck with a government that has no governing mechanism that controls what it can and cannot do. When you, and people of your mindset, attempt to argue the constitution away, what you are doing is arguing into being a rationale for a government that can do anything, because in your view, everything in the constitution is "open to interpretation" — even those parts in the plainest of English — which is a very, very dangerous point of view.

Obviously the government has taken many powers it is not authorized to have. The correct response to this (at present, IMHO) is to get up on the soapbox and make it clear that this is not authorized, and if authorization is sought, then a constitutional amendment must be created and approved according to the rules for such things.

Law is often stupid. Law is often wrong. Law can also be unconstitutional; sometimes these things are obvious (as in the case of speech), sometimes they are not (as in the case of ex post facto law — most people, including the majority of the supreme court at times, have no idea what comprises an ex post facto law.) The bottom line is that the government does have restrictions upon what it is allowed to do, and we need to see to it that they obey those restrictions. If we don't, we are as much at fault as they are.

One last thing: The constitution is a very sparse document, considering what it was intended to accomplish (provide the constituting authority for the federal government.) The fact that the authors, a group of very smart people, thought it important enough to explicitly lock out the ability to make law to suppress speech should be a huge flaming red flag to the apologists who claim that it is "OK" to suppress some speech because [insert lame {child | terrorist | pedophile | immigrant | global warming} excuse here.]

Re:Obligatory

[Jaidan]

The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court. Whether or not you agree with the courts interpretation is not the point. The point is that the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting how it sees fit the Constitution and it's relation to laws. That is their role in the checks and balances.

That isn't to say that the first amendment isn't clear, however the vastness of the interpretation is important. The supreme court has ruled that overall you can say anything you want to about anyone or anything. That is what the supreme court (overall) has so far ruled is the intention of first amendment. However the supreme court has also ruled that HOW you say something may not be protected.

I am free to get up in a public place (we'll say radio for sake of this argument) and say that George W. is an idiot, leading the U.S. in all the wrong directions, favouring big business over citizens...etc. However I am not free to get on that same radio broadcast and say that George W. is a Fucking idiot, a conservative religious cock sucker, and spends his free time jerking the dicks of corporate interests with one hand and jamming his dick in the ass of the citizens.

Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.

The point is, the current interpretation of the first amendment is that all speech is protected in regards to what you wish to say, however that same protection is not granted to how you wish to say it. I feel that the courts are well within their granted role to rule that way, whether or not you like it. THe fact of the matter is the language is not 100% clear, it leaves room for interpretation. Sure congress can make no laws abridging freedom of speech. That's clear enough. But what is meant by speech? The freedom to say whatever I want, or the freedom to say whatever I want however I want. It is not your job to do that interpretation, you if you where on the Supreme Court, would obviously interpret it to be the latter. The current (and most past) justices have ruled otherwise, and since that is there appointed role (and I believe in the whole constitution not just the parts I want to, like you seem to have done) that makes them more qualified to make that judgement. Though you are free to voice you oppinions and even insult them if you like...but if you got on the radio or public television and started screaming they are a bunch of idiot fucking shove-your-morals-in-my-ass right wing screw fucks...well then they would rule you are not protected.

Re:Obligatory

[Puff Daddy]

I agree with you about 85-90%. Sibling post pointed out the example of treason by exposing state secrets. I would also say that ability to regulate speech that immediately endangers people is not protected due to its violation of both the wording and spirit of the Constitution. For example, if someone respected enough to gain a response tells a crowd "beat the shit out of that guy," it is not protected speech. That said, bravo for the main thrust of your post. I think people have trouble understanding that powers not granted to the federal government in that document are not available to them. Income tax, drug laws, abortion laws, speed limits, fed Dept of Education, any proposed healthcare system, all outside of their control.

Re:Obligatory

[glitch23]

There is nothing to "interpret" about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. anyone who thinks there is has simply demonstrated they are unqualified to read, much less "interpret" basic English.

No one says the people who swear on TV aren't allowed to swear. They can swear all they want at home in front of their kids without being arrested. They can even swear on TV if they don't mind paying the fine that the network will be given by the FCC. So in essence, nothing here is preventing people from continuing to swear on TV. It is just that the networks will be fined if that happens. It is the networks who will in effect tell people to watch their mouth and not air content with specific words in them (we don't need those words anyway) because they don't want to get fined. If anything, the networks are abridging freedom of speech, not Congress. I can't believe there are people who actually want to hear swear words on TV and therefore oppose this action by Congress. Garbage in garbage out I guess.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

Did your armchair civics course also explain to you that nothing in the Constitution is absolute or that everything is based on a standard of reasonableness?

And where in the constitution does it say this? Because if it isn't in there, or derived from verbiage in there, it isn't so — it's just a convenient excuse to screw things up. When something needs interpretation - such as the reference to ex post facto law - then the way to get after it is to find out what ex post facto law meant at the time of the writing of the document (see below) When the constitution uses plain English: "congress shall not" without exceptions, then whatever follows is fucking well forbidden, and does not require interpretation no matter how cleverly any sophist arguments to the contrary may be presented. Does this mean that sometimes the government may not have the power to do what it wants? Yes, it does. Does it mean that in some cases, the best possible outcome may not be obtainable? Yes, it means that too. None of which justifies "interpreting" something that was written in PFE. Plain. Fucking. English.

ex post facto law, Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), by Justice Chase:

1: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4: Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender

If the USSC as a whole understood the above, there are a number of laws that would have been struck down. Unfortunately, this has not been the case and consequently we have some flagrantly unconstitutional laws that are about as ex post facto as a fresh turd is stinky.

And why is there not the same outrage when it's a 2nd Amendment issue? You know, the one that empowers the people and allows them to protect and defend the 1st Amendment.

No argument here. The feds have no legitimate authority to regulate any citizen's right to keep or bear arms. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is absolutely unequivocal and is not any more open to interpretation than is the speech part of the first amendment. If they want that authority, they need to amend the constitution. In the meantime, we're looking at coercive and illegal behavior by the government.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

I can't believe there are people who actually want to hear swear words on TV and therefore oppose this action by Congress

News reports? Drama? Humor? Opinion? Are you really that culturally bereft? Personally, I believe there are people as one dimensional as you portray yourself, but I attribute it to bad genes, and/or poor upbringing. So I forgive you for your stunted and blindered outlook. What I don't forgive you is your inclination to blinder me and mine because you haven't the inclination to deal with free speech.

If a character in a drama says fuck, I want to hear them say it. When the rolling aliens in "Critters" encounter the human with shotgun, one says "they have weapons", the other replies "so?" and the human shoots, blowing one away. The remaining alien emits a FUCK and runs off at a high rate of sudden common sense and it is rib-tickling funny, assuming your funny bone hasn't been pickled in something as stunting as holy water. If critters comes on the satellite, I bloody well want to see that scene as performed and intended, not censored or cut. If Cheney says "fuck you" on the floor of the senate or house (and he did), I want to hear it. If George Bush is giving the finger to people, I want to know. And yes, he did. On camera. If an artist finds that they want to include any particular language in a work of art, I want to see it, read it, hear it, whatever. Likewise any dramatic re-creation of any act whatsoever, including sex, violence, and even religion, though that is most depressing human behavior of all. I don't have any inclination at all to let people like you restrict that at the state or local level, and as far as the federal government goes, they're forbidden to, period, and that's the end of that as far as legitimacy goes.

You know what I told my boys when the George Bush and Cheney acts linked above came up? I told them that these people had inadequate manners, as could easily be understood from the positions they hold and the actions they took. I told them that these are some of the reasons why I am no fan of either of these two people holding the positions they hold today; that representing the United States of America is a task that demands great statesmen, and unfortunately, the public no longer seemed to be able to elect such people, nor were they very often given the opportunity to vote for people of that caliber. I wanted my boys to see those events; and I don't want you and people like you to be able to hide that from them.

So please. If you want to control language in your house, control how language gets into your house. Stop seeking to control it everywhere for the convenience of your own outlook. Your right to limit what people say - and hear - stops at the limits of your own minor dependents, if any.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court.

Please show me where this is done in the constitution. I'll wait. Thank you. Just so you have a good starting point, article three establishes the judiciary, and doesn't say a word about this.

Notice both those sentences say the same thing (generally speaking). One would be protected fully by the first amendment, the second would be considered obscene by the FCC and the supreme court would rule you do not have the right to say it.

They would be acting entirely illegally by the highest law of the land should they so rule. What part of "congress shall make no law" is confusing you? Is it the "no" or the "law"? Or is it the part about congress? Look, if I say you, Fred Flintstone, may not steal my shoe, you simply cannot turn around and say "well, he meant that I could steal his shoe, obviously. I mean, hey, it's totally open to interpretation, isn't it?"

Re:Obligatory

[mybecq]

The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court.

Please show me where this is done in the constitution.

Article III as you say:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ...

and

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact ...

Now if you want to take a strictly literal interpretation (as you seem to do), then Congress has full power to restrict anything that isn't done by way of the "the press" or spoken as "speech", since a "press" is a mechanical device used to print on paper, and "speech" is what you say. That means you can't broadcast over the airwaves or hand-write something and have it protected under the 1st Amendment.

And if they did that, who are you going to appeal to then that Congress is abridging your "press" and "speech" freedoms? Who's going to decide that in your favor? Oh, that's right, you have no-one authorized to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, so apparently no-one can decide anything about what the Constitution means.

Finally, what part of "speech" (spoken) and "press" (printed) is being infringed here? The people are free to say it or print it, and Congress is restricting it being able to be broadcast.

Re:Obligatory

[Braxton_Bragg]

It stands to reason I won't put up with this. Now is the the time for overthrow of the US Senate - they no longer represent the people of the US.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

You quoted a couple of fragments of article 3. I'll address those first:

Nowhere in your quotes - or anywhere else - does the constitution say anything about "interpretation" for the supreme court. When they say that the judicial power extends to the cases, they mean that in a case of constitutional law (eg, the government abridges speech), they are the court that says "oh no you don't, because it says RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSTITUTION you can't." That's the case; did you break the law? Did you abridge speech? Yes? Then you broke the law. Nothing about interpretation. It's plain English; the intent is blindingly clear. When they say jurisdiction, they are saying that for a constitutional law case, the supreme court has standing with regard to finding facts of violation (or not) and constitutional law. Not a word about making law (that's congress) and not a word about modifying law (that's congress, too.)

That means you can't broadcast over the airwaves or hand-write something and have it protected under the 1st Amendment.

No. Speech and press are two separate issues. Communications of the citizen, and communications of the media. They are not two forms of the same thing. Speech is all forms of citizen communication; written, carved, Morse code, vocal, hand signals, etc. Otherwise, you're saying that a mute is not protected, which would be stupid. That's not interpretation; again, that's plain English. Speech is communication. And you know as well as I do that such a definition was exactly what was intended - the reason we both know it is because we're not "interpreting" it, we're reading it carefully for intent, using context and decent knowledge of English usage. "No law." Say it with me. "Congress shall make No Law." That's not "congress can make some law", and there's nothing there that lets you say "except in the situation where..." Not a bloody thing. Does this inconvenience the government? Sure, it may. Citizens too, at times. The point was, and remains, that such inconvenience is a lighter burden to bear than a government that rationalizes away your ability to communicate.

If you intentionally go in intending to misinterpret the document, you can certainly get it done. Hell, the USSC does it all the time. But if you read it and simply say to yourself, "what did they mean by this?" It is very, very rare one would come up with a confusing answer (except in the very rare case where they reference something that is not in the common man's understanding, such as my example of ex post facto law, above.) At which point, you look it up, and even that will become clear.

I am not trying to be literal in the sense of being unable to generalize. I am being literal in intent and you are conflating the two, though they are quite different. For instance, if we generalize the statement "Congress shall make no law" we end up with ideas like "and no one else should, either", rather than something completely ridiculous like "other than when it does make such law", or such as when the constitution says that an enumerated power is the feds being able to regulate interstate commerce, a very specific power, where some sophist paper-shuffler declares "it means we can regulate INTRASTATE COMMERCE! Rejoice!" That's not generalizing. That's being an idiot. Not that we have any shortage of such events.

Oh, that's right, you have no-one authorized to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, so apparently no-one can decide anything about what the Constitution means.

Christ on a damned crutch. The constitution doesn't need to be "interpreted", it isn't written in ancient Sanskrit or murky, difficult to understand prose of any sort. Just READ the darned thing; it is easily understood. If there's something that really rubs you the wrong way, start a movement to get an amendment going. But for Darwin's sake, quit trying to say that when it says yes, it means no; when it says "you may not", it means

Re:Obligatory

[Jaidan]

Unless you enumerate every single detail and possiblity then ANY and all forms of communication are necessary to be interpreted. Even then it is necessary to interpret what it means from words to meaning in the mind. You claim that you are not offering YOUR interpretation, but rather the ONLY interpretation and our interpretation is inherently wrong...because it's not yours

Congress shall make no law I'll agree with you here pretty clear as can be. abridging the freedom of speech Uh oh...show me in the constitution where it enumerates and defines this "freedom of speech" thing. Some potential interpretations:

• Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it, and however I want to say it
• Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it
• Whatever I want to say.

This part is not so clearly enumerated within that explicit literal reading you are so fond of (Of course you are going to argue that the ONLY possible interpretation is the first one...it's expected, however it's just belligerence rather than actually thinking that's making you do that. Despite your claim that the constitution does not allow for itself to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, this power of interpretation has been recognised for what 150-200+ years (I'm not a constitutional historian and, but I believe it has a long precedent back to at least the 1830's if not further), and this power of interpretation of the constitution is absolutely necessary sice not all of the amendments are quite as clear as the first is in meaning. I believe that the first amendment is not explicit enough to exempt it from interpretation for the reasons above. I also feel that the Supreme court is the branch granted with the power to interpret the constitution, and as such the Supreme court has overall ruled that the second definition of free speech I offered is the one that is most correct, I am inclined to allow them that authority.

Finally, with that interpretation in mind, the law passed here is not unconstitutional as the freedom of speech does not grant you the right to use obscene language through public communication. I don't personally agree with the law...as the law has always been that it's illegal to use obscene language through federal broadcasts (which I feel is justified, despite my not taking offence and using enough obscene language myself to offend most parents), however this particular change regards accidental or "slips of the tongue" that have for a long time been considered acceptable. So now I can be fined if while giving a radio broadcast I drop my coffee on my lap and accidentally curse...that is overboard.

Re:Obligatory

[mybecq]

I haven't meant "interpreting" to mean "diluting" or "changing", although in some ways that is what has happened over the years with the USSC, if you have a strict interpretation of the Constitution -- which I believe is preferable, despite the arguments I have put forward.

It's plain English; the intent is blindingly clear.

Yes, apparently so clear that there have been no court cases to determine what is permitted and what is the intent of it...

When they say jurisdiction, they are saying that for a constitutional law case, the supreme court has standing with regard to finding facts of violation (or not) and constitutional law.

"Finding facts of violation" means you have to 1) determine the facts and 2) weigh that against the intent of the clause.

Determining "intent" is interpretation ("explain; explicate; elucidate" is one definition). Did the founders intend that "freedom of speech" means that you can say whatever you like on the witness stand? Yes? then the foundation of a fair trial is undermined and society would quickly disintegrate. If they didn't intend that, then how do you know they didn't? "Because perjury was against the law at the time; that's obvious; etc...", but it is STILL a law that abridges freedom of speech. Congratulations, you have just "interpreted" the clause that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" to exempt perjury laws.

How about speech that causes another individual to act in a way that causes themselves injury or death? How about sedition, defamation, libel or treason?

Now, I'm not saying that every currently restricted (by law) form of speech is constitutional or desirable, but that is how the US Supreme Court has determined it up to this point, with their understanding of the founder's intent based on the current society's "what did they mean by this?". That is what they do.

What I know would happen is that if the US Supreme Court overturned every restricted speech law, that that the 1st Amendment would be promptly diluted (or removed) to allow Congress to make laws so that the restrictions that the PEOPLE would demand of the government would be able to be enacted. The 1st Amendment (or just the free speech clause) would be out the door so fast.

You want your doctor to exercise his free speech on you? Society wants to trust everyone else, and it would be very annoying to have to get some kind of "I'll be honest" contract with every person that you deal with, to make sure that you are being dealt with honestly and not having the wool pulled over your eyes.

You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you, you cannot get employment anywhere and are soon on the street? You may accept this as the price of "free speech", but most of society won't. Giving the media unlimited power is no better than allowing the government the same. "No law" is not a blank check, and would be out on its ear if it were consistently upheld as such.

Re:Obligatory

[Psyjack]

"powers not granted to the federal government in that document are not available to them. Income tax" That IS in the constitution. "Section. 8.Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..." Read it for yourself, dont let someone else tell you what's in it

Re:Obligatory

[instarx]

Your view that there can be no restriction on "speech" is absurdely simplistic. Try going to an airport and announcing that you have a bomb strapped to your chest. Try calling your neighbor a child molester just because you feel like it. And yes, try shouting "FIRE" in a theater where people can be killed in the resulting stampede - just because you wierdly think the writers of the Constitution said you could. Try shouting "KILL" to your trained dog and then watch as he does kill someone. Your idea that there can be no restrictions on speech, period, is frankly at about the intellectual level of a three year old.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-Constitution English Common Law contians some restrictions -defamation,slander- which were and are part of the Law, just not Legislated law.The Common Law continued in America post-Constitution.

Re:Obligatory

[Chris Carollo]

* Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it, and however I want to say it
* Whatever I want to say, about whomever I want to say it
* Whatever I want to say.

Those three elements are identical. "Whatever I want to say" includes the others. It is all-encompassing. The government doesn't get to decide whether your particular phrasing is protected, the Constitution already states that it can't abridge your right to say absolutely anything that you want. They may not limit your speech. At all. In any way. I don't see what's so confusing about the statement.

Re:Obligatory

[Chris Carollo]

Try going to an airport and announcing that you have a bomb strapped to your chest. Try calling your neighbor a child molester just because you feel like it. And yes, try shouting "FIRE" in a theater where people can be killed in the resulting stampede - just because you wierdly think the writers of the Constitution said you could. Try shouting "KILL" to your trained dog and then watch as he does kill someone. Your idea that there can be no restrictions on speech, period, is frankly at about the intellectual level of a three year old.

Free Speech doesn't mean that there are no repercussions to the things that you say when they reasonably impede or endanger the rights of others. You can obviously be charge with libel or slander -- it's within your rights to say those things, but if they are damaging to others and untrue, those others have the right to bring suit against you.

Likewise, if you accounce you have a bomb in an airport, that's your right to do so. But the security organization there (even if it's a federal agency) has the right -- hell, the responsibility -- to protect its citizens and react to your assertion.

These straw men are entirely unlike the case of the government simply disallowing the use of "fuck" or "shit" over the airwaves that we collectively own. If uttering these words demonstrates a clear risk to the safety and security of our citizens, then yes, the government can, and should, react to that. But you'd be hard pressed to claim that's the case here.

Re:Obligatory

[fyngyrz]

Yes, apparently so clear that there have been no court cases to determine what is permitted and what is the intent of it...

Look, if you're going to argue that because something gets to court, it belongs in court, then you've lost your argument before you've even come to any substantive issues. The courts, the congress and senate, the laws, and the lawyers involved with them haven't demonstrated a great deal of collective sense as to selecting what is important and what is not, and in the process, they've created a huge mess in every venue from liberty to torts to families to house-building. "Clarity" hasn't got anything to do with why speech issues end up in court. Money has considerably more to do with it, as does power.

How about speech that causes another individual to act in a way that causes themselves injury or death? How about sedition, defamation, libel or treason?

Speech is protected. Therefore, how a listener acts is their own responsibility. That's the constitution. If you don't like it, get after the amendment process. Or - and here's a unique idea - write a document or obtain a witnessed oath as to the verity of someone's statements if they're important enough to be of concern to you. We could call these things "contracts", see, and attach penalty clauses that the individual - maybe we could even commit corporations and government officials to this way - has extended themselves into liability by personal choice. So, expanding on this idea, a military person or a politician would take an oath of position - lets see, for a politician we could call it an "oath of office", how does that sound? Just off the top of my head, starting at the executive branch, some verbiage like "I swear to protect and defend the constitution" might be appropriate, what do you think? I mean, since the constitution defines what the feds do, it seems oddly appropriate. Who'da think it? Then, maybe if someone were to be given top secret data, they could sign an agreement that they would be subject to penalties if they further distributed it. The FBI could administer this, since they have expertise in this area. These ideas could work, if only they were put into practice.

[stares expectantly]

...but that is how the US Supreme Court has determined it...

And in doing so, amply demonstrating they are incompetent to read basic English. That's been precisely my point. The USSC has been acting illegitimately and unconstitutionally.

You want your doctor to exercise his free speech on you?

I certainly do. My doctor should be free to tell me whatever thinks needs telling. Which would obviously have consequences for me, said consequences I would obviously report to all my friends and family. So... what do you think my doctor is likely to tell me? Quite aside from this, there is always the option of a contract providing for standards of behavior in a particular relationship. I have zero problems with that.

You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you

They do that all the time. I'm an atheist, and they lie and bluster about the implications of that all the time. If I think it is worth it to counter some of these impressions for some reason, I do so; otherwise, I ignore them, consider the source (ignorant, lowest common denominator) and move on with my life.

It isn't just me, either; The media has constantly promulgated all manner of lies about the gay community; about drugs; about sexuality in general; about alternate family structures such as polyandry and polygamy; They constantly cut down ex-felons, as a class, into sub-human terms (and the legal system follows suit, reducing the idea of paying society back for a transgression to a laughable memo

Re:Obligatory

[mybecq]

You may accept this as the price of "free speech", but most of society won't.

Really? I don't see any constitutional amendments getting anywhere. Do you?

The point is that there haven't been any amendments to clarify the 1st Amendment because the USSC has generally ruled the way it has in allowing restrictions on free speech. You want to see the 1st Amendment go down in flames -- just get the USSC to "interpret" it the way you do. Society will not accept a "get-a-contract-for-everyone-you-talk-to-so-you-ca n-sue-them-if-they-tell-a-lie" way of living.

You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you.

They do that all the time.

No, I mean you personally as an individual using your own name. If you don't mind, that's OK, but I can tell you it would be almost impossible for an ordinary person to redress that injustice, and civilized society will find that unacceptable.

... part of life in this country is sorting through all this speech, and coming to the realization that it is meaningless to you until or unless you decide it represents reality in some way or form, a conclusion you can reach by employing your mind, a radical and new idea, apparently

And what if there is no way for you to make that conclusion, because there is no other source of information?

Finally,

write a document or obtain a witnessed oath as to the verity of someone's statements if they're important enough to be of concern to you

And what law will enforce this "witnessed oath"? According to your 1st Amendment enforcement, "Congress can make no law" regarding the freedom of the person to say what they want, under any circumstance Perjury laws don't have a leg to stand on.

Re:Obligatory

[Copperfield]

Just figuring out now that government passes laws that are obviously unconstitutional? Hell thats been going on for 150 years now and no one has cared. Little late to be getting in on the game now don't you think?

The evil CDT

[morgan_greywolf]

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

Re:The evil CDT

[fishthegeek]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

(mods: yes, parent post was sarcasm)

-- mg

Re:The evil CDT

[brunascle]

but why do people have so much more of a problem with words like "fuck"? why should that be considered any different than "go to hell"?

perhaps it's because we dont use these words casually that they have so much more of an effect, and if we stopped giving them special emotional status the problem would resolve itself.

Re:The evil CDT

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

And that's where the parental duty of discipline comes in. Never underestimate the corrective powers of a sock full of quarters.

Re:The evil CDT

[wbattestilli]

Thank god that my seven year old will only hear cursing from N sources rather than N+1. Once we get people to behave and clean up the internet everything should be ok.

Re:The evil CDT

[morgan_greywolf]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

See, it's not the inappropriate words that are the problem, it's the inappropriate behaviour. There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'. Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s.

Re:The evil CDT

[Broken scope]

Where the hell am I going to get enough quarters to fill a sock?

Re:The evil CDT

[manowar821]

Oh stop it.

That has very little to do with television, as shitty and monotonous as it is. The fault is squarely on the parents for not realizing their kid is acting like a douche-bag, and punishing him/her accordingly. Hell, it's probably something you enabled!

Oh but I forgot, in this day and age, we blame everyone but ourselves, right? DISCIPLINE YOUR KID AND STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.

Stupid parents, I swear, 75% - 85% of them are complete failures as role models.

Re:The evil CDT

[lastchance_000]

But what if the teacher really deserves it?

Seriously, I have children, and I don't really mind if they say 'fuck', or whatever. The words themselves aren't evil. I do try to teach them that there is a time and a place for it, and that they have to use good judgement about how using vulgar language affects other people's perception of them. That, to me, is the main issue with so-called profanity.

And yes, I understand that the younger they are, the harder it is for them to make those distinctions. I do deal with my 8yo differently than I do my 16yo. But the underlying principles remain the same.

Re:The evil CDT

[_xeno_]

You know where I learned the word "fuck?" In a church. I was second grade, which would place me about seven years old.

Guess what - I never told a teacher to fuck off or started cursing in a Wal-Mart.

I'd expect that a seven year old can figure out what times are appropriate to use curse words (e.g., when trying to tick off your parents) and what times are not (e.g., when trying to act polite).

Censoring television isn't going to help anything. What type of TV are you planning on watching with your seven year old child that contains the word "fuck" anyway? Shows aimed at children aren't going to start containing characters who curse like sailors just because they can.

There are plenty of other places to learn curse words. Like on the school bus, from older students who think that teaching elementary school students to say "fuck" is just hilarious.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

Your sarcasm is noted.
Are you saying "fuck the children"? What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable. It's not like the outlets this affects can't get a cable channel of their own and do nothing but say "fuck" over and over while showing a nipple.

Re:The evil CDT

[fastest fascist]

The more forbidden "bad" words are, the more powerful they become. Shouting "INTERCOURSE!" just doesn't quite have the same effect. If cursing wasn't frowned upon, no-one would bother.

Re:The evil CDT

[drinkypoo]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

I know a kid who has been allowed to cuss at home since he was like six. He's never had a public cussing problem because he was explicitly taught by his mother when it is and is not appropriate, and the instruction was approached from a position of respect and reason, and above all responsibility, rather than by treating the child like a slave and instructing them as to what they will do (from my own experience I can tell you that the "orders" approach is very hit and miss. certainly it did not work at all on me.)

This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you! Most parents swear inappropriately and so their children learn to do so as well. And most parents use fear, not respect, to keep children in line. They use an appeal to authority, not one to respect, to guide their behavior.

Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children". Yet I seem to have better results dealing with children than most people do. I talk to them like humans, not like we talk to animals (actually, in most cases that's a disservice to the animal, let alone what it's like when we do it to a child) and the results are typically positive. Children are more willing to listen to you when you're not treating them like a monkey. (Even if they're acting like one.)

I never really had the issue addressed for me at all, except having my mouth washed out with soap at a day care once because before I even understood it I used the word "hump", no joke. This mountain of a woman named Jennifer ran (or runs) a day care across the street from Mar Vista elementary school. She had two or three spoiled kids and decided to add a bunch of others to the mix. One kid accused me of humping one of the others, so I told him he did it, and I got a mouthful of palmolive as a reward. Guess how I reacted to her henceforth? Dumb bitch. (They did instruct me to swallow the soap, but I spit it out. Even as a kid I wasn't an idiot. It says right on the bottle not to drink it.) This event taught me that stupid people are offended by certain words, but I cuss up a storm today. And I enjoy it.

Bottom line: Parenting from a position of respect and responsibility makes more sense than parenting from fear.

Postscript: Most parents seem to treat Walmart as a children's play area anyway. I don't think most of them give a shit if they start cussing. Walmart is the least classy place on earth.

Re:The evil CDT

[profplump]

Yes, because that would demonstrate that my seven-year-old was making child-like and sometimes embarrassing decisions about what to say and where to say it. Oh the horror.

I understand there are traditional societal expectations, but being upset about "cursing" is really just as arbitrary and useless as being upset about people that wear blue socks.

Re:The evil CDT

[Jumperalex]

Who cares? Yes I'm not a parent but you know what, the problem is not that the child told the teach to FUCK off. The problem THAT the child told the teach to fuck off. Who cares what words were used, it is the INTENT and the LACK OF RESPECT behind it that should worry you. Or would it be more pallatable if the child told them to FRACK off, or to INTERCOURSE off.

My comment applies doubly in Walmart. Kids WILL learn curse words if they are on TV or not, try being a parent and teaching them that they are crude, rude, and only to be reserved for appropriate situations (never if that is your bent).

Stop associating the word with the meaning/intent/lack of social restraint behind it.

Re:The evil CDT

[fahrbot-bot]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Exactly, because parents can't be expected to take the time to explain to their children that even though these words exist, they are not always appropriate - especially for children. Nor can parents be expected take responsibility for their children's behavior. :-)

Re:The evil CDT

[Ender77]

Well, stop cussing in front of your kid and maybe he will follow the example. Reminds me of a Christmas story where the kid cusses and the parents wanted to know where he learned to cuss from. He said he heard it from a kid down the road but really his father cussed on a daily. Before blaming others for your kids problems, maybe you should look a little closer to home.

Re:The evil CDT

[DrXym]

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

At least they can get their dose of forensic porn in CSI / Law & Order etc. US TV has the weirdest of standards - swearing & nudity bad, violence good.

Re:The evil CDT

[morgan_greywolf]

What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves?

See the posts under the person in this thread who responded to me. I agree with most of those. To sum it up: the problem ain't the words, the problem is parenting skills. If you can't teach your kid the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, you have no right to be a parent.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.

Do they not offer cable in your neighborhood? Are satellite signals jammed where you live? How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves. You'll have your channels, leave mine alone!

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

You can substitute pennies in a pinch.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'. Yeah, sure. There's no difference between telling someone to 'go away' and 'go stick your finger in your vagina'. Absolutely none.

Re:The evil CDT

[corifornia]

True that. When I was a kid I could say whatever I wanted. I could scream 'fuck you' at a video game or tell my parents that the dog tried to fuck the cat. But the one time I told my dad to 'fuck off' he tipped over a large wooden computer desk/hutch on me. I was almost bisected, but I learned my lesson.

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

Hearing them and using them are two different things. They need to be taught what is and is not acceptable.

p.s. My youngest son used the word "fucking" correctly and in context at the age of 5. I was proud, not horrified. At 12 he still asks sometimes if the word he wishes to use is appropriate for the situation and context before saying something.

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves.

Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.

Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal.

You had the kids, you fucking deal with them. The TV turns off and if you're really that concerned about dirty words then your problems are legion and will not be solved by merely giving massively overreaching powers to yet another fucked up nanny state government agency.

You go and be a parent and quit expecting the TV to do it for you. Don't deny that that is exactly what you are doing, becasue if you weren't, then this couldn't possibly be an issue.

You should have taken care to grow up yourself before having kids you weak willed, cowardly, nanny state fuck.

Re:The evil CDT

[Lumpy]

and everyone forgets that children, specifically young children mimic tv far less than they mimic parents.

Hating blacks and minorities? that comes from daddy and mommy.

a 7 year old that says "fuck off" I'll bet you $80.00 that daddy says it on a regular basis.

The faults lie directly in the hands of the parents.

Yes you parents, your kids behavior is YOUR FAULT. you TEACH THEM TO ACT THAT WAY. Dont act suprised when little stevie says "fuck you" to someone when you say it daily. The guy that wears the "let's go fuck some whores" T shirt out with his kids and scolds them for swearing blows my mind.

now teenagers, all bets are off, children become mentally insane from age 13 to age 25 and should be treated as special needs, specifically girls. good god the drama..... save me from the drama.

Re:The evil CDT

[xappax]

That's a good point. In terms of indecency laws, there is no difference between those phrases. Just goes to show that you can be quite vulgar and disrespectful without using any profanity. It's the meaning and sentiment behind the words that matters, not the vocabulary employed to express it.

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

No, that is not the meaning of fuck off, but since you seem clueless so I won't belabor the point.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, these Democratic socialists and communists are wasting no time, at least the security communists of the Republican party waited until 9-11 before they decided to shit on the world.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

See the posts under the person in this thread who responded to me. I agree with most of those. To sum it up: the problem ain't the words, the problem is parenting skills. If you can't teach your kid the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, you have no right to be a parent.

I understand, but how about a little help here! It's hard to teach your kids to live the way you think is right when everything they see tells them you are wrong and living right makes them outcasts.

I'm not saying to censor EVERY TV station, that would be telling you and me what we watch. But we need some sort of standards for the ones that are "free" and broadcast over the public airwaves (or "basic" cable). I have cable and child. When she's old enough to understand TV, what she watches will be monitored. It sure makes life easier if I know that the TV in her room with an antennae or basic cable won't be showing uncut Soprano or Sex in the City reruns. If you think it's OK for your child to watch that stuff, get him/her a cable box and let them watch late night Showtime to their heart's content.

You should have consciously enable uncensored TV, not have to jump through hoops to block it. Just like a computer firewall should be enabled by default and you have to make the effort to turn it off yourself.

Re:The evil CDT

[markov_chain]

Here's a link you should find useful: click here.

Re:The evil CDT

[BrokenHalo]

See, it's not the inappropriate words that are the problem

That's right. There are quite often circumstances where it is entirely appropriate (in the interests of both truth and accuracy) to address someone as a complete and utter fuckwit.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

I guess I'm on the side that certain words are bad in their own right. You can express your dissatisfaction with someone without referencing sex, feces, or Deities. Swear words don't carry any meeting; all they do is make it more stronger by the fact that they are taboo subjects.

Indecency laws for broadcasting is one thing, but a kid making references to genitals or masturbation to a teacher is way out of line in my book. In school, it's okay to ask someone to go away, if not rude. It's not at all appropriate to just throw around genitals, masturbation, etc. between a teacher and a student, unless when talking about sex ed.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrchaotica]

What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?

Re:The evil CDT

[manowar821]

I don't believe in censoring anything, really. But I don't watch cable, either. It's full of crap television for stupid americans, and it's censored like crazy, anyway.

You can take your religiously vigorous monopoly on "morals" and shove it, because I don't care. If you're so worried about your kids getting screwed up, maybe they shouldn't watch television at all. It's a disgusting way to raise kids, anyway. Buy them some video games, books, and legos instead. They'll learn a hell of a lot more.

Have you noticed that playing shows like Cops is acceptable on public television, but saying "god dammit" isn't? Fucking bullshit.
Your precious fox news is a great example of this, too. They post story after story about THE NEXT BIG THING THAT COULD KILL YOU TONIGHT, but then talking about sex in an educational and informative manner is somehow dirty.

By the way, your signature made me roll my eyes so hard that they fell out.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s."

Huh?
I was with you until the last statement....used to be rude an inappropriate behaviour from children wasn't tolerated (i.e. 1950's).

Re:The evil CDT

[rbochan]

When I was 7, one of my teachers was being a complete bitch and I _did_ tell him to fuck off.
My grandmother, another (English) teacher in the building, got to meet me at the principal's office with my teacher. She asked about the situation, and stated, in no uncertain terms, that I'd used the (sic) appropriate language for the situation and she'd have told my teacher the same thing. Though she said that she'd prefer that language wasn't used in school, it at least had not been for pure folly. The principal agreed.
Gotta love us some English teachers :o)

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

Wow. That is different than my experience. From say 3-5 they are pretty much loose canons (no dear, that is a mommy and daddy word, don't say that.), but then they are decent till 12-13 (use it rarely and when used, used correctly). After that, when the hormones kick in, their little internal editors take a 10 year break and their sense of appropriateness goes out the door. That is true of almost any behavior though, not just cussing.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrchaotica]

What type of TV are you planning on watching with your seven year old child that contains the word "fuck" anyway?

Unless I'm misreading the article, this legislation is about the kind of accidental profanity that occurs, say, during the (live broadcast) evening news when the guy holding the boom mike slips and knocks the anchor in the head, who then exclaims "fuck, that hurt!" without thinking.

Re:The evil CDT

[xappax]

What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable.

People should not have to pay a monthly subscription fee to uncensor their media.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

There is no meaning of 'fuck off' other than what people take it to mean. It doesn't matter what you think it means; if you tell this to certain people, that's what it means to them.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrchaotica]

Walmart is the least classy place on earth.

I was going to try to think up a counterexample, such as an adult video store or an alley containing a drug dealer, but then I realized you're right!

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal.
Uh, isn't that what you are doing?

So basically what you are saying is:
If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV. It's not enough to limit content to certain stations. Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't? Why stop there? Why can't Darby blow his boyfriend in his front yard? It's his yard after all. If your neighbors don't want their kids to see it, well they can put blindfolds on them when they leave the house. That IS their job as parents isn't it?

Re:The evil CDT

[spookymonster]

Erroneous, illogical, and damaging to your argument. For one thing, you've altered the context (adult:adult vs. student:teacher), in an attempt to make a strawman statement that (to you, at least) seems less defendable. For another, your scenario uses no 'dirty' words at all, which is the whole point of this article. This alone would seem to invalidate your argument.

You have, in fact, provided an excellent example of how foul language has no causal relationship to rude behavior (or vice versa).

Thank you for your support.

Re:The evil CDT

[brunascle]

It's not at all appropriate to just throw around genitals

i agree 100%

oh cmon, you couldve have typed that without knowing it would be taken out of context.

Re:The evil CDT

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Good theory, but I'm afraid it'll never work. Because one of the functions of language is to express a range of distaste, there will always have to be a top end to the level of offense meant to the listener. This, in my completely unresearched opinion, necessitates words that are reserved for the absolute maximum impact. If "fuck" were to be removed from speech due to casual use there would inevitably be something new invented to take its place. Look no further than the recent symbolic "burial" of the dreaded "n-word" by (IIRC) the NAACP. There's a perfect example of a community where, to one side, a word is so vile that it needs to be stricken from any and all use, and to the other side, it's so inoffensive that it's used as a term of endearment. I'm not exactly sure what rap fans use in place of it when they're shouting at each other, but you know there has to be something.

As long as there are people cutting other people off in traffic, there'll be a search for something to yell at them. Language is funny like that.

Re:The evil CDT

[kjart]

Well, in such a situation, I would imagine that I would not try to blame my failings as a parent on the evils of profanity heard on television - it would be nice if other people thought that way as well.

Re:The evil CDT

[db32]

And here is the magic of why that is such nonsense.

1. "Bad" words are only bad becaus they are bad. The idea that there are "bad" words follows the most innane circular logic since "The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again. If noone cared and noone was offended then noone would use the word to be offensive eh?

2. The more you censor "Bad" words, the more "Bad" they become. The more "Bad" they become the more likely someone is going to use the "Bad" word to attempt to be offensive. Their level of offensiveness was amplified by the stupid attempt to censor said "Bad" word.

3. Any of these fools that support this crap obviously have spent very little time around children (not to say they don't have them, but I imagine most career politicians are probably too busy getting handjobs from hookers on business trips paid for by lobbyists to spend much time bothering to raise their kids). You tell a kid "You can't do X" and the first thing they do when you aren't looking is what exactly? Same goes for "You can't say Y". Good job, you just made it more attractive for them to say "bad" words.

4. An earlier poster had it exactly right, while the verbage may be less offensive (again only made offensive by silly attempts to declare it offensive and taboo), the real problem is rudeness. I don't care what my children say to me, if its a real "bad" word, if its a made up word, or if its normal language, if they are being rude about it they are going to be dealt with swiftly and severely (no not beating, but a good quick barked command will make any kid jump out of his skin). The words used themselves are irrelevant it is about what the intent was when they said them.
 
"Go hork yourself you sheeprag" and "Go fuck yourself you whore" are going to get equally punished in my book, and only one of them used "bad" words.

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

That was brilliant. Just keep telling yourself that, and you may just believe it. Oh, and by the way, "fuck off".

(I just said that so it would go away and stick its finger in its... Aww, who am I kidding, I just want him to fuck off.)

Re:The evil CDT

[Choad Namath]

If the phrase "fuck off" sets off a pornographic fantasy in your head, then you're totally missing the point. No one takes curses that literally, they're just more forceful ways of saying things.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?

No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?

Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers? Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards? Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

Uh, isn't that what you are doing?

Not in any way shape or form. It's definitely you.

If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV.

Exactly. It is that simple. Try being a parent instead of letting the TV do it for you. It's called personal responsibility. Try it some time.

Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't?

Exactly. Of course I doubt many parents would like that, so they wouldn't let their kids watch Sesame street so it would get pulled since it has no audience. Simple, clean, and none of your whiny nanny state bullshit needed.

Why can't Darby blow his boyfriend in his front yard?

Let me see if I understand what you're saying:

You're an ignorant cunt. You have nothing except your own cowardly delusions to back up your position therefore I must be one of the evil gays.
Apart from the fact that that would be quite a surprise to both my wife and I it's as nonsensical as pretty much everything else you say.

You routinely actively support torturing and murdering innocent people and anyone who actually does stand up for freedom is a "fag".

Yep, par for the course.
There's a reason that decent people do not want cunts, like yourself, who clearly have no concept of morality deciding what is or isn't decent.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

People should not have to pay a monthly subscription fee to uncensor their media.

Unfortunately, they shouldn't have to pay for TV or Internet either, but they do. I wouldn't have a problem with a "free" (as in beer AND speech) TV station with no standards, but I should have to go out of my way to get it, even if it something as simple as ordering a converter box. For that matter, I WOULD get such a box, but it would not be installed on my child's TV or even within her reach.

I should have switch ON uncensored TV, not have to switch it OFF.

Re:The evil CDT

[Poltras]

Yeah I had a joke that had the same train of thoughts... Don't remember the details, but I think it was called The Aristocrats.

Re:The evil CDT

[orclevegam]

I was going to respond to this guy, but you've done an excellent job of it for me. If I had any mod points left I'd rate you insightful.

Re:The evil CDT

[cHiphead]

I'd think its sad when someone lets their kid(s) get away with saying things like this in public or at Walmart. Its a failure of PARENTING if your kid is saying these words. I have a 5 year old son and he has been exposed to much of the real world language and he knows its grownup speak AND its bad, he will even correct us if we slip up in front of him and seems very aware that those are not words for kids. Those are 'daddy' and 'grandpa' words (especially old school grandpa). Further evidence, my own grandpa was a sailor, so you can imagine the kind of crazy stuff he would/could say around me and my siblings growing up, but we knew, thanks to our PARENTS, that those were not words to be used in public and were adult words.

Really, I learned most of my bad words when I was 5 from 2 specific kids that were in my kindergarten class, I grew up hanging around one of them until I was out of high school, and I tell you, it was definitely a deficit of active parenting that led to it.

Cheers. And fuck it.

Re:The evil CDT

[jcgf]

That's what spankings and being sent to bed without supper are for.

Seriously, they're YOUR KIDS that means YOU RAISE THEM not society. If you can't handle that responsibility you should have kept it in your pants.

Re:The evil CDT

[lastchance_000]

Well, I didn't make any claims about their actual behavior, just what I try to teach them. I think your experience is fairly close to my own. Of all the things to worry about - it's fairly low on my priority scale.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

You're an ignorant cunt. You have nothing except your own cowardly delusions to back up your position therefore I must be one of the evil gays.
Apart from the fact that that would be quite a surprise to both my wife and I it's as nonsensical as pretty much everything else you say.

You routinely actively support torturing and murdering innocent people and anyone who actually does stand up for freedom is a "fag".

Yep, par for the course.
There's a reason that decent people do not want cunts, like yourself, who clearly have no concept of morality deciding what is or isn't decent.

Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult. Sorry if I hit a nerve there. I didn't mean to insult you to the point that you dropped my point completely. Why limit the prohibition of standards to just TV? Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV. For that matter, why should there be any restrictions on age of consent. If you want to *have relations* a 5 year old girl, why can't you? Isn't it the parent's job to prevent that sort of thing if they don't want it? Why stop at just TV. If we are to be free, let's be FREE!

Re:The evil CDT

[yipper]

And notice how many times racial slurs have (not) come up in this conversation?

Proof that there is a level of socially acceptable speech, even on Slashdot.

The other missing element is that broadcasting is not equivalent to free speech.
Broadcasting is employing a licensed access to a scarce resource, the public airwaves.
It is completely acceptable that the public, through our social and governmental
structures, should have some conditions on how public resources are used.

After all, you can still say that you want the XYZ political party to be doomed to perdition, that they are brutal rapists and that feces inhabit their craniums. You just can't use the shortcut words.

Re:The evil CDT

[Retric]

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head and I 100% agree with your words.

PS: I know you are being sarcastic but the reality is the world is harsh and preventing kids from noticing this early causes permanent irreparable harm. A large segment of the population needs to wake up and stop abusing your kid's minds. EX: Santa is not real so why force your children to think otherwise. Ditto God and the Easter Bunny.

Re:The evil CDT

[Red Flayer]

Ephasis mine:

This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you!
Most parents...
...
Lots of people...
...
I never really...
...
[several paragraphs more]

"Period, the end, thank you!" I'm not sure that means what you think it means :)

Seriously, though:

Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children"

What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is important for kids to learn to act on their own initiative, it is also important that they learn that respect for authority when respect is due is a necessary life skill. It takes a variety of tactics to encourage and develop good behavior patterns in kids.

You are absolutely right that instilling a sense of respect for others is important, and that a lot of parents fail to do so in favor of a more autocratic approach. But it is possible to constructively wield authority without being autocratic.

Re:The evil CDT

['nother poster]

Agreed. All inappropriate cussing rates from me is a "watch your mouth." Other behaviors though...

Re:The evil CDT

[GlL]

"I guess I'm on the side that certain words are bad in their own right." In your cultural context I am sure that that is an accurate statement. In the cultural context I grew up in (Far Rockaway, Queens) that would be a laughable statement. It is interesting to me that it is the expletives of the "lower" class that are "bad" while the expletives of the upper class are considered okay. I agree with the other posters that intent is important, but cultural context is more important. If I was in your neighborhood/church/synagogue/mosque/grocery store, I would consider the cultural context I was in before using "vulgar", as defined by the culture whose turf I was on, language, or speaking at all. That is what I teach the children in my church. Respect the customs of where you are, but don't confuse cultural right and wrong with moral or biblical right and wrong.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Like 'nigger'. Oh wait, that's only bad if white folks use it to describe jerry-springer acting black folks.

Re:The evil CDT

[fohat]

I would like to see a fine applied to your post. I have a big problem with your use of the integer "N" because it's the first letter of one of the forbidden words. Please use a more neutral integer in the future; say, "X".

Oh wait you can't use X either...

Re:The evil CDT

[lastchance_000]

Oh, and I have to add these words of wisdom from Gen. Patton, which I found at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx? id=18508

When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. ... Sometimes I just, by God, get carried away with my own eloquence. (The Unknown Patton, by Charles M. Province, CMP Productions, 1998)

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

1. "Bad" words are only bad becaus they are bad. The idea that there are "bad" words follows the most innane circular logic since "The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again. If noone cared and noone was offended then noone would use the word to be offensive eh? That's not true. All of the 'bad' words or swear words refer to taboo subjects -- stuff we don't physically deal with in every day life.

Swear words are always one of these subjects:

• Deities, either evil or good: "Jesus Christ" in English, "Perkele" or Devil in Finnish.
• Sex or genitals: "Voi vittu" or "Oh, cunt" in Finnish, or Fuck in English.
• 'Dirty' bodily functions, such as farting, defecating, and urinating. 'Merde' in French or 'Shit' in English. Now these are not dirty because they are dirty. Poop isn't dirty just because we say it's dirty; it's dirty because it smells bad and makes you sick.

So, the swear words refer to stuff you would never deal with in everyday life. You can't walk around naked or have sex in public, you can pull your pants down and pee in the street, you never see God or the Devil. Likewise, we it's impolite to bring these up in conversation.

Re:The evil CDT

[rylee2130]

I taught my kids to say fuck and be able to spell it by age 4, I'm sick of people forcing their values down my throat. Freedom of speech in america is a joke, what is offensive is all the meat commercials on tv and shit like the 700 club.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

If the phrase "fuck off" sets off a pornographic fantasy in your head, then you're totally missing the point. That's the problem -- a lot of people *do* see it that way. They think you are talking about sex. That's why they are more offended by 'fuck off' than by 'go away'.

Re:The evil CDT

[jcgf]

But we need some sort of standards for the ones that are "free" and broadcast over the public airwaves (or "basic" cable). I have cable and child. When she's old enough to understand TV, what she watches will be monitored. It sure makes life easier if I know that the TV in her room with an antennae or basic cable won't be showing uncut Soprano or Sex in the City reruns.

See the problem is you say that your are going to monitor her and in the next breath you say that she has a tv in her room with an antennae or basic cable. Now both of those can't be true unless you sit in her room with her at all times.

Re:The evil CDT

[fohat]

"Go hork yourself you sheeprag" This is my new favorite phrase. I'm going to use it every chance I get! Thanks db32!

You make some valid points.

Re:The evil CDT

[jcgf]

There is quite a large difference between allowing a little girl to hear the words "fuck off" and allowing people to have sex with her. You know you've lost the argument and now you're desperately trying to associate the other side with something as horrible as child sexual abuse in order to get the last word. It's lame and you know it.

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult.

Actually, *you* clearly intended it as an insult. I don't take it that way...merely as yet another indication of your small minded ignorance.

Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV.

Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in a channel that has decided to air content which *you* find offensive. More to the point, you have to actively decide to prop your sprog up in front of something you've already decided is offensive. None of that has any relation to fucking in your front lawn in full view of the street.

As far as your disgusting attempt to trivialize raping 5 year olds, you've already demonstrated your total lack of anything approaching an understanding of decency or morality so I'll just have to say I'm unsurprised but utterly contemptuous of you.

Re:The evil CDT

[notasheep]

The bill passed out of the committee is all about fining for the unintended utterance of "choice" words - which I think is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the over all scheme of what kids see on the television. And, just curious, if you really believe in what you're saying would you support fines for people in public who make such utterances? After all, your kid spends (or should be) more time out in the world than in front of the TV. When you drop the groceries in the parking lot and give the appropriate response, are you really going to be glad there's a "cuss-word" jar waiting for you?

If you're worried your kid might accidentally see some uncut Sopranos episode, take the TV out of her room and give her a book or a LeapPad. Our kids get to watch about 2-hrs of TV a week plus a weekly family movie night. We control what they watch. When they go to a friends house we expect them to do other activities than watch TV, and we let the other parents know our expectations. I'll admit it's easier for us since we have a stay-at-home parent and that other's mileage may vary.

Re:The evil CDT

[CaptJay]

In a funny twist of english influence over french-speakers in Quebec, we imported 'fuck' into our day-to-day speech.

We use 'fuck' extremely casually: 'ah fuck!' is often used when a native english speaker would say "Ah, geez!", and 'fuck it!' is used just as casually...

Just wanted to add another example to your argument that the actual word has nothing to do with it, rather it's the way people are used to hearing/saying it in their culture.

Re:The evil CDT

[rhakka]

And taboo subjects, likewise, are only taboo because people have decided it was so. There is a very big difference between peeing in the street and talking about peeing in the street. There is no reason why talking about it should be "bad". Many people act like that is true, but there is no reason why it must be true on its own.

If you cannot differentiate between the two things, and the "inherent badness" between them, then you simply are one step away from advocating for thought police.

Taboo subjects are really nothing more than inhibitions and neurotic reactions to unpleasant topics. The sooner we dispense with the knee-jerk "That made me feel bad, so you're bad for saying it", the better. And that's what it boils down to. Personally, it makes ME feel bad when people talk about shooting "towelheads", and I would consider such language taboo in my household, for instance. But that doesn't make it right for me to make it illegal to say such things on TV or in public conversation. Even if most of america agrees with me.

At best, you can make an arguement that using such language is likely to cause someone else discomfort and is therefor rude. Then the question becomes, how far do you bend to accomodate neurotic people's tendencies to be easily offended? That's not so cut and dry.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear. What's next? Admitting that children under the age of 18 have genitalia?

I mean, we all know that under the age of 18, children aren't actually humans but some kind of mutant sub-species with no brains or wants or desires.

How exactly is it worse that my 7-year-old starts cursing at WalMart, than, say, my 29-year-old brother starts cursing at WalMart? I suppose I'd be a little embarrassed either way, but at least the younger one has a little excuse (he hadn't learned what's appropriate yet), and I can correct him.

How exactly is it bad that my 7-year-old tells a teacher to fuck off? Really, who of us *hasn't* ever wanted to do that at some point. I'd like to do that to my manager some days -- but I know I'll have to pay the consequences. Why shield youngsters from having to learn "action/consequence"? That's one thing that was sorely missing from my education. Being a geek, I was smart enough to be in "gifted" classes, so I always did what I was told and got straight A's; it was years later before I really learned how actions have consequences.

Because we all know the best way to prepare children for the real world is by hiding them from it as long as possible!

Re:The evil CDT

[walt-sjc]

Seven? Try two or three. A number of years ago, my daughter overheard a few words from my brother who was visiting and started saying "Awe fuck." Luckily it didn't last long, but is was long enough that Grandma heard it. It was kind of funny, but it's not what you want your 2 year old saying randomly.

That said, it's one thing for the occasional slip of the tongue, another for common, normal speech. This bill goes way too far.

Re:The evil CDT

[Sylver Dragon]

No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to.
So, by that same logic, you would expect to be able to turn on the Hardcore Porn channel and not have anything offensive on it. You are responsible for choosing what you watch and what you don't; and by extension what your children watch or don't. If you don't like what a show is about, change the channel, that is what choice is about. Trying to force everything to be kid friendly is limiting choice.

Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?
Are you too incompetent to change the channel when you don't want to see it? That ad hominem fallacy works both ways, but what you are pushing for is going to take away that choice from me. As it is, the FCC is looking to extend it's censorship on to cable. It won't be too long before I can't change the channel to porn. On the other hand, kid friendly content will always be around. The Disney channel isn't going to suddenly start showing Snow White getting it on with the seven dwarves.

Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent!
It's not, but wanting all channels free of indecency is. And allowing a bunch of bureaucrats to arbitrarily make up rules about what is indecent and what is not, is asking for exactly that.

What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers?
Again, there is no problem with this, but this is not what the FCC is trying to do. The FCC wants to foist it's ideas of decency on every channel. On the other hand, without the FCC, yes there would be channels with hardcore porn; however, children's programming wouldn't disappear. For a good example, look at the internet. I can find just about any type of pornography to titillate me, and you can find plenty of children's content. Lack of regulation did not turn it into some adult content ridden hell-hole.

Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards?
Sort of. I think they should be free from government mandated standards; however, they should at least be honest about what their content is (which could be mandated, TV ratings are a good idea). Additionally, channels will self-censor. Disney Channel is not going to show Princesses Gone Wild, just because the government is no longer breathing down their necks. They know what their customer base is, and will continue to pander to it.

Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Might be a funny parody, but not really my thing, thanks.

Re:The evil CDT

[ivan256]

There is exactly one difference. The latter doesn't allow the parent to be in denial about the fact that they're raising a disrespectful little shit instead of a well behaved individual. The sentiment being expressed by the child is exactly the same whether they know which words sound the nastiest or not.

Re:The evil CDT

[Marty_Krapturd]

We need stronger laws on this matter. It's not just that the WORDS are on the street, on the airwaves and in the homes, but the components that can be USED to MAKE the words are EVERYWHERE. The ingredients, or "precursors" of these words can be found in the average American kitchen right at this very moment. I for one propose this: We have an outright ban on precursors to foul and offensive language with stiff punishment for attempts to procure those component parts, or for being in possession of them! That will show those "word users." **As I have procured the proper paperwork for usage of some of the banned precursors please disregard any and all usages of them in this post.**

Re:The evil CDT

[Taevin]

So, the swear words refer to stuff you would never deal with in everyday life.

I don't know about you, but I think a lot of people do deal with these things everyday. I may not deal a whole lot with deities, but I sure do with sex/genitals and bodily functions. Of course, I also find it hard to find anything offensive in these tasks anyway, including those 'dirty' bodily functions, but I realize I may be fairly unique in that regard. I've never understood why in our culture basic bodily functions and desires are so taboo. We speak in circuitous ways about these things like "I payed a visit to the bathroom" or "I spent some time with my girlfriend last night." We can be fairly sure you weren't just admiring the decorations in the restroom and weren't with your girlfriend for the conversation (I kid, I kid!).

I'd definitely agree with other posters with the sentiment being more important than the actual words used. I don't know why we're stuck on the student-teacher dynamic, but it works there too. I can definitely say that I've never used a 'vulgar' word as an insult to a teacher (or any elder), but I'd be lying if I said I've never had my mouth washed out with soup for mouthing off to one. Just take sarcasm for instance: if someone does something stupid and you call him a genius for it, the insult is clear and yet no foul words were used--quite the opposite in fact.

Behavior really is the most important thing to correct. If you have a respectful child, he's going to know when it is not appropriate to use certain words, even if he has no objection to any of them. I have no studies or evidence to back it up, but I'd definitely put money on the argument that the children you see crying, carrying on, and generally just being disrespectful to their parents and elders are also the ones that are going to use vulgar language. Even more so if they know that it will get them more attention because it is offensive.

Re:The evil CDT

[orclevegam]

After reading several of your posts I've determined that I'm morally opposed to most of your opinions, however, I'm going to try to provide what advice I can in a reasonable and logical fashion.

It sure makes life easier if I know that the TV in her room with an antennae or basic cable won't be showing uncut Soprano or Sex in the City reruns.

If you're concerned that your child will have access to TV content you don't approve of, then the TV probably shouldn't be in the childes bedroom, and if it is, you may want to invest in one of those timer power switches that shuts an appliance off between certain hours (although the child could probably bypass this easily, but then again, they will gain access to virtually anything they want to anyway, not much point censoring really). Most current appliances also have parental lock codes (that can't be disabled in some cases much to my annoyance) that will restrict certain content. Finally, maybe you should look into some sort of media PC, or maybe put together a MythBox. Doing that you could load up all the movies you approve of, and maybe schedule certain approved television shows to be recorded regularly, allowing the child to view approved content whenever he or she wishes.

As someone else pointed out, it's not societies job to approve what your child can see, but there are resources out there to help you perform that task yourself. It's up to you to use them.

Re:The evil CDT

[value_added]

Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.

You must be a hoot on parent teacher days.

I'd love to be in the same room with you when all the mothers stand in unison to voice their objections, after which they try and beat you to death with their purses and the teachers look on with a feigned look of shock and try not to cheer you on.

Re:The evil CDT

[spun]

Perhaps we could get that company that cleans up movies for Christian families to clean up the Internet and put it on a CD. Actually, cleaned up it would probably fit on a couple floppies.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

And taboo subjects, likewise, are only taboo because people have decided it was so. No, that's not true. What you are claiming is that taboo subjects are arbitrary. The fact is, taboo subjects are taboo because they refer to things that we wouldn't encounter in everyday life.

You're saying that poop isn't dirty or will not make you sick. It's just that we all got together one day 10,000 years ago and decided, "Hey, let's get all uptight and disgusted when we see poop." We could get rid of toilets, plumbing, and the whole sewer system if we just got over our arbitrary hang-up over poop, and just started pooping anywhere and everywhere. No more underwear, no more wiping. We'd save millions of dollars.

Certainly you see the ridiculousness of this thinking. The fact is that taboo subjects are taboo for a reason. They aren't arbitrary or circular definitions. There is reason and system behind them. It's about bodily functions and sex, and Deities, well, those I can't explain.

There is a very big difference between peeing in the street and talking about peeing in the street. There is no reason why talking about it should be "bad". Many people act like that is true, but there is no reason why it must be true on its own. I don't want to see you peeing on the street, and I don't want to hear you talking about it. I don't need to hear you describe your bowel movements or having sex with your partner, no matter how clinical or objective such descriptions are. I don't need those mental images in my head. It's gross, and it puts an ill feeling in my stomach.

Re:The evil CDT

[vimh42]

Your seven year old telling the teacher to fuck off or cursing in any public place isn't funny. However, should your child do that, may I suggest that it is your own fault, not the fault of some television personality who accidentally (or even purposely) said fuck on some show. It's your job to teach your child that such language is inappropriate.

At some point, the child will begin to think for themselves. Wouldn't you like to like to know that you somehow made a positive impact on your child's upbringing? Or will you let the media and the government take care of everything for you. Go ahead. Be parent. Don't wait for the FCC to do something for you.

Re:The evil CDT

[ehrichweiss]

Children do that because their parents either set no boundaries and allow them to do anything, or they completely forbid the use of any curse words which causes the kids to respond even worse. My sister literally washes her kids' mouths out with soap and they apparently curse quite often. I simply discourage my kids from cursing, no spankings, etc., and I've heard maybe 3 really "good" curse words in as many years with the occasional "damn" and "hell" thrown in for flavor. And FYI, I can make a sailor blush when I curse yet my kids don't feel the urge to duplicate my behavior so while I can feel your concern, it's misdirected.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

I don't know about you, but I think a lot of people do deal with these things everyday. I may not deal a whole lot with deities, but I sure do with sex/genitals and bodily functions. Of course, I also find it hard to find anything offensive in these tasks anyway, including those 'dirty' bodily functions, but I realize I may be fairly unique in that regard. I've never understood why in our culture basic bodily functions and desires are so taboo. We speak in circuitous ways about these things like "I payed a visit to the bathroom" or "I spent some time with my girlfriend last night." We can be fairly sure you weren't just admiring the decorations in the restroom and weren't with your girlfriend for the conversation (I kid, I kid!). That's true -- the deal with taboo subjects are that they are kept hidden. We don't use the bathroom in public; we do it in a tiny little private room or behind a tree. We don't walk around with our genitals showing; we cover our loins with fig leaves or fruit of the loom. We dont' have sex in public ( most of the time, anyway), we do it in private.

Likewise, talking about any thing that would be taboo is also taboo. I don't know why, but that seems to be the rule. Perhaps some people have uncontrolled mental imagery; I know I do. When someone says "fuck off" I see a guy masturbating. When someone says "bullshit" I see a cowpie. I don't like those mental images, but it's something you learn to deal with I guess.

You can make an argument that keeping sex and bodily functions taboo is good for health and hygiene. As far as Gods, I don't know what the deal is.

Re:The evil CDT

[cayenne8]

"You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart."

Very rarely happened when I was a kid.

Of course back then, a parent giving a kid an ass whooping for that wouldn't have to worry about social services coming to take their kids away for 'abuse'.

I certainly knew to respect my teachers and elders....I would not have dared tell a teacher that, in fear for what would happen to me when I got home.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrami]

I'm not exactly sure what rap fans use in place of it when they're shouting at each other,

"Slashdot readin', pasty-ass motherfucker!"

Or maybe that's just what they say to me...

Re:The evil CDT

[Reziac]

Another point: how long before cursing in public forums is also censored? After all, it's reaching a wide audience, just like radio and TV; in fact one might say sites like slashdot are the talk-radio of our era.

There are local laws against cursing in public, here and there, often dating back to the 1800s. Enforced? Rarely, if ever. You'd have to arrest everyone, sooner or later.

As you note, these words exist for a reason, and if banned or deprecated, something else takes their place.

And for those who say "I don't NEED to curse", they apparently don't understand nuances ... such as how "screwed up" doesn't carry the implication of maliciousness conveyed by "fucked up".

Re:The evil CDT

[vimh42]

"Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s." Good point, but as another poster noted, we use certain words because they have more impact than others. Where "go away" might be rude, "Fuck Off" has a much greater impact.

Re:The evil CDT

[debrain]

I don't know, man ... I'm more concerned when a seven year old starts saying things like "oh, fiddlesticks".

Re:The evil CDT

[Aetuneo]

So, when's the FCC going to go after people cursing in traffic? Children have no choice but to listen (if they are in a car in the traffic), and it could be more damaging (if the children's car is being yelled at). Whereas, with Television, most stations, even if they are broadcasting live, have a small window where the techs can bleep a word, and if they are not broadcasting live, any words which are broadcast must be completely intentional.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Chances are, your seven year old learn to tell the teacher to fuck off from someone around her than from a slip of the tongue from a broadcaster on public TV. Or from a movie/cable TV. Instead of trying to shield your kid -- pointlessly, because your shield is never perfect -- it will be more educational to actually teach your kid it's wrong and impolite to use such speech. This latest attempt to scrub off accidental bad language from public TV is just another form of moral regulation disguised as a protection for children.

Re:The evil CDT

[Zarluk]

"I don't think that there's any word that needs to be suppressed." - Frank Zappa, in CrossFire

Re:The evil CDT

[illumin8]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

If your seven year old is telling people to fuck off then it sounds like you're really a terrible parent. I hate to tell you this, but the words that come out of your kids mouth are your responsibility. Not the FCCs, not the governments, not your fellow citizens, YOURS. If you don't want your kid telling people to fuck off then maybe you need to discipline them and let them know that using curse words in daily conversation is not socially acceptable.

Anybody that thinks I should spend MY tax dollars raising their children needs to go take a flying fuck... (yes, I'm an adult, and I'm allowed to curse when I feel like it)

Re:The evil CDT

[cayenne8]

"I should have switch ON uncensored TV, not have to switch it OFF."

Look, this is an adult world, not a kids world. Not everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity.

It is up to you to watch what your kids are exposed to. I seriously doubt that the Disney channel, or other kids channels will be even close to accidentally cursing. Let your kids watch that. There already is the "V" chip in most tv's...you can easily set this to allow only family friendly channels into YOUR house.

But, don't try to limit what "I" or other fully grown and responsible adults can do, watch and see. No we should NOT have to jump through hoops to live and enjoy adult content....if you want to have kids, then it is your responsibility to censor what they see....it is not right to censor what everyone sees just to make your life easier in censoring content for your kids.

True freedom allows for freedom to broadcast ideas....

And don't worry..there will always be a market for faminly friendly programming, which you can limit your household to viewing, but, you have not right to limit what can come into my house over the free airways that are for EVERYONE.

Re:The evil CDT

[hrvatska]

a 7 year old that says "fuck off" I'll bet you $80.00 that daddy says it on a regular basis.

You're neglecting to consider the power of peer influence. None of my adult relatives swore in my presence, but I sure knew how to cuss by the time I was in 5th grade. This was solely because a lot of my friends did. I never swore in front of my adult relatives, but I'd cuss outside of their ear shot.

One time, when my son was in kindergarten, he was sitting at home with me, my wife and my parents. A series of jokes were told, and everyone was laughing. All of a sudden my son blurts out 'you can kiss my fuckin' pussy!' Everyone gets quiet and looks over at my son. He knew at that point that perhaps he had said something inappropriate. I calmly asked my son why he had just said what had said. He said that all the older girls on the school bus shouted that at each other and then laughed, and he thought as long as we were all being so jovial he'd contribute. I had made it a point of never swearing in my son's presence, and I know none of his other adult relatives did. He was evidently picking up quite the vocabulary outside of the house, though.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrchaotica]

No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?

So, people should have to pay to subscribe to cable to see other people's free speech? You advocate censoring children and poor people?

Re:The evil CDT

[moogle001]

"The sarcasm detector is going off the charts!" "Oh, a sarcasm detector, that's a *real* useful device." *BOOM*

Re:The evil CDT

[rhakka]

You're missing the whole point. It is arbitrary to have a taboo EXTEND TO LANGUAGE. It's taboo to actually pee in the street or shit on someone's table for very good reason. It's not, however, taboo to talk about such things for any reason other than it makes you feel uncomfortable. You are in no danger by my bringing it up, you are just reminded of a situation where there may be some danger or unpleasantness.

That's not a rational response. I likewise, have some irrational responses myself, to racist or violent language towards women. But that, likewise, isn't really rational unless I have some reason to think that a person is serious about committing or condoning such acts. And so unless I do think there is some REAL taboo.. that against violence actually being committed.. about to be breached, then it would be ridiculous of me to make everyone else censor their behaviour for my own irrational knee-jerk bullshit.

Just because a lot of people happen to share some of those irrational knee-jerk reactions to LANGUAGE that is simply ASSOCIATED with bad things doesn't make it any more rational or any more morally defensible. It's just as ridiculous, it's just common AND ridiculous.

Words can't hurt you.. even five year olds repeat that mantra. You'd think by adulthood people would have enough awareness to understand that it's true. Worry about sticks and stones.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

There is quite a large difference between allowing a little girl to hear the words "fuck off" and allowing people to have sex with her.

By his argument, what a child sees, hears, says, and does is completely up to the parent. If the parent can't control that child, then that is a bad parent. If a parent is responsible for what a child sees on TV, surely a parent is responsible for who that child has sex with. Yes, there is a difference, but the logic remains solid. For that matter, it's easier to keep a child away from predators than it is to keep a child away from TV!

You know you've lost the argument and now you're desperately trying to associate the other side with something as horrible as child sexual abuse in order to get the last word. It's lame and you know it.

You have a point, but my original point was completely missed. He set up a straw-man claiming that I wanted to see everything censored and I replied in kind. That was wrong, however it shouldn't take away from my original point. I don't want to see TV censored. However, I expect some TV to be. I want there to be some channels set aside that are free from the curse words, nudity, excessively adult themes, violence and so on. These are the channels that should come through my TV by default. If I want the other stuff (and personally, I DO), then I should have to do something to enable it, and that something should be something more than turning the TV on. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block adult content, but I see no problem with having to put forth a minimal amount of effort to get it.

Re:The evil CDT

[HUADPE]

I would like to see a fine applied to your post. I have a big problem with your use of the integer "N" because it's the first letter of one of the forbidden words. Please use a more neutral integer in the future; say, "X".

Oh wait you can't use X either...

Xylophone?

Re:The evil CDT

[morgan_greywolf]

See the problem is you say that your are going to monitor her and in the next breath you say that she has a tv in her room with an antennae or basic cable. Now both of those can't be true unless you sit in her room with her at all times.

Exactly. Mention to people that they shouldn't put a TV in their kids' rooms and they'll look at you all aghast, like "How could you be so cruel?"

I never had a TV in my room and I turned out just fine. The TV was in the living room, so my parents could monitor what my sister and I were watching. When we got into our teens, we were allowed televisions, but we had to buy them for ourselves (part of whole teaching of the value of a dollar thing ... :)

Re:The evil CDT

[The Angry Mick]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Funny, the first time I tried something like this my dad brained me so fast and so hard I had trouble spelling four letter words for a couple of days. I was extremely polite in public from that moment forward.

Seriously, people, just punish the kids who pull crap like this. You don't have to beat them, but you do have a responsibility to teach them it's unacceptable. Having a "time out" or taking away XBox privileges for a couple of hours just ain't gonna do it.

If the child mouths off to a teacher, see to it that he's expelled, even if the teacher disagrees. If he curses in a Walmart, drag his ass out of there kicking and screaming and explain that his behavior is the reason you're leaving. Bring him back when he's calmer and make him apologize to the store manager.

Sit down with the child and explain that while you can't strip away his knowledge of the words, you can bloody well enforce when he will be allowed to use them. Then, to be fair, define a set of circumstances when you might allow their "accidental" usage - i.e. immediately after severing a thumb, or, when arguing with another family member in the privacy of your own home.

It seems as if parents these days carry too much paranoia over whether or not their kid will be psychologically "damaged" somehow if punished.

Trust me, they won't.

A child with no discipline will turn out far worse than a child with discipline (sociopathy can be a learned behavior). It's far more traumatic, and socially embarrassing to raise a criminal than a kid with a bruised ego.

Re:The evil CDT

[JerkBoB]

and everyone forgets that children, specifically young children mimic tv far less than they mimic parents.

Holy crap (shit?)! You have really hit this one right on the nose. It's soooo easy for people to bitch and moan about "society" turning their children into little monsters, when in fact it's their own damn fault for not establishing healthy boundaries (i.e. "parental guidance") and setting good examples.

I speak as the parent of a 4yo who has had plenty of time to observe lots of rugrats and munchkins. Without fail, the kids who are holy terrors are the ones whose parents give up on establishing authority in the relationship, and don't bother to model socially constructive behavior. Not that I'm perfect, but I do my best to teach empathy via the golden rule, and rudeness is not tolerated.

As an aside, I was a father for 3 years before getting a puppy. I think dealing with junior members of both species is pretty similar... It's all about establishing boundaries. Kids (and dogs) push boundaries in annoying ways because it's their way of understanding their place in the world. Once they've figured out how they fit into things, they're much easier to deal with (assuming you've given them appropriate boundaries). <sarcasm>Boy I can't wait for adolescence to roll around...</sarcasm>

Re:The evil CDT

[oyenstikker]

I wouldn't want my 7 year old telling his teacher to go to hell either.

Re:The evil CDT

[L0rdJedi]

None of that has any relation to fucking in your front lawn in full view of the street.

You can close your eyes :p

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

If "fuck" were to be removed from speech due to casual use there would inevitably be something new invented to take its place.

There's already something far more derogatory available: it's spelled C-o-n-g-r-e-s-s-m-a-n

Re:The evil CDT

[lenester]

"Broadcasting is employing a licensed access to a scarce resource, the public airwaves."

Only if you don't have cable. There is simply no excuse for the FCC to have a presence there.

Re:The evil CDT

[paulthomas]

I have also experienced this in German-speaking countries with the words fuck and shit (as well as shitty).

Re:The evil CDT

[miskatonic alumnus]

First Christmas spent with the new wife (who came to the marriage with a 2-year old boy, and a 4-month old girl), Dad, Stepmom, Grandmother:

2-year old says: something something those fucking cars.

Everyone turns to look at me ... and rightly so.

Re:The evil CDT

[IAmTheDave]

Well that's just great. According to South Park, not only do "curse words" or "words that are cursed" bring about horrors such as puking up your own innards, but Canada is evil and an ensuing war with Canada brings forth the apocalypse.

So now, as a double whammy, we've got the evil Canadians throwing around "fuck" like it's candy.

Guess I should start making peace with God soon...

Re:The evil CDT

[V. Mole]

They didn't learn that from TV, they learned it from Dick Cheney.

Re:The evil CDT

[oyenstikker]

To clarify, the problem isn't that the child is aware of the word, the problem is that the child hears it often enough that it becomes part of his functional vocabulary and is used without regard for the situation.

If my child hears me say "shit" about twice a year when I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer or zap myself with an ignition coil, he will possibly use the word when in a similar situation. Fine. But if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.

That being said, I don't think broadcasters should have to worry about the occasional swear during live interviews and such. However, if they are doing an interview with somebody with a dirty mouth who has cursed 3 times in the last minute, they should stop the interview or warn the guy that they will stop the interview if he doesn't cut it out.

I don't think broadcasters should be allowed to show Pulp Fiction at 4 in the afternoon. I would also argue that they shouldn't be allowed to show content with bleeps every 15 seconds. Every 7 year old knows what they are bleeping out, and that they hear "bleep" instead of "shit" isn't going to have any less of a negative impact on their functional language.

BTW, has anybody seen the episode of Arthur with the bleeps? Hilarious.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Oh please, the real problem there is lack of respect, not the language used to communicate it. Fuck off.

Re:The evil CDT

[1DarkZen]

The funny thing about this is you are completely right. In our house shutup is a "bad" word. Once I was talking to one of my son's friend's father and my son ran up to tell me that his friend said the s word. Well the friend's father was about to rip his son a new one when I told him what my son meant by the s word.

Bad words are hard to define.

Re:The evil CDT

[Thaelon]

Then it's even funnier.

Re:The evil CDT

[DougReed]

Everyone seems to be missing the REAL horror of this post! The fact that a slashdotter shops at WalMart is disgraceful!

Re:The evil CDT

[miskatonic alumnus]

I'm trying to teach my children to use this one on their teachers:

Dir hat man wohl ins Gehirn geschissen und vergessen umzuruhren!

Translation: Someone must have shit into your brain and forgot to stir it!

Taken from Scheisse! The REAL German You Were Never Taught in School

Re:The evil CDT

[Floritard]

I really have to disagree here. My friends and I basically have no boundaries on word usage. Not the F-word, not the C-word, and that's across both genders. It doesn't offend me in the least to hear these words. The people around me, and to an extent I think most of the recent generation use profanity quite casually. Just look at the culture, the movies nowadays especially. You become desensitized to it, and it loses all superficial shock value. That doesn't mean you don't respond to indecency or insults. You just begin to look at the larger picture. The intonation of voice, the attitude of the speaker. It's no longer about the words but the intention behind them. This is the way it should be. Having so-called "naughty" words whose very presence offends regardless of context is really just a form of control. You're looked at as immature or lower class if you use profanity around certain people. If those people are in power, they have an easy way to control your behavior. You don't have to use profanity, but taking offense to certain words in themselves is childish. Fucking childish.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Look, this is an adult world, not a kids world. Not everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity.

Look, I understand that. And don't imply that I think everything has to be centered around kids and those under the age of maturity. I never said that. However, I see nothing wrong with SOME things being censored. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't watch and this bill doesn't try to do that. All it does is state that SOME channels should be free of smut. Again, SOME channels, not all of them. I shouldn't have to seek out stuff that is smut free. I SHOULD be allowed to seek out smut as I see fit (and I frequently do), but the default should be clean, not the other way around.

It is up to you to watch what your kids are exposed to. I seriously doubt that the Disney channel, or other kids channels will be even close to accidentally cursing. Let your kids watch that. There already is the "V" chip in most tv's...you can easily set this to allow only family friendly channels into YOUR house
Why should I have to buy and figure out a V-chip to watch channels that are licensed by the FCC? Why can't YOU buy a PORN-chip (commonly called a cable box) so you can get adult channels into YOUR house?

True freedom allows for freedom to broadcast ideas....
agreed. No one is arguing otherwise.

And don't worry..there will always be a market for faminly friendly programming, which you can limit your household to viewing, but, you have not right to limit what can come into my house over the free airways that are for EVERYONE.

I'm not trying to limit what you can watch. I don't care what you watch. Hell, if it's good, I'll watch it with you! But there needs to be channels that my family can watch that is guaranteed to be family friendly. That's all I want and that's all this bill does. If the networks want to show smut, make a sister station that shows it. Hell, I wish they would so I could watch it after my child goes to bed! But don't broadcast over the public airways. I would have no problem going out of my way to watch this station. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block it.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, if you can't teach your kids not to curse, regardless if they har it or not, then you shouldn't have children. My parents swore. My dad used the F-word regularly. I do not curse. My kids do not curse. I never had a problem with it.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

And notice how many times racial slurs have (not) come up in this conversation?

Browse at -1 and look for the GNAA posts.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

then discipline your fucking kid
or is that too simple?
=

Re:The evil CDT

[morgan_greywolf]

Yeah! Ban the ALPHABET! That'll teach 'em! They'll never be able to make these evil words again!

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in a channel that has decided to air content which *you* find offensive.
EXACTLY! This law reinforces that. I should HAVE to actively decide to tune in a channel with offensive content. That's all I ask. I don't want "offensive" content on ALL stations. I fully support there being offensive content on MOST stations. I just want a few set aside that don't. And don't give me that "you have the Disney Channel" bullshit either. Hannah Montana is not exactly what I would call quality programming and is not what I want my family watching over dinner. I shouldn't have to watch TV meant for the maturity level of "tweens" just so I don't have to hear the word "fuck".

As far as your disgusting attempt to trivialize raping 5 year olds, you've already demonstrated your total lack of anything approaching an understanding of decency or morality so I'll just have to say I'm unsurprised but utterly contemptuous of you.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything. You said that everything a child does is 100% the responsibility of the parents. Why is this different? A good parent (your words, not mine) wouldn't let their child have sex with an adult, just like a good parent wouldn't let their child watch offensive material on TV? Granted, one is worse than the other, but, you said it is the parent's responsibility. Why is one the responsibility of the parent and not the other?

Re:The evil CDT

[Maniac-X]

I think they're making way too big a deal out of words.

Both of my parents swore like sailors (and still do) around me all the time while I was growing up, and yet I haven't killed anyone, I have good manners, am fully capable of articulating myself in an eloquent and intelligent manner, AND manage to impress all of my friends' (and past girlfriends') parents.

I honestly don't see why they make such a big deal out of cussing. It's pretty rare to come across someone who *never* does it, and those people tend to be a little creepy.

Re:The evil CDT

[xappax]

Unfortunately, they shouldn't have to pay for TV or Internet either, but they do.

Internet access requires expensive labor and infrastructure - it cannot be provided for free. Televisions require expensive electronic parts - they cannot be provided for free. Lack of censorship doesn't require anything other than politicians leaving us alone - it can and absolutely should be provided for free.

I should have switch ON uncensored TV, not have to switch it OFF.

Whether you have to switch it on or switch it off, that doesn't really matter to me. Sure, have the filter on by default, just make it obvious and easy to turn off (for the responsible owner, not the kid obviously). I think if there were such a switch - sort of like Google's SafeSearch or the V-Chip, that would do the job just fine either way.

But insisting that it's OK to censor broadcast media across the board simply because you can order cable to get uncensored TV is very different. Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to censored information simply because they're too poor to "switch off the filter".

Re:The evil CDT

[gstoddart]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

As someone who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in raising children and isn't gonna have any ...

I find it absolutely hilarious when someone's seven year old starts spouting profanity in public places. It bloody well amuses me to no end. It's like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

It's all a matter of perspective. :-P

Cheers

Re:The evil CDT

[Pixel Rider]

I would do the same thing my parents did for me........bust my seven year olds ass because as a parent I was smart enough to teach my children to know better than to say curse words as a child. Maybe parents should think about the fact that its their responsibility to teach their children the difference between what's rite and wrong, not everyone else's.

Re:The evil CDT

[jcgf]

The market for such programming exists and therefore you will be provided with channels that are free from the things you don't want, you don't need yet another law to bring that to you. Are things really that bad now?

Re:The evil CDT

[cayenne8]

But, you are arguing that your rights on what to view or not to view over the public airwaves, are more important that what I want to view over the public airwaves...and that just ain't the case.

You are saying that your right to not have to monitor what your children watch on tv (the case if it is heavily censored) is greater than the right of all other adults who either don't have kids, or don't mind going the extra mile to watch what their kids watch...to have what they want to have over the free airwaves.

What makes it more fair for everyone else to have to pay extra or opt in and you get a free ride on the free airwaves....rather than YOU paying extra and learning to program a V chip on your tv to protect your kids when you aren't going to be there to watch over their viewing content?

Why should the onus be on those to opt-in rather than you opting-out?

Re:The evil CDT

[freeweed]

if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.

I'd be curious as to why a word used in casual conversation, multiple times a day, could possibly be considered harmful/bad/verbotem/problematic to a child. Beyond "well, my parents raised me that it's a bad word, and the FCC agrees".

Re:The evil CDT

[Gr8Apes]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart. And then you act like a responsible parent, take charge of your kid and explain why it is wrong to use such language and what the consequences will be in the future should they ever use that word again. Then punish them.

Why do you think it's everyone else's responsibility to "protect" your kid. Maybe they shouldn't be watching that particular TV show in the first place.

Re:The evil CDT

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Go on Xbox live, and you'll hear black guys playing texas hold'em saying nigga every other word :)

If we were to ever ban that word, the government would be so uptight that they would only ban white people from using it.

I find it intresting that on Xbox live people will talk about anything, and all kinds of people will say nigger, and i've been in game rooms were we just sit around trying to tell the most offensive joke, with black people present, and we're using the infamous nigger word.

I'm finding that more and more people are open to the poetic nature of language, and often that is every young generation... which seems to open up just a bit more, as the older generation forgets about their youth.

We dont all take everything so litteral, and sometimes a good nigger joke is very funny, but its not funny because we're insulting anyone... especially when blacks are in on the joke telling and loving it, laughing... It's about enjoying the farsical nature of language, laughing... understanding teh difference between entertainment and reality... The difference between hurting someone intentionally, and just having fun.

Many of us can laugh at jokes about cancer... but none of us will EVER laugh at a cancer patient in real life. That would break my fucking heart.

There is a difference, and i find that to be intelligence. Some people just cant handle free speech or seperate reality from humor, or fiction.

Now granted most of the folks on xbox live are adults, but i've heard 14 year olds jokinly hitting on 40 year old women. I've heard young kids saying FUCK over and over during games...

Big deal.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Look no further than the recent symbolic "burial" of the dreaded "n-word" by (IIRC) the NAACP.

Ah, yes, the good old Niggers' Association for Anonymous Coward Posts.

Oops, I do so hope I didn't offend anyone by using an "evil" word. Oh dearie me, what a dreadful racist I must be even to know a word like that. Excuse me while I go and lynch myself, to save the mob the bother.

Re:The evil CDT

[cayenne8]

"Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you have your channels and my child having hers? Do you think that ALL channels should be free of any form of decency standards? "

Not at all...the market will provide programs with appropriate content for all ages/interests. That is there today, you're kids can happily watch sesame street, blues clues or whatever today.

"No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?"

No, but, what about the reverse question, are you too incompetent to learn to use the V chip on your tv?

Why is your right to censor all the free OTA channels trumping everyone elses to have uncensored content on the free OTA channels? Not everyone can afford cable.

I'm not talking porn here either...but, language and content. Again, this is an adult world, we should be free to see open content on open airwaves. You are the special case, with children that need to me monitored..it is up to you to decide and filter their viewing.

There is no reason to filter everything to the lowest level...let the content flow out there, and let the individual viewer decide what is appropriate viewing for himself.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You really scare me. Perhaps you aren't getting laid enough, but genitals and sex are something that most people deal with on a daily basis. . . for one. Or, are you joking? Based on your previous comments in this thread I don't think so.

Re:The evil CDT

[Skye16]

That's when you take the brat by the throat and drag him out to the car or ground him for a few months. It's not so hard. Just go into his or her room, remove absolutely everything in that room except for their bed and some clothes, leave them with a non-fiction book or two, and shut the door.

Don't blame me saying "fuck" for your inability to punish your children. This is not a result of society gone awry, it's a result of parents not doing their fucking job.

If you don't feel up to throwing down like this and making your kid "hate" you, then you don't have what it takes to be a parent.

Re:The evil CDT

[Torvaun]

>Perhaps some people have uncontrolled mental imagery; I know I do. When someone says "fuck off" I >see a guy masturbating. When someone says "bullshit" I see a cowpie. I don't like those mental >images, but it's something you learn to deal with I guess.

Hmm. Goatse!

Yes, I am a jerk.

P.S. Almost said "Yes, I am an asshole." but I figured Goatse covered that. Or uncovered it, as the case may be.

Re:The evil CDT

[Fedorpheux]

Yeah, at that point it becomes absolutely hilarious. Seriously, fuck WalMart.

Re:The evil CDT

[LoRdTAW]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Isn't that what parents are for? My aunt told me that once during a family gathering I said fuck a few times. Now granted I was about 4 or 5 at the time but my mother let me know that word was to never be used again. And I never said any of those curse words again in her presence during my youth. I hear plenty of kids around where I work that amaze me. 9-12 year olds spewing curse words like they were nothing. One time I herd an 11 yo boy jokingly tell a 19 yo girl that his friend wanted to fuck her right to her face in front of another few adults. Guess what, they all laughed. My mother would have killed me on the spot. Depends on how your bought up.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Put your strawman away. Just because I don't want to hear "Fuck" while watching the Grammys or see a nipple during the half-time Superbowl show does not mean that I don't watch my kids. As a matter of fact, I would like to watch TV with my kids on occasion. However, I would like to watch something a bit more mature than Hannah Montana or Sponge Bob.

And just as I'll support YOUR right to watch whatever you want to watch on TV, I would hope that you would support MY right to watch what I want to watch. It's not like there is a shortage of channels out there. Why can't we keep the five or so stations that are on the public airwaves "fuck" free? You can have all the rest. Really, is that too much to ask?

What makes it more fair for everyone else to have to pay extra or opt in and you get a free ride on the free airwaves....rather than YOU paying extra and learning to program a V chip on your tv to protect your kids when you aren't going to be there to watch over their viewing content?

Because not everyone can afford a new TV equipped with a V-chip. Are you saying that only the rich can watch TV with their kids? Besides, what good is a V-chip when it blocks every show that comes on after 6:00 PM? I don't have a problem with the V-chip telling me what is family friendly. But I want there to be something left for it to select.

Why should the onus be on those to opt-in rather than you opting-out?
Who said freedom was free? You have to opt-in now, is that a problem for you? Sorry if you want to change the way the TV world works so you don't have to get up off your ass and call the cable company to order your porn. I did, why can't you?

Re:The evil CDT

[Peter La Casse]

There are local laws against cursing in public, here and there, often dating back to the 1800s. Enforced? Rarely, if ever. You'd have to arrest everyone, sooner or later.

Actually, it's pretty easy to avoid cursing in public, and for those who choose not to avoid it, every prohibited word or phrase has non-censored synonyms.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of the time in 4th grade I called someone a "sexer." Later I realized that I was trying to say "fucker," but I didn't have the proper word for it yet. Sexer was the closest thing.

I really don't mind swears, but the thing is I know people that are truly offended. If I start mouthing off about nigger faggots, you may get the same reaction as others do when they hear someone saying that they don't do shit but fuck around.

Re:The evil CDT

[fyngyrz]

I want there to be some channels set aside that are free from the curse words, nudity, excessively adult themes, violence and so on.

Well, I want a channel on rock and mineral collecting. If there's enough demand, I'm sure the media conglomerates will produce such a channel. But it may be that what I want isn't going to happen. I don't see why what you want shouldn't be subject to the same market forces. Perhaps you can explain that to me.

Next, the authority to abridge speech is not available to the federal government, and therefore, it is not available to the FCC. Mind you they have taken the power to do this, but they still do not have the authority. See the first amendment to the constitution for why.

These are the channels that should come through my TV by default.

So make certain that you purchase a TV, DVR, or satellite system that supports the ability to limit which channels may be watched, then. I think all do, but I know most of them do.

I shouldn't have to go out of my way to block adult content

No? Why not? I have to go out of my way to block religious content that I believe would be harmful to my child, and I have taken this oh-so-heavy burden and called upon my manly powers to lift the remote and actually do so; why should you get a free pass for your beliefs?

Re:The evil CDT

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

well, have you thought about ya know, being a parent and telling your kids what is and is not acceptable in polite company? and then if they continue to act like little asshats, do your job and wash their mouths out with soap, or show them the business end of a rawhide strap.

Parents are not powerless, and it is time they stood up and took responsibility for their little shits.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

The market for such programming exists and therefore you will be provided with channels that are free from the things you don't want, you don't need yet another law to bring that to you. Are things really that bad now?

Right now, about all the FCC can legally do is suspend the broadcasting license of a network. All that would do is prevent these networks from broadcasting over the air, on frequencies owned by the Feds (UHF and VHF). It would not keep them from broadcasting through cable or satellite. Still, suspending the license is an extremely harsh punishment for a nipple of slip of the tongue. This bill allows for fining stations for what is essentially a breach of their license.

As for the market deciding, well, it does. That's why we have HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and so on. As for stations that broadcast over public airwaves... well those are public airwaves and CAN be controlled by the FCC, which is a public entity. Market forces affect private entities. The airwaves are public, not private.

Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with ANYTHING that is on cable. I pay for cable for that matter and I want the Gov't out of it!

Re:The evil CDT

[Dragonslicer]

the kind of accidental profanity that occurs, say, during the (live broadcast) evening news That's not really a great example. Most of the stuff already on the evening news is probably more psychologically damaging to a child than hearing the word "fuck" one or two extra times a year.

Re:The evil CDT

[Overzeetop]

Walmart is the least classy place on earth.

You've clearly never been in a Big Lots.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

I guess I have to say I don't think it's irrational. To me, it would be ridiculous if neutral or good things were verbally taboo, like ice cream and rainbows. If it's only bad things, things that are physically taboo. that are kept in language taboo, that seems rational to me. I don't want to see poop, I don't want to smell it, I don't want to hear it, I don't want to hear *about* it, I don't even want to think about it, more than I already have to.

Words can't hurt you.. even five year olds repeat that mantra. You'd think by adulthood people would have enough awareness to understand that it's true. Worry about sticks and stones. You have to repeat that mantra because it contradicts reality. Words *can* hurt you. Emotional and verbal abuse is real. If you have someone close to you, like a parent or spouse, telling you every day that you suck, you're worthless, you're no good, you start to believe that. Most of our ideas and beliefs about the world come from what other people tell us, so for the most part words create our reality. Even if your a scientist doing experiments, most of what you know about the laws of physics, for example, come from what you read in a textbook written by someone else, or a lecture from a professor. It takes a lot of hard work to come up with an original though or a new idea, and most people don't have enough time in their lifetimes for very many.

Re:The evil CDT

[harl]

No, that's not true. What you are claiming is that taboo subjects are arbitrary. The fact is, taboo subjects are taboo because they refer to things that we wouldn't encounter in everyday life. No taboos exist naturally. All taboos are cultural. Therefore all taboos must be arbitrary.

You don't shit? You don't piss? You don't fuck? I encounter all three of these things in everyday life.

Have the seen the prevelance of potty humor? In all levels of entertainment. Children's cartoons make shit and piss jokes all the time. The message is the same regardless of what words are used. Why is ok to use one word in telling these jokes but not another? That's the definition of arbitrary.

Re:The evil CDT

[oyenstikker]

Why don't you try going into a grocery store and swearing at the cashier, or going to a job interview and cursing like a sailor, or telling your boss to go to hell. There couldn't possibly be any harmful/bad/problematic results, could there be?

Re:The evil CDT

[xero314]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off Depends on what the teach did and if they deserved to be told to fuck off (which often times is the case).

or starts cursing in a WalMart If I ever drag my kid through a WalMart I sure as hell hope they start cursing at me, which will hopefully wake me up and make me realize I'm in a WalMart.

All words have an appropriate use, and telling of people for doing stupid shit, like teaching useless crap and holding a smart kid back, or shopping at WalMart, are certainly deserving of a vulgar expletive or two.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

No taboos exist naturally. All taboos are cultural. Therefore all taboos must be arbitrary. This is not true. Some taboos are cultural, such as not eating pigs, or dogs, or cats. Some taboos are universal, such as not having sex with a sibling, or not pooping in public.

You don't shit? You don't piss? You don't fuck? I encounter all three of these things in everyday life. A taboo doesn't mean these things don't exist; it means you don't bring them into the public sphere.

Have the seen the prevelance of potty humor? In all levels of entertainment. Children's cartoons make shit and piss jokes all the time. The message is the same regardless of what words are used. Why is ok to use one word in telling these jokes but not another? That's the definition of arbitrary. A joke is one way to handle a taboo subject. A medical discussion is another. However, there are other contexts in which taboo subjects are inappropriate.

Re:The evil CDT

[CompleatGentleman]

That's not true. All of the 'bad' words or swear words refer to taboo subjects -- stuff we don't physically deal with in every day life.

If you don't physically deal with dirty body functions on a daily basis, please tell what sort of a diet you're on.

If you don't physically deal with sex or genitals on a daily basis, well, sucks to be you.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

that may be true but you also know that most kids don't learn "fuck you" from TV, they learn it from their friends and in some cases their family. on the other hand, if the child grew up knowing it wasn't right to curse all the time and viewed occasional cursing, I doubt they would start tellign their teachers to fuck themselves would they?

Re:The evil CDT

[boombaard]

Yes, and it's only true if and only if you believe it to be true.. which is a belief you base on what you yourself believe, in part.. but also something you base on how others react to the same verbiage
and as long as not everyone believes it, it's not entirely or certainly true..

Never mind the silly Reductio ad Absurdems your parent talks about that don't exactly expand to fit other categories [when he's talking about going from talking about abluting in the street to actually doing it] unless he's actually already raised in a certain way, think about things like inciting racial hatred (or other beliefs) before a large crowd (whether they be KKK or ADL members).. Words change or form beliefs, and thus inform actions..
It may well be you're choosing not to be offended when someone says unflattering things about your ancestry, his appreciation for your [lack of] attention to personal hygiene, but I imagine that if said person were to describe how he felt like he would like to use a rather hot implement to remove your entrails by pulling them out through your sphincter, I imagine that the knowledge that a person was dreaming of mutilating you at some future date would disturb you at least somewhat, even if it only made you wonder what you did to him to deserve such treatment

Alternatively, for a less graphic example, imagine someone producing a document that stated you were his or her personal servant to do with as he/she wishes, or imagine being a woman in a society that is entirely patriarchal. in such a society it would be taught from infancy that using women (or any subgroup) is entirely acceptable, and where the members of the subgroup would also be raised in this way, with heavy punishments following in case of disobedience.
You *might* argue that the only way the society stays together is because of the threat of (domestic?) violence, but I think that that would be fairly naïve to assume.. even in modern societies a lot of people choose to accept the 'status quo' (gotta love that these words exist), and even in modern societies a lot (really a very large percentage) of control is exerted through language and education.

Which is what the whole point about these 'words' versus 'actions' is about.. there is no real difference, depending on which meaning of 'word' you're talking about of course.. but words are used to motivate (most) actions, and words can also be used to repress, in the situation described as above, or in the case of 'abusive language'

My PoV on swearwords, however, is that the restraints in place on them are mostly rather frivolous.. yes, it's very, very annoying when people intersperse statements with swearwords, but it's mostly because they're just wasted space, and don't really serve a function. That said, a well-placed/used expletive can serve to convey how the intensity wit which someone feels something to be true/important (especially in the case of the person who indeed only occasionally swears), and as such be 'constructive'. I'm not sure however what that proves. does it mean that the things usually referenced by swearwords and the strength of some beliefs rather than others are both things people feel strongly/instinctively about, or that we associate the things we feel strongly about with bodily functions

Relatedly: considering Faith-based swearing exists, and these would be strongly held beliefs (never minding for the moment why it is people think up things they believe so strongly about that seem to be entirely unrelated to 'material' life), and adding how I know I personally feel very strongly about people using repressive language about societal groups (be they women or minorities), and how I find attacks on their autonomy personally disturbing (although I suspect most of the reason why I find them disturbing is because I know they lead to repressive action, rather than because I find the 'thought' part disturbing, which makes it somewhat different from religious-based slurs/attacks/yada), I'm probably inclined to believe that the former of the two is the case rather than the latter.. anyway

Re:The evil CDT

[bky1701]

No, he is wrong. Theres always the US Senate.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a parent and my ten year old child *has* (and while aggravating, it was a little funny, TBH). Like a responsible parent, I beat his ass red and grounded him for two weeks. Amazingly, his language has cleaned up and I didn't need the help of the government to do it.

Amazing!

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

Sorry, I mean that it's things we don't deal with in the public sphere, things that are kept private.

Re:The evil CDT

[antdude]

Sheesh, that's child abuse then!

Re:The evil CDT

[r_naked]

You realize you are raising your kid to be a pussy? Your child is the type of kid that *my* kid would beat up, if I didn't teach him _that_ was wrong.

Grow a set a fucking balls and get the fuck over the fucking F word. While your at it, stop shitting yourself about the S world also.

*YOU* have control of your TV / radio / . You don't need the FCC to babysit your kid for you. *I* certainly do not want the FCC baby sitting mine. I am quite capable of telling my son that when (not if) he should use the FUCK word.

Example:

We are driving down the road and some dick head is protesting that the FCC isn't tight enough on foul language: "FUCK you dick head!" would be perfectly acceptable.

Oh, in case I didn't get my point across -- FUCK YOU!

Re:The evil CDT

[BoberFett]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but aren't there numerous religious cable stations? There are even some that show things other than TV preachers. They might be shitty sitcoms, but they're probably clean. There ya go. Stop whining.

Re:The evil CDT

[BoberFett]

I think that a child that curses occasionally is simply acting human, and not something to be punished for saying a "bad" word. Children experience all the same emotions as adults - usually more unpredictably and less understood - so why should we be surprised when things come out of their mouths that they hear adults say in the same situations?

I was playing video games with my 8 year old daughter a while back and she was getting frustrated with the game. Out of the blue she mutters "What the hell?!" I was kind of shocked at first, because although I curse like a sailor when I'm around friends, I really try to watch my language while she's around. I've let a few things slip out here and there, but I can probably count my cursing around her on both hands. After what she said sank in, I tried to stifle my laughing and I talked a bit to her about appropriate things to say and moved on. No big deal.

As with most things with the US federal government nowadays, they're inventing bogeymen so they can save us from them.

Re:The evil CDT

[rhakka]

Look, I understand that words can hurt you in an abusive context, but someone talking about peeing in the street does not hurt you, nor does someone yelling "fuck this"!! Maybe you, for some reason, have been conditioned to think "fuck this" is bad and so you have a bad feeling in your gut when it's said. Maybe you actually picture the guy fucking the thing, which is weird, but hey, I could see why that would be disturbing if you do. I would, however, suggest counselling if you find yourself taking that literally every time it's said, because you obviously have some sexual problems or obsessions if that is the case.

But, understandable or not, it does not mean that it's rational for you to feel that way. It might have a rational explanation, but that doesn't make it, itself, rational. It's not rational to have an aversion to discussion or lanugage at all, because by itself, unless it's a threat or an attack, it can't hurt you. You might not like thinking about something because it calls up some emotional response.. but again, that's not rational. It's normal, sure, but it's not rational. And I don't think it's ok for you to advocate for muzzling everyone for some irrational response you have, even if lots of other people agree with you, because frankly lots of people have lots of different irrational problems and if we accomodate them all no one can do anything.

And obviously shit, or poop, is not so taboo that you would avoid having it in your nickname ;) So... rational?

Never mind that shit and poop are exactly the same thing. But I say "poop", that's ok. If I say "shit", it's not and it's taboo. Rational?

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

And here is the magic of why that is such nonsense.

"The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again.

But the bible says nothing whatsoever about the "badness" of saying "shit fuck cunt motherfucker sonofabitch ow! Shit! Get me a bandaid." Indeed, the most it has to say about the matter is "Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain", which I interpret to mean that when you say "God damn it" you are praying for God to damn it, and he will indeed damn whatever you pray that he damns.

The more you censor "Bad" words, the more "Bad" they become.

That is a good thing. If "fuck you motherfucker" carried no badness, what goddamned good would it be? What would you say when you hit your thumb with a hammer or some asshole cut you off in traffic?

Good job, you just made it more attractive for them to say "bad" words.

Which doesn't apply at all to younger kids unless you're such a shitty parent that your kids hate your fucking guts. And if you're that abysmal at parenting you're liable to tell your own kids to "shut the fuck up you little cocksucker" anyway.

The words used themselves are irrelevant it is about what the intent was when they said them.

Quoth the Firesign Theater: "It's micks and wops and niggers and kikes with noses as long as your arm. And honkeys who never left the farm. That's America, buddy!"

I daresay that there are many, many people who would be offended and even hurt by that line from a HIPPIE COMEDY RECORD.

OTOH, a woman I know is married to a fellow who immigrated from Peru. His "pet" name for her is "Puta". I don't have the heart to tell her what "puta" means!

Peace on you.

-mcgrew

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

And obviously shit, or poop, is not so taboo that you would avoid having it in your nickname ;) So... rational? Awright, you got me ;)

Re:The evil CDT

[cromar]

I've been hearing 'nucka' used around here, Missouri, a lot. I started hearing it in Famlee-Tree's albums (Kansas City) a few years ago but it has gone more mainstream now, mo' nucka.

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

I should HAVE to actively decide to tune in a channel with offensive content.

And that's how it is now and would be if the FCC were disbanded. You *choose* what you watch. If you seriously don't think there is a market for profanity free programming then you haven't thought about it. You do not want to take that responsibility for yourself so you're forcing me to pay for your inadequacies as a person and as a parent.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything.

Bullshit! That's exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that there is no real difference between a kid getting raped and hearing a dirty word. If that is not exactly what you were doing, then you would not have even brought up a subject so bizarre and tried to draw a comparison. All you've shown is that you do not have anything to back up your idiotic assertions. Why else would you have to trivialize raping kids?

Why is this different?

Because you are the one who chooses the channels you watch and even what channels *your* TV is allowed to receive.

A good parent (your words, not mine) wouldn't let their child have sex with an adult, just like a good parent wouldn't let their child watch offensive material on TV? Granted, one is worse than the other, but, you said it is the parent's responsibility. Why is one the responsibility of the parent and not the other?

In the first place, little kids do not *choose* to have sex with adults. They're *raped* by adults. Of course, it is *still* your fucking responsibility to keep your kids away from pedos, but apparently you don't believe that either. I fucking pity your kids. If your kids see or hear anything on your tv that you do not approve of then that is entirely your fault and your failure.

Now, of course, you're left trying to prove that hearing dirty words on TV is in any way a bad thing. I'm not claiming it's *good*, but you're response just proves again how unfit you are to be deciding anything for anybody. There is no reason to think that it in any way makes someone a bad parent because they don't care if their kids hear dirty words. Words are just words. If you don't like them, don't watch shows that have them. You have a mass of options for controlling your and your kid's viewing habits, but you've apparently completely failed to avail yourself of them even though I've already paid for them at your fucking demand.

Pull your head out of your ass and take some responsibility for yourself for once.

Re:The evil CDT

[rhakka]

I think you really need to draw the line between "speech" and "threats". "Threats" are a credible expression of possible violence or harm. "Speech" is not a threat.

I see no probablem with my description if you simply make such a distinction. Of course it is rational to have a reaction against someone threatening you. It is not rational to have a reaction against someone who is simply describing an act in passing, in jokes, etc. Certainly not rational enough to warrant a taboo, IMO.

Re:The evil CDT

[cromar]

Watch your fucking children. Get rid of the fucking television if you have to. YOU are the problem, my friend, not anyone who curses in the presence of YOUR child. YOU need to keep YOUR CHILD out of those situations.

Re:The evil CDT

[An ominous Cow art]

Another example: According to my French-Canadian WoW guildmates, "tabernacle" is considered to be a bit of a dirty word there, but here in the US it doesn't have any bad connotations.

Re:The evil CDT

[harl]

Some taboos are universal, such as not having sex with a sibling, or not pooping in public. This is not true. Both of these are cultural. We are taught both these things. Neither are natural, inherent, or universal.

A taboo doesn't mean these things don't exist; it means you don't bring them into the public sphere. This is not related to my comment. Please respond on topic. You said "taboo subjects are taboo because they refer to things that we wouldn't encounter in everyday life." I said that this is wrong because the things you list you encounter in everyday life. How is shit, piss, and fucking not part of everyday life? How did you get here? How do you remove waste from your body? Shitting and pissing isn't an everyday thing for you? You need to have that looked at.

Have the seen the prevelance of potty humor? In all levels of entertainment. Children's cartoons make shit and piss jokes all the time. The message is the same regardless of what words are used. Why is ok to use one word in telling these jokes but not another? That's the definition of arbitrary.
A joke is one way to handle a taboo subject. A medical discussion is another. However, there are other contexts in which taboo subjects are inappropriate. Once again you're evading. Please address the topic you started and I responded to. Why is potty humor ok for children with some words but not other words? The subject is the same only the words are different. That's arbitrarily defining words as 'offensive.'

Re:The evil CDT

[cayenne8]

"Because not everyone can afford a new TV equipped with a V-chip."

Not everyone can afford cable...

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

You can close your eyes :p

True enough, and I know you're kidding.
Still even that puts the onus on you the innocent passerby to go out of your way to avoid seeing it whereas anything you see or hear on your TV you had to actively seek out.

Re:The evil CDT

[mrchaotica]

Hmm... I'm gonna have to say that's a tie.

Re:The evil CDT

[spamking]

Some folks view how you talk as a measure of your intelligence. Anyone can go around spitting out 4 letter words without caring who hears them. It takes a little more self-control to NOT talk that way.

But I completely understand your point. Words only have "power" over you if YOU give them that power. No matter what the word or words may be.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of gratuitous swearing (although I think Eddie Murphy is hilarious). But this article refers to fines for a slip of the tongue. I'm reminded of an incident I witnessed years ago (I was probably 10 years old).
A man (that I knew) came into the store and asked for some item which the store didn't have. It went like this:

Man: Do you have a [item]?
Clerk: No, we don't have anything like that.
Man: Shit!...I...I mean...shoot!

No more man-in-the-street interviews.
No more interviews.
Everything pre-screened (In front of panel of lawyers...Is 'frack' a swear-word now?)
I'd like to record a court session in a case regarding this law. It would make a *great* comedy! ...Dave

Re:The evil CDT

[DMUTPeregrine]

Some days I REALLY hate having a photographic memory.

Re:The evil CDT

[middlemen]

When someone says "bullshit" I see a cowpie.

It is ironic that your nickname is lawpoop.

Re:The evil CDT

[An ominous Cow art]

I have it on good authority that certain hand gestures can be used to convey certain of those evil words. We need to ban hands, too. It's the only way to be sure!

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Not everyone can afford cable...

Then they can't afford to hear "fuck" on TV. Seeing nipples and hearing profanity is a premium service.

Not everyone can afford a new V-chip equipped TV.

Re:The evil CDT

[lawpoop]

Some taboos are universal, such as not having sex with a sibling, or not pooping in public. This is not true. Both of these are cultural. We are taught both these things. Neither are natural, inherent, or universal. Most anthropologists and cognitive scientists, who actual study human beings and culture, would disagree with you. Just because they are explicitly taught does not mean they are not also instinctual.

This is not related to my comment. Please respond on topic. You said "taboo subjects are taboo because they refer to things that we wouldn't encounter in everyday life." I said that this is wrong because the things you list you encounter in everyday life. How is shit, piss, and fucking not part of everyday life? How did you get here? How do you remove waste from your body? Shitting and pissing isn't an everyday thing for you? You need to have that looked at. To be pedantic, I have had a few days when I haven't used the bathroom at all, not even to urinate.

But more to the point, you're right; I misspoke. What I meant was, we don't bring these things into the public sphere. We don't use the bathroom in public, we go in a little private room. We don't have sex in public, we normally go in a private place, and it's illegal to do otherwise.

. Why is potty humor ok for children with some words but not other words? There are lots of things that are okay for children to do that are not tolerated for adults to do. Kids can walk around in the nude, doing so as an adult would get you arrested.

Re:The evil CDT

[lgw]

or going to a job interview and cursing like a sailor/quote.

What if it were an interview for a job as a sailor? Didn't think of *that* now, didja?

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

First, how I raise my kids is my business and mine alone. Surely you can agree to that. So leave them out of it. I don't agree with how you raise yours, but notice how I haven't brought it up. It's none of my business and how I raise mine is none of yours. If you can't debate the issues without trying to attack mer personally, please don't post at all.

you're left trying to prove that hearing dirty words on TV is in any way a bad thing. I'm not claiming it's *good*, but you're response just proves again how unfit you are to be deciding anything for anybody

I've said time and time again that I'm not trying to limit what you or anyone else can watch. However, if you release all decency rules from all TV stations, then YOU are limiting what I can watch. I'm not trying to take away unregulated stations. Why are you trying to take away my regulated ones?

All I want is for the networks that receive licenses to transmit over the airwaves unencrypted have some standards. We're talking about 5-6 channels. You keep saying that I want to censor everyone and keep anything not church-approved out of your house. I guess you say that because you can't refute my request for 5-6 channels out of the 1500 that are available. I don't care what you watch, just keep the "public" airwaves clean. That's all. Stop saying this bill censors everything, because it does not. Stop arguing against the words YOU put into my mouth and start responding to what I'm actually saying or STFU.

Re:The evil CDT

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

It's pretty simple for a good parent or a good teacher to stop kids from cursing. In fact it's just simple. Just DON'T react.

Kid: Fuck
Parent: That's nice, dinner is at 6.

Kids don't curse because it a curse. They curse because they get a reaction. No reaction, no fun. No fun, no cursing.

For a teacher:

Kid: Fuck
Teacher: That is inappropriate.
Kid: Fuck
Teacher: How original.
Kid: Fuck
Teacher: If you say that word you again will be punished. (Again being clam and not antagonized)
Kid: Fuck
Teacher: Come with me, we are going to the principal.

Summary: Don't get angry / make a scene and the problem solves itself.

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

Trying to force everything to be kid friendly is limiting choice.

I never said that. I just want the channels that transmit openly over the air to have some standards. I don't give a shit about the rest of it.

It's not, but wanting all channels free of indecency is.

You're putting words in my mouth. Again, I never said anything about all channels.

Sort of. I think they should be free from government mandated standards; however, they should at least be honest about what their content is (which could be mandated, TV ratings are a good idea).

I mostly agree. Out of the 1500 channels that come into my home, it's nice to know that I can turn the the 5-10 that also broadcast over the air and not hear the word "fuck". As to the other 1495 channels, I don't care. I actually like the option. But if you remove these standards, you are taking away the option from me and all I'm left with is the option to turn it off. (and No, Hannah Montana is not a valid option!)

Additionally, channels will self-censor. Disney Channel is not going to show Princesses Gone Wild, just because the government is no longer breathing down their necks. They know what their customer base is, and will continue to pander to it.

And CBS won't show a topless woman during the SuperBowl Half Time Show. Bono won't say "fucking" during the Golden Globes. Nichole Richie won't say "fuck" on the Billboard Music Awards. The list goes on. Again, I don't have a problem with HBO, Showtime, or even Comedy Central, SciFi or the Cartoon Network showing whatever they want. I just want a couple of stations that are not made for "tweens" that I can watch with my family and not have to explain what a threesome is to my 5-yr old.

Do you want to see Big-Bird's balls?
Might be a funny parody, but not really my thing, thanks.

Yeah, that would be hilarious if done right, but I don't want to see it on Fox during "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader". There are channels for that and it's great that there are, but just leave a few to us.

Re:The evil CDT

[harl]

Most anthropologists and cognitive scientists, who actual study human beings and culture, would disagree with you. Just because they are explicitly taught does not mean they are not also instinctual. If something is instinctual then by definition it's not taught. Also it's impossible for incest to be instinctual or unlearned since there is no way to tell if someone is your sibling unless you are taught they are.

But more to the point, you're right; I misspoke. What I meant was, we don't bring these things into the public sphere. We don't use the bathroom in public, we go in a little private room. We don't have sex in public, we normally go in a private place, and it's illegal to do otherwise. I don't understand. People talk about sex and bathroom all the time in public. You'd never said "I have to go to the bathroom" or some variation in public. Just because something happens in private doesn't mean we can't talk about it in public. Everyday human interaction shows your position to be false.

Why is potty humor ok for children with some words but not other words?
There are lots of things that are okay for children to do that are not tolerated for adults to do. Kids can walk around in the nude, doing so as an adult would get you arrested. Once again your response it not related. If I relate your response to my question the only answer I get is that it is ok for children to swear. I ask again. Why is potty humor, talking about shit and piss, ok for children with certain words but not others?

Re:The evil CDT

[Jardine]

Another example: According to my French-Canadian WoW guildmates, "tabernacle" is considered to be a bit of a dirty word there, but here in the US it doesn't have any bad connotations.

I don't know about tabernacle, but tabernac (and other spellings) definitely is. It's a French Catholic thing. I don't get it either.

Re:The evil CDT

[RoboRay]

Or you could discipline your child when he or she acts inappropriately, instead of expecting the federal government to raise your child for you.

Re:The evil CDT

[CompleatGentleman]

Just because the physical act isn't done in public, doesn't mean it can't be discussed in public.

I don't have sex in front of people, but I sure talk about it with people.

I don't talk generally about my bowel movements in public, because, well, people just don't need to know. But it shouldn't be offensive to talk about.

Re:The evil CDT

[sjames]

Actually, it's pretty easy to avoid cursing in public, and for those who choose not to avoid it, every prohibited word or phrase has non-censored synonyms.

It's quite easy to avoid casual cursing in public, but given time, eventually someone runs over your foot with a bicycle or you nearly get hit in a crosswalk, and before you even have time to realise you're not really hurt, you've cursed in public.

Re:The evil CDT

[nightfire-unique]

lol.. c'est vrai. I always get funny looks when I go to Ontario and speak to people there. :)

Re:The evil CDT

[nightfire-unique]

I agree with you 100.0%. Please have kids. :) We're being outnumbered....

Re:The evil CDT

[nightfire-unique]

What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mutually exclusive. While it is important for kids to learn to act on their own initiative, it is also important that they learn that respect for authority when respect is due is a necessary life skill. It takes a variety of tactics to encourage and develop good behavior patterns in kids.

I think a better way of look at it is like this:

Tolerance of authority figures is necessary, but not the needed skill. The skill is in weighing costs and benefits of rejecting/accepting commands from authority.

I agree with you in principle, but I think it's extremely important to focus on critical thinking, mutual respect and common sense, over "respect for authority." The vast majority of people in the "real world" who appeal to authority are simply those who seek personal gain through exploitation of others; learning to respect directives out of fear for the consequences is far more important than learning unconditional respect for the authoritarian figure.

Re:The evil CDT

[Saxerman]

Missing from your list of taboo word subjects is discrimination, such as the N-word or bitch.

Words are bad not because they are 'inherently' bad, or have an etymology that relates to them being bad. Words are bad because you believe they are bad.

Consider any of the vulgar words in different languages. You might consider them completely vile and reprehensible, but as long as they're not translated for you, they're just words. And once you learn the meaning of the word, it's your perception that changes, not the word.

Consider the campaign to create a vulgar word from Senator Santorum's name.

Meaning is where you find it.

Re:The evil CDT

[photomonkey]

I think it's funny that so many people are so willing to blame TV/movies/videogames/books/comics/etc. for foul language usage and other inappropriate behavior.

I remember the first time I said 'fuck' in front of my dad. It took him less than a second to give me an, in his words, a goddamned good open-palm reason to say 'oh, fuck'. If I recall, I was about 7. He didn't care where I heard the word. Could've been the playground, him, mom, or anywhere else. It didn't matter. I violated his disciplinary code in my usage of that word.

Eventually, through juvenile social experimentation, I learned that there are times, places, and situations where it is ok to use foul language. I also learned that there is a great difference in saying, 'oh, fuck' as opposed to 'fuck you'.

If people would step in and be parents, we wouldn't be so reliant on governments to pass legislation in 'think-of-the-children' ways. If we educate our children that life is full of environments and choices, we can train them to be contributing members of society in all those situations and environments.

With everything else going on in the world today, I wouldn't be nearly so concerned about sheltering my children from foul language, as I would be in providing them with the tools to be successful, productive members of society.

As for the Wal-Mart f-bomb, I see plenty of out-of-control children who don't use foul language. I'm not advocating child abuse or indiscriminate violence of any kind, but we really need to get away from this 'spare the whip and spoil the child' crap. Just as there are varying degrees of crime and unacceptable behavior, so should there be various levels of punishment; from a "Johnny, quit it" to a firm smack across the ass.

Re:The evil CDT

[bogjobber]

So, the swear words refer to stuff you would never deal with in everyday life. You can't walk around naked or have sex in public, you can pull your pants down and pee in the street, you never see God or the Devil. Likewise, we it's impolite to bring these up in conversation.

But you're really missing the point there. Why is it less offensive to say poop and pee over shit and piss? Other than the fact that one is considered an obscenity, they mean the exact same thing. For example, if I wanted to say on broadcast TV "I just pooped" it would be fine. If I wanted to say "I just took a shit" it would not. Why is that? Both refer to the same "dirty" thing. Neither is polite conversation in most situations. There is a difference between an impolite subject and profanity (especially as defined by the FCC).

Re:The evil CDT

[guywcole]

I was in the Boy Scouts for several years, and there was a recurring debate among every new year of parents as to how to deal with the swearing problem in scouts.

My mother, I thought, offered the simplest explanation: we can't deprive them of the knowledge of the words. They'll pick them up everywhere else, from school and friends and the gardener and us. A vacuum of information doesn't help.

What you have to do is give them knowledge to deal with these words, you have to teach them to be good people and to have respect and to speak kindly. THAT's what our Boy Scout troop had to be all about. Become good people, not hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil.

Re:The evil CDT

[Zarluk]

Well, I hope you don't have kids... at least, I would find very borying to have you as my father... ("don't do this, don't say that, don't think!")

I have kids! And they have never misbehave in public, thought sometimes, in private, they say fuck or shit or... whatever, but one have to understand that when they do it is usually for testing our reaction to a new word they heard from some friend... once we explain them that is not socially acceptable to say them in public, they never use it again (in public, I mean).

But, as too many have stated, is just a matter of culture (or lack of)...

Re:The evil CDT

[ScrewMaster]

and before you even have time to realise you're not really hurt, you've cursed in public.

Fuckin'-A right!

Sorry, my mouth got away from me for a second there.

Re:The evil CDT

[Peter La Casse]

It's quite easy to avoid casual cursing in public, but given time, eventually someone runs over your foot with a bicycle or you nearly get hit in a crosswalk, and before you even have time to realise you're not really hurt, you've cursed in public.

That's only true if one is in the habit of cursing in general. If the first exclamation that comes to mind is not a prohibited word (for example, "ouch") then accidental cursing is unlikely.

Re:The evil CDT

[geekoid]

"This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you!"
You have failed to recognize that a child will be influenced by more then there parents. They go to school with 1000 kids I don't parent.

"...but I cuss up a storm today. And I enjoy it."
yeah, enjoy your life in lower middle class.

"Children are more willing to listen to you when you're not treating them like a monkey"
As a parent, I ahve to agree;however when they are around there peers that are treated like monkee's it's confusing for them.

Do niot overlook how much children take from their peers no matter HOW well you parent.

Putting cuss words on every channel in no way raises the bar on society.
Try to act civilized once in a while, ok?

Re:The evil CDT

[Zarluk]

"I wouldn't want my 7 year old telling his teacher to go to hell either."

It just depends on to what teacher his saying that... I can remember some that actually deserved hearing nastier words than that, eventually with some kind of torture along with, but I believe that I didn't attend to the same school as you did ;-)

Re:The evil CDT

[pipingguy]

This link explains the phenomenon, and includes the native use of 'fuck':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_French_profani ty

Paul (ex-Montrealer)

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

But insisting that it's OK to censor broadcast media across the board simply because you can order cable to get uncensored TV is very different. Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to censored information simply because they're too poor to "switch off the filter".

On the flipside of that is Most people in the developed world can afford a TV (10 or 20 bucks for an old one at a thrift store), but there are probably a lot more people than you'd imagine who cannot afford cable. The only TV media available to them is broadcast, and they shouldn't be limited to offensive material simply because they're too poor to "switch the filter on".

The converter, or filter as you call it, could be made available as an external module for free from the station since they will be ad revenue supported anyhow. If that's too expensive, I wouldn't mind pitching in a few bucks to subsidize it so the poor could enjoy porn as much as us "rich folk".

Re:The evil CDT

[freeweed]

If it was something used in casual conversation all the time, why on Earth would there be?

For the record, though, as an adult who deals with other adults in a somewhat socially liberal country, I've never had anyone give me static for using the same vocabulary they use. Do I verbally harass people? Hell no. Do I say things like "man, the traffic was shit today" to my boss? All the time. Actually, I've told him to go to hell once or twice, now that you mention it - usually with a smile to go along with it. :)

Someday in a utopic future, people like yourself will be able to distinguish between tone/context and the particular word used. Until such time, I'll continue to try to explain to people that not everything Mom & Dad told you was true.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

As you note, these words exist for a reason, and if banned or deprecated, something else takes their place

Oh, my G... F ... me ... Good f'ing George Bush and the neocons blowing goats in hell! I mean, Oh, gosh!

Re:The evil CDT

[zen-theorist]

hmm.. let's see: at the age of 7 you were mature enough to understand that the teacher was being a bitch and needed to fuck off. then your blood relative vouches for you and you get let off. i bet you gloat every now and then as to how cool that has made you. you need to get your head out of your rear-end and into perspective.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps some people have uncontrolled mental imagery; I know I do. When someone says "fuck off" I see a guy masturbating.

Only on /. would someone imagine a guy masturbating when someone says that!

Re:The evil CDT

[RailRide]

"

Grow a set a fucking balls and get the fuck over the fucking F word. While your at it, stop shitting yourself about the S world, also.

Saturn?

I mean, I've heard the whole thing about "rings around Uranus" but that's a new one to me.

---PCJ

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

First, how I raise my kids is my business and mine alone. Surely you can agree to that. So leave them out of it. I don't agree with how you raise yours, but notice how I haven't brought it up. It's none of my business and how I raise mine is none of yours. If you can't debate the issues without trying to attack mer personally, please don't post at all.

Oh shut the fuck up you Orwellian asshat. *You* brought your kids up. *Your* whining about how they might hear something dirty is your whole reason for pushing this bullshit. *You've* been cowering behind them this entire thread you little bitch. Suck it up and take some responsibility for your own fucking actions and statements. Don't bring them up and then hide behind them when it's suggested you might actually take some responsibility for them instead of forcing me to pay for your utter failure as a parent.

I've said time and time again that I'm not trying to limit what you or anyone else can watch.

No, you are trying to prevent businesses from running in a manner they deem appropriate by robbing me to pay for a piss pantied moral police because you are too weak willed and cowardly to take any responsibility for yourself.

However, if you release all decency rules from all TV stations, then YOU are limiting what I can watch.

No, you can watch anything you damn well please. Nobody is stopping you from choosing not to watch shows you do not want to. You are unwilling to take any responsibility for yourself so instead of choosing not to watch shows you find offensive you seek to grow the nanny state even more for no good purpose. You have complete control over what comes into your house. Be a man for once instead of a bitch and avail yourself of it.

I'm not trying to take away unregulated stations. Why are you trying to take away my regulated ones?

Because there is no legal basis for allowing a government agency to dictate morals? Because we're already fucking broke due to you pussy nanny state fucks and we can no longer afford to pay for you to avoid your responsibilities.
Because you could man up and not be a drooling zombie in front of the TV? Because you have plenty of options none of which require pissing away all that money and freedom?


All I want is for the networks that receive licenses to transmit over the airwaves unencrypted have some standards. We're talking about 5-6 channels. You keep saying that I want to censor everyone and keep anything not church-approved out of your house. I guess you say that because you can't refute my request for 5-6 channels out of the 1500 that are available.

How about you just watch the channels that already provide exactly what you demand? There are channels who cater to exactly your market. There is no need for a government agency to be involved in censorship and "moral" policing.
You already have much more than 5-6 channels providing exactly what you're asking for. Of course, you're not even talking about "some standards" You're talking extremist standards enforced by thugs at my expense due to your lack of anything approaching a sense of personal responsibility.

So the question really becomes, given that you're lying repeatedly to avoid addressing your actual reasons for wanting to push your bullshit "morality" on the decent people of this country, what are your actual reasons for wanting a moral police force to push bullshit "oh my god I pissed my panties because I heard a dirty word" idiocy while at the same time actively supporting torturing and murdering innocent people.

That is exactly who and what you have demonstrated yourself to be, so any time evil sociopathic cunts like yourself try to cower behind the children in order to push their fascist agendas decent people don't trust it for a second. We've already seen the same bullshit too many times.

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I shouldn't be able to watch Pulp Fiction at 4pm on MY TV, because you can't watch your OWN FUCKING CHILDREN??? I have kids too, and you know what? I don't need TV to babysit them!

Re:The evil CDT

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC??? What, you think they are the curse police? They have no jurisdiction over traffic!

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

You're right. I give up. The vast majority of the American public should not be able to watch TV because you want to hear "fuck" on the broadcast stations. I guess 1490 channels isn't enough for you, all 1500 of the must say FUCK or you are not happy. It doesn't matter what the VAST majority of the Ameican public wants. All that matters is that you get ALL the stations and make damn sure that FUCK is said on all of them.

You are right. What is the will of the people vs the will of the all-mighty Darby anyway.

I'm curious. When you call me Orwellian, are you saying that I am like George Orwell or like a character from his novel?

Don't bring them up and then hide behind them when it's suggested you might actually take some responsibility for them instead of forcing me to pay for your utter failure as a parent.
You just proved that you talk out of your ass. You have never met my kids. For all you know, I may not even have any. But here you are, telling me what a bad parent I am. You really shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. It just proves what a stupid ass you are, trying to look smart by acting arrogant.

No, you can watch anything you damn well please. Nobody is stopping you from choosing not to watch shows you do not want to. You are unwilling to take any responsibility for yourself so instead of choosing not to watch shows you find offensive you seek to grow the nanny state even more for no good purpose. You have complete control over what comes into your house. Be a man for once instead of a bitch and avail yourself of it.
No, I can't watch what I damn well please if you get your way. Will I be able to watch the Football with my family? Nope, I'll see Janet Jackson's Tits. Can I watch a music award show? Nope, Bono will say "Fucking". So, No, I will not be able to watch whatever I want because you want to take it away. See how I'm not supporting taking away ANYTHING from you. I want there to be uncensored stations. I want you to have a choice. I wouldn't dare tell you what you can and can't watch. And yet, you have no problem telling me that I should not watch the Superbowl if I'm offended by nudity. If I don't want my family seeing a guy rip the top off a lady, then I should turn the TV off because you never know when someone is going to drop the f-bomb or take off their top. I should expect to see tits, I mean, it is the Superbowl!
So yeah, you are taking channels away from me. You want to change what I have and tell me that if I don't like it, turn it off.

Because there is no legal basis for allowing a government agency to dictate morals?

Really? Go to the mall food court without pants lately? Try it and see what happens. Why is it illegal for you to show your balls to a bunch of Tweens in the food court? BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL! You don't think that spanking your monkey in front of the Orange Julius is a moral issue? Why is it illegal? While we are at the mall. Let's take your reasoning and apply it here. We take your argument about "No one MADE me turn on the TV" and "It's the parent's responsibility as to what a child sees or doesn't see" and change it to "no one MADE them go to the mall" and "the parents should have known you'd be there boxing with the bishop in the food court." (same argument, same logic, different settings) Hey, I might want to see that. Why should they ban you from doing the nuckle shuffle in front of the arcade when everyone that it offends can simply go to another store or not go to the mall at all. Sure I could go to the peep show, but that will cost me a quarter! Seeing someone sling their manly-mayonnaise should be free! Why can't those damn puritans pay for a public masturbation-free mall? Why do I have to pay when THEY are the ones with the problem! Besides, there are PLENTY of malls around town where no one is slapping the fat for all to see. Sure, there will be no guarantee that there won't be some fat guy playing pocket pool with no pockets,

Re:The evil CDT

[oyenstikker]

I watch my children. The problem is that they have to live in a society with a bunch of people who don't.

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

You're right. I give up. The vast majority of the American public should not be able to watch TV because you want to hear "fuck" on the broadcast stations. I guess 1490 channels isn't enough for you, all 1500 of the must say FUCK or you are not happy. It doesn't matter what the VAST majority of the Ameican public wants. All that matters is that you get ALL the stations and make damn sure that FUCK is said on all of them.

You are right. What is the will of the people vs the will of the all-mighty Darby anyway.

I'm curious. When you call me Orwellian, are you saying that I am like George Orwell or like a character from his novel?


I mean Orwellian as in you continually engage in doublethink just like the above moronic lies.

There are like what, HBO, Showtime, and very rarely Comedy central that allow fuck to be said and only at night? So that's 3 stations. Maybe a few more? But exactly opposite to the delusions you're spouting, the vast majority of stations do not use language like that at any time.

Then you claim that I'm trying to subvert the will of the majority when nothing could be further from the truth. You want to use the government in a totally inappropriate role in order to enforce your personal standards on everyone else rather than letting their will actually be known through the market which is the only reasonable approach with an issue like this.

Now obviously, you couldn't be sane and actually believe the nonsense you wrote given that it directly contradicts reality in every particular, yet it's hard to believe that it's possible to be stupid enough to think anybody would believe your deeply delusional lies, so you probably weren't lying on purpose. The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that you're managing to hold 2 directly contradictory positions in your head at the same time which is doublethink.

Weak willed spineless shitbags like yourself are what allows big brother bullshit to exist because you can't be bothered to try and make your brain actually work properly.


You just proved that you talk out of your ass. You have never met my kids. For all you know, I may not even have any. But here you are, telling me what a bad parent I am. You really shouldn't speak about things that you know nothing about. It just proves what a stupid ass you are, trying to look smart by acting arrogant.

And again. You brought your kids up and made them the entire basis of your argument. Now you're doublethinking again.
Given the fact that you can not be bothered to use the parental controls you already made me pay for and instead are demanding that I have to pay the government to raise them for you I concluded quite correctly that you are a shitty parent. If you were just lying the whole time about your kids, then if you ever do have kids, then unless you grow up and start acting like an adult, you will absolutely be a shitty parent at that time. So, no, your inability to make a point without lying, doublethinking and being a whiny cunt does not make me an ass.

No, I can't watch what I damn well please if you get your way. Will I be able to watch the Football with my family? Nope, I'll see Janet Jackson's Tits. Can I watch a music award show? Nope, Bono will say "Fucking". So, No, I will not be able to watch whatever I want because you want to take it away.

What twaddle. Go whine to the station and the advertisers. Don't force me to pay for your inability to deal with normal language. If you are so convinced that the vast majority of people agree with you, then leave it to the market. The fact is that you fear that you're a minority and so you want to prevent people from having the entertainment they want. Again, you merely demonstrate your deep dishonesty, your cowardice and your idiocy.


What does this have to do with anything. And this, coming from someone who wanted to leave a dictator in power who really did torture and murder innocent people.

It has to do with making a clear and abso

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

It's perfectly clear that one of us is a bigot. Let's look up the definition:

Bigot:

- a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I have no problem with stations that show whatever they want. If I don't want to watch it, I won't turn to it, but I certainly won't forbid anyone else from watching. That is their choice. So, I'm not the bigot.

You, on the other hand, don't want me to have an option to watch what I want to. You want all station to have your standards, or lack thereof. You are utterly intolerant of my creed, belief, and opinion.

I guess I only bring that up because I'm willing to meet halfway. Like I've said several times, I have no problems with station that are completely uncensored. You, on the other hand are not willing to leave some stations censored (as they are now). Even though you would lose nothing at all, you are not happy until you take something away from me. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

I mean Orwellian as in you continually engage in doublethink just like the above moronic lies.
Examples? Or are you just making it up because you can't counter an argument? It's called a Fallacy of Personal Attack.

There are like what, HBO, Showtime, and very rarely Comedy central that allow fuck to be said and only at night? So that's 3 stations. Maybe a few more? But exactly opposite to the delusions you're spouting, the vast majority of stations do not use language like that at any time.
This bill only applies to broadcast stations. The rest are unchanged. Hell for that matter, the broadcast channels have been left unchanged. Also, if all those other stations started saying "fuck" all day, every day, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, you have a problem with CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the local independents NOT saying "fuck"? Why do you thin I'm the one with the problem?

Now obviously, you couldn't be sane and actually believe the nonsense you wrote given that it directly contradicts reality in every particular, yet it's hard to believe that it's possible to be stupid enough to think anybody would believe your deeply delusional lies, so you probably weren't lying on purpose. The only reasonable conclusion I can make is that you're managing to hold 2 directly contradictory positions in your head at the same time which is doublethink.
Again with the Personal Attack Fallacy. Do you have any examples of these lies that I've told? Of course not. You claim that I'm lying because you can't dispute the facts so you claim that they are lies. Yet, you give no examples. You just throw the word around. That kinda makes you liar, doesn't it? You accuse me of doublethink? Yeah. I want you to have your stations (one-think) and me to have mine (the other think). Is there anything more liberal than choice?

Weak willed spineless shitbags like yourself are what allows big brother bullshit to exist because you can't be bothered to try and make your brain actually work properly.
Again with the Personal Attack with some Red Herring thrown in. Red Herring is when you bring up a whole new argument and try to relate it the one being discussed. In this case, Big Brother. Keeping stations that can not say "fuck" from being able to say "fuck" is not Big Brother. Big Brother tells you where to work, when to work, what to eat, what to eat and so on. This is not Big Brother, yet you throw it out there because it portrays a negative image. Classic Red Herring. Still, I like how you bring up Orwell again. Have you even read any Orwell. Here, I'll quote some for you. You are against the War On Terror, right? Here's what Orwell has to say about people like you:

Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside su

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

You, on the other hand, don't want me to have an option to watch what I want to. You want all station to have your standards, or lack thereof. You are utterly intolerant of my creed, belief, and opinion.

You are a fucking idiot, a liar, and a delusional fool. Those are all 100% positive facts which you have gone out of your way to demonstrate repeatedly in this conversation and you show no signs of slowing.

I want all stations to be permitted to choose their own standards and to have those enforced by *you the viewer*, not by your corrupt nanny state.
Nothing bigoted there. But again, you just lie and spout insane bullshit.
You can't even apply a definition and you think you're capable of constructing a valid argument? Laughable.


I guess I only bring that up because I'm willing to meet halfway. Like I've said several times, I have no problems with station that are completely uncensored. You, on the other hand are not willing to leave some stations censored (as they are now). Even though you would lose nothing at all, you are not happy until you take something away from me. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

You are a liar and a fool *again*.
We went over this. You keep claiming that bullshit but the fact that all stations are censored either internally or externally and that the vast overwhelming majority of stations are up to *your* standards yet you still aren't happy and want to do even fucking more is both an illustration of your deeply dishonest character and of your doublethinking. We're already 99% of the way on your side and you want to drag it even farther. That is a fact. Given that fact you attempt to claim that you're willing to meet halfway. That is a blatantly obvious *lie*. Given that you clearly know that there are not a majority or even many stations that *ever* use the word "fuck", you are engaging in doublethink.


I mean Orwellian as in you continually engage in doublethink just like the above moronic lies.
Examples? Or are you just making it up because you can't counter an argument? It's called a Fallacy of Personal Attack.

No, it's not a fallacy. It's a fact I've given you many examples repeatedly throughout this discussion.

You're proven a liar and a fool *yet again*.

This bill only applies to broadcast stations. The rest are unchanged. Hell for that matter, the broadcast channels have been left unchanged. Also, if all those other stations started saying "fuck" all day, every day, I wouldn't have a problem with it. However, you have a problem with CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox and the local independents NOT saying "fuck"? Why do you thin I'm the one with the problem?

So, you agree that you're a fucking liar.
You just engaged in doublethink again shit for brains. Pull your head out of your ass and try and learn how to think.

Again with the Personal Attack Fallacy. Do you have any examples of these lies that I've told? Of course not. You claim that I'm lying because you can't dispute the facts so you claim that they are lies. Yet, you give no examples. You just throw the word around. That kinda makes you liar, doesn't it? You accuse me of doublethink? Yeah. I want you to have your stations (one-think) and me to have mine (the other think). Is there anything more liberal than choice?

Again, no fallacy. You are a fucking liar. That's what you call somebody who lies all the time.
I called you on a mass of them throughout this discussion. Examples aplenty abound.


Again with the Personal Attack with some Red Herring thrown in. Red Herring is when you bring up a whole new argument and try to relate it the one being discussed. In this case, Big Brother. Keeping stations that can not say "fuck" from being able to say "fuck" is not Big Brother. Big Brother tells you where to work, when to work, what to eat, what to eat and so on. This is not Big Brother, yet you throw it out there because it portrays a negative image. Classic Red Herring. Still, I like how you bring up

Re:The evil CDT

[ArcherB]

You're entire post consists of the following:

Again, no fallacy. You are a fucking liar. That's what you call somebody who lies all the time.
I called you on a mass of them throughout this discussion. Examples aplenty abound. All I asked for was an example, and this is all you come up with...everything? That doesn't exactly qualify. I'm surprised you never came back with "pants on fire".

We're done here. I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with someone who is completely unarmed. I asked for facts, I receive curse words and insults. I'm sorry, but you are neither mature nor intelligent enough to continue this "discussion".

Re:The evil CDT

[Darby]

You're entire post consists of the following:

No, I pointed out several in the last post alone as well as repeatedly throughout this thread. But, given your demonstrated contempt for the truth, it's no surprise you just keep doing the same thing. Bald faced lying about things which are a clear matter of the public record.

All I asked for was an example, and this is all you come up with...everything? That doesn't exactly qualify. I'm surprised you never came back with "pants on fire".

No, I gave several examples. Many times. ad nauseum. You just keep failing to address them and then deny they're there even though anybody can read the post and see them clear as day.

I refuse to further engage in a battle of wits with someone who is completely unarmed

Laughable, given the fact that I have completely destroyed every point you feebly attempted to make, have repeatedly pointed out blatant lies you've told, and have demonstrated your complete lack of ability to reason. But, yes, keep up the big lie to the end. Your a real tribute to wingnuts.

I asked for facts, I receive curse words and insults.

No, liar, you received *facts* curse words and *well earned* insults. Keep up the delusional lies, Sparky.

I'm sorry, but you are neither mature nor intelligent enough to continue this "discussion".

Says the guy who has lied constantly, trivialized raping children in order to attempt to bolster a point he couldn't back up with reason and keeps projecting the worst parts of himself onto his betters.
Nice try, but when you lie bald facedly about things which are clearly in my posts, you really should expect to be treated exactly like this.

Try growing some balls some integrity, and some small knowledge of logic before you make yourself look like more of a scumbag than you already have if that is at all possible.

Of course

[stox]

This will not apply to the politicians.

Re:Of course

[solios]

They won't be the ones paying the fine. Why should they care?

Bono says "fuck" on the Grammy awards and CBS foots the bill. If anything, this will help kill off what's left of "live" media coverage in favor of the rolling five or ten minute delay a lot of broadcasters use to catch and scrub things like this.

Re:Of course

[shma]

On behalf of Dick Cheney, go fuck yourself.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

This will not apply to the politicians. Of course not. In fact, the bill ended with:

I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this bill. At which point the FCC commissioner will depants Speaker for the Senate (Vice President Dick Cheney).

Re:Of course

[TubeSteak]

Of course This will not apply to the politicians. Can anyone tell me why this post is insightful?
Was there something in TFA that I didn't read?

If the parent is trying to say something, they need to back it up with proof and not just some vague insinuation.

Even now, this policy change will only allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for one word utterances, it won't mandate it. The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.

If nobody complains, nothing happens.

Re:Of course

[garcia]

The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.

The FCC shouldn't have the power to do anything other than regulate spectrum. When did the FCC become my mother? Oh yeah, when the conservative factions on both sides of the fence decided they know best.

Re:Of course

[vivaoporto]

I think it is meant as a "tongue in cheek", as the federal appeals panel struck down a similar government policy by arguing that "if President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts".

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of "get lost" to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

Re:Of course

[Intron]

Based on the wording in the bill, if Dick Cheney goes on Fox and says "Fuck you" Fox gets fined, not Dick.

The broadcasters have made bleeping a fine art by not cutting off the beginning or ending of words, so you can still understand Jon Stewart when he says "mo********er". I am expecting the FCC to close this loophole next.

Need we say more?

[truthsearch]

Well [BEEP] that!

Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor.

Re:Need we say more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor. I don't have a fucking delay you insensitive clod!

Re:Need we say more?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor.

If that's the case, I guess you'll never make frist psot, eh?

It's necessary

[Bullfish]

Otherwise, kids might think it is okay to swear, and think of the chaos if the curse word is accompanied by a nipple. Surely we can't have this as it will lead to all kinds of promiscuity etc. Catastrophe! Better the kids see people getting their legs etc blown off. It's good clean wholesome fun that will prepare them for living in the modern world.

Re:It's necessary

[bobcat7677]

I think you were saying all that in jest. But really it's all truth. Think about it.

Re:It's necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun Fact:

most kids do not listen to the radio. Most kids listen to mp3's or XM/sirius. My daughter pays for her own Sirius subscription and got a portable receiver so she can take it in the house, car, friends car, etc...

Most kids do not watch OTA Television. Most watch Cable TV, sattelite TV or no tv at all but get their entertainment in a different way.

This change is not only retarded, but flat out bizzare. If the congresscritters that voted for this stay in power afterwards It will be utter proof that the conservative minority has way more power than everyone else simply because the bulk of you are too damned lazy to get out and vote.

Grey haired granny votes and controls your life because you cant get off your ass and go stand in line for an hour or two to vote.

Wahh young america. Wahh.

Re:It's necessary

[truthsearch]

You're right. No child should ever see a nipple. Ban breast feeding now!

Fucking pricks

[Mr. Slippery]

Fucking bunch of pricks need to fucking learn to read. There's no fucking "indecency" exception in Amendment fucking I.

Barring "indecent" speech is barring political speech - there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration or the limp-dick (what's the female equivalent? Limp-clitoris just doesn't ring right...cobwebbed-cunt, maybe?) cowards in Congress without "indecent" language.

Re:Fucking pricks

[antv]

there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration

You're joking, but because of this law there's literally no way for radio news station to report what Dick Cheney said to Sen. Patrick Leathy on a Senate Floor.

Re:Fucking pricks

[Goobermunch]

Actually, broadcasters have significantly reduced First Amendment rights, and have for decades. In fact, the recent trend has been for them to enjoy more First Amendment protection.

Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.

And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.

--AC

Re:Fucking pricks

[SirGeek]

Fucking bunch of pricks need to fucking learn to read. There's no fucking "indecency" exception in Amendment fucking I. Barring "indecent" speech is barring political speech - there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration or the limp-dick (what's the female equivalent? Limp-clitoris just doesn't ring right...cobwebbed-cunt, maybe?) cowards in Congress without "indecent" language.

Maybe the terms should be "Numb Nuts" and "Numb CLit" ? Either way, no sensation.

Re:Fucking pricks

[Mr. Slippery]

the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night.

Ah, I forgot to mention that indecency provisions also prevent one from adquately describing the rancid bullshit repeatedly thrown by the nine whores in black.

One can't ignore a broadcast? Every TV and radio that I have ever owned has had controls on it...as George Carlin put it, "Well hey, reverend, there are two knobs on the radio! One of the turns the radio off, the other changes the station! Imagine that, reverend! You can actually change the station! It's called freedom of choice, and it's one of the principles this country was founded on! Look it up in the library, reverend, if you have any of them left when you've finished burning all the books!"

I can completely and totally shut out Howard Stern, Don Imus, Oprah Winfrey, Rush Limbaugh, whoever annoys me for whatever reason, from my TV and radio.

It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.

If I choose to invite someone into my house and they insert rude, boorish, or offensive statements into otherwise innocuous behavior, I just don't invite them again. No big deal. We can all do the same with broadcast content. (I hear rumors there are even people who choose not to have TVs at all!)

Re:Fucking pricks

[BoberFett]

Hey shit-for-brains, this is a Senate bill and three of the four bills sponsors are Democrats. What the fuck does this have to do with Bush and/or the Republicans?

Well, fuck

[Theaetetus]

So, if you don't like a particular radio station that does live call-ins, you can just call 'em up and swear and then file a complaint?

Re:Well, fuck

[Paulrothrock]

Almost every radio station broadcasts on a delay of a few seconds. There's someone in the booth with their finger on a button to bleep your horrible, dirty, nasty word.

Your best bet is to learn a bunch of sci fi swear words and use them in common speech.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably all have delay machines by now, and the bigger shows will often have screened callers. One (small, unimportant, low-budget) show I once listened to experimented with the delay machine live (or should I say six seconds before live?)

Re:Well, fuck

[Broken scope]

Goram bleep guy sitting in that booth.

Re:Well, fuck

[jshriverWVU]

No because of the 15 second delay, it'll be bleeped before it goes on the air.

Re:Well, fuck

[Rob T Firefly]

Maybe on the big radio franchises, but the smaller, independent stations won't have such expensive equipment installed. Coincidentally, the independent stations are the ones most likely to have talk shows which deal with heavy issues that make certain people very angry, and will be the most vulnerable to the OP's call-in-and-swear scenario.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

umm no all radio stations operate on a delay no matter how small they are (EVEN AM). just for that purpose.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a radio engineer, believe me, most stations that take live calls now have a delay in line.

Sales of delay units (see www.eventide.com for the most popular) have been very high since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" thing.

We even delay ballgames now. It's a pain in the neck for the listener who wants to take a portable with them to the game. But we've had cases where a drunken fan screamed an "f-bomb" near an open mike. Yes, the FCC will fine us for THAT, too.

It's a beautiful thing.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the hardware necessary for implementing an audio delay is cheap. If you can afford to broadcast a signal, having a delay is pocket change in comparison.

Re:Well, fuck

[Coryoth]

Your best bet is to learn a bunch of sci fi swear words and use them in common speech. I've always been rather amused by the apparent success of the approach taken by various SciFi shows which substitute in different words ("frak", "frell", etc.) The thing is that they aren't just used as an exclamatory/expletive, but are often used to refer to various bodily excretions and sexual acts. That is, the exact parallel meaning is easy to discern by context, and as such the words used are every bit as "indecent" as "fuck" and "shit" etc. That this substitution approach works as a legitimate loophole does a fine job of showing up the complete absurdity of trying to proscribe words in the manner they do. For all intents and purposes they may as well be saying "fuck" instead of "frak" so why not quit being childish and just let them say "fuck"; it is clearly what they mean> .

Re:Well, fuck

[Theaetetus]

Speaking as a radio engineer, believe me, most stations that take live calls now have a delay in line.

Speaking as a radio engineer too, most of the smaller stations (non-commercial, college, etc.) don't have delays.

Re:Well, fuck

[Theaetetus]

umm no all radio stations operate on a delay no matter how small they are (EVEN AM). just for that purpose.

I'm a radio engineer, and you're wrong. I consult for five different stations in addition to my day job, and the smaller ones don't have delay units.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, the hardware necessary for implementing an audio delay is cheap. If you can afford to broadcast a signal, having a delay is pocket change in comparison. Um, "dude," you obviously don't know what you're atalking about. Have you ever been inside a public radio station, or a school radio station? Most of them are staffed by volunteers, broadcasting over 20 and 30 year old wiring and equipment, surviving on meager handouts, and supporting some of the best talk radio there is. If some law came up that required them to purchase a delay unit they couldn't afford, they'd probably either close, or at least get rid of any "risky" programming.

Re:Well, fuck

[macs4all]

That's inexcusable, now that there are software apps for around $1k that do that. Not everyone needs that fancy Eventide Clockworks "Dump" box.

Re:Well, fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great. I'll be sure to let the local public radio station know that just as soon as they're done bribing listeners with free t-shirts in order to secure $20 pledges during the beg-a-thon that they only need to drop $1,000 on a software (and get someone to work it) in order to keep doing what they do.

Re:Well, fuck

[HappyEngineer]

The funny thing is that I have in the past wondered whether or not the swear words they used were really British swear words. Is "feck" a British swear word or is it made up by TV people?

Re:Well, fuck

[Theaetetus]

That's inexcusable, now that there are software apps for around $1k that do that. Not everyone needs that fancy Eventide Clockworks "Dump" box.

So, $1k for software, $1k for a computer with an air-quality sound card, and $1k for someone to set up a box that is, after all, a computer and can and will crash (or at least require updates with reboots) and take them off air. Not a good solution, and still not cheap enough for a college station with an operating budget around $10k a year.

more pointless censorship

[lusid1]

Ground based radio in the US was bad enough before this ruling, now it will be completely pointless. Lets all just go home, watch fox news, and take the blue pill.

Re:more pointless censorship

[faloi]

You obviously didn't RTFA.

The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act introduced by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) would effectively overturn the court decision on the Fox Television Stations v. FCC in which the court ruled: "We find the FCC's new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy."

This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.

Re:more pointless censorship

[Broken scope]

You insensitive clod, my pill is green.

Re:more pointless censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

What?! You mean Democrats create bullshit laws to punish their political opponents?

bu bu but Bush!

Re:more pointless censorship

[jbeaupre]

Sad to think the only redeeming thing about radio is the 4 letter words. Those NPR shock jocks will have to resort to news or something now.

Re:more pointless censorship

[Arcane_Rhino]

This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.

I think there are multiple intentions with this legislation. The one you stated is most assuredly one them, probably the foremost intention. In addition, Rockefeller himself probably doesn't much care for the casual use of vulgarity in the public venue. I am basing that on a generalization concerning men his age. And finally, I believe it is an attempt to curry favor with the "morals" voters.

Re:more pointless censorship

[lusid1]

I think you missed my point. I was slighting Fox for their tendancy to be so biased as to make the news apear fabricated, not specifically which party the fabrications pander to.

Besides, regardless of partisan sponsorship any legislation that purports to "protect children" is bad by definition. Show me a world that is safe for children, and I'll show you a world unfit for adults.

Fucking Republicans...

[R2.0]

Oh, wait...

Re:Fucking Republicans...

[ArcherB]

Don't blame just the Republicans. As I recall, it was Al Gore and his wife who were leading the charge against Dee Snider and WASP not too long ago. I'm afraid this crosses party lines.

Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.

Re:Fucking Republicans...

[jandrese]

Don't forget about Joe Lieberman. It's pretty easy to say you're tough on "the media" because who's going to stand up and defend the rights of people to swear online? The ACLU might, but they always manage to look like jackasses.

Re:Fucking Republicans...

[Harry Coin]

Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.

No, not just cable. Usually, you have to buy premium channels to get your profanity fix.

Just remember, nudity and profanity are considered vices, and you pay extra for your vices. Getting profanity for free just reduces the value proposition of HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax.

And you're right about Tipper. People forget that she was in lockstep with Jack Thompson, trying to censor music in the 80's with the PMRC. Of course, that doesn't excuse the censorship currently going on.

Just remember, Anglo-Saxon words == BAD :: Norman words == ACCEPTABLE

SHIT == BAD :: FECES == ACCEPTABLE

ARSE == BAD :: DERRIERE == ACCEPTABLE

COCK == BAD :: PENIS == ACCEPTABLE

Re:Fucking Republicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't blame just the Republicans.

Censorship is always profitable to the power elite who control government -- no matter what "side" they claim to be on. Why is it profitable for government? It's not rocket science: censorship requires revenue, and it requires power. When you're in the business of government, either are welcome, but both are jackpot.

If history tells us anything about government -- no matter what the disposition or how they came to power -- its that more power and/or revenue are always welcome.

Re:Fucking Republicans...

[ArcherB]

No, not just cable. Usually, you have to buy premium channels to get your profanity fix.

Southpark

Of course, for anything beyond cartoon porn, you need premium channels. I would love a free porn channel, btw, just not over the public airwaves.

Vast chilling effect [on media]

[FriendlyLurker]

Anybody who thinks this is something new may find this book/youtube trailer of interest:

The Myth of the Liberal Media
The Propaganda Model of News
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/CommercialismPolitic sAndMedia/TheMythoftheLiberalMedia

All this new decision does at the end of the day is cut into profits, hence the vocal "outcry".

Obvious name for the Act

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Well, "thinkofthechildren" definitely applies here, since the act is named "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act ". It doesn't get any more obvious than that that these politicians are desperate for reelection.

Re:Obvious name for the Act

[EricWright]

The worst part is that it's not just protecting children from "indecent programming" ... it's protecting all of us. Dammit, I don't WANT protection from indecent programming. Hell, if anything, I want more of it!

Re:Obvious name for the Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should call the proposed laws "Prohibition of Egregious Naughtiness In Society" or "Foulness and Unseemliness Criminality Kibitz"...

Then the media would be allowed to say things like "Politicians in Washington are very excited about FUCK..." or "If there's one thing the government is in favor of, it's more PENIS."

Re:Obvious name for the Act

[Mayhem178]

"Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act "

I happen to agree with this. For starters, let's enforce a universal coding standard. Also, for God's sake, comment your code! And no more of this "squeeze everything onto one line" bullshit! We gotta teach these kids proper programming techniques at a young age, or they'll end up thinking they're "1337 h@x0r$" or some such nonsense.

Please, won't someone think of the software?

Liability and A/V issues?

[vigmeister]

Who is responsible for accidental broadcasting of expletives. the example that comes immediately to mind is the stump microphone used in cricket that picks up on field chatter and sounds that add to viewer experience (would be like a mic placed on the bases in baseball). If a player accidentally curses, it is heard world over and in most instances, the commentators entirely ignore it or express that a certain player is extremely angry. Would the player be fined?(fair IMHO) or would the network be punished?(unfair IMHO). Here's an example of it in cricket:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SLpqAymTE

Who would be liable for this? Who SHOULD be liable?

Another issue is that even if it is bleeped out through human monitoring (with a 10 second delay or something), can mouthing of the word be considered as 'broadcasting' it? Communication is not only about sound, but given the weird laws regarding recording cops' audio/video output, it might be a similarly absurd law.

Or maybe I just don't understand TFA.

Cheers!

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[iknownuttin]

Who is responsible for accidental broadcasting of expletives.

Whoever has the deepest pockets. In other words, those who can afford the fines.

This will also mean that "Saving Private Ryan" or any other Spielberg film will not be shown on TV anymore because in order to get permission to show it, you are not allowed to edit it for any reason. This, of course, could change if Spielberg changes his mind.

Freedom of speech indeed.

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[geoffspear]

I'm fairly certain that cricket will never be carried on broadcast TV in the US, so you really don't need to worry.

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[vigmeister]

Actually we regularly get cricket broadcast at Georgia Tech through GTCN. Most of the watchers being expats, nobody will care because only 'terrorist babies' are affected. This lack of involvement is welcomed by me.

Cheers!

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[jbeaupre]

Our college had a strong tradition of yelling "asshole" at the ref or opposing players over and over for several minutes at basketball games. At home one weekend, watching the game, my brother asked "Why are they yelling 'airball' over and over? He made the shot." Still makes me chuckle. But to your point, how to you hold 5,000 screaming fans accountable?

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh, at my college they just do everything in their power to not let any sound from the crowd onto the air. Also, lots of times they won't even show home games, because they're afraid of being fined.

Clearly we know who to blame... fuck Duke.

Re:Liability and A/V issues?

[jagdish]

Umm ... What is cricket?

Not a done deal

[steve802]

It should be noted, for the social-studies-ignorant, that this is not the passage of a bill into a law, just the passage of a bill through a committee, one of many hurdles a bill must go through. Of course, the committee is often the hardest hurdle to overcome, but there are many chances to defeat this bill. It must still pass the full Senate and, assuming the bill has not already gone though the House, must go through all the same hurdles in the House. I suggest that now is the time to voice your concern about the bill to your elected officials.

Re:Not a done deal

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

right.. it is not yet a law. But i'm sure it will be. The government signs anything at this point. None of them actually read the shit they sign. None of them actually debate these things in that big fancy building our tax dollars built them for debating ideas in.

The problem with this is...

Once you take the strip club out of the community... you cant be the politician that runs on that platform of "i'm bringing back the whores to the community!"

We all act puritan, but in our bedrooms, we're choking on cock, licking assholes, peeing on each other, wanting to be raped, simulating forced sex, bondage, cheating on our wives, husbands, with same or different sexes...

We are a bunch of fucking uptight people that act like we dont kill animals for food, or wipe our own ass... or eat cum.

Our children cant learn our deviant behavior, our evil bad language... for they will do all the things we love and are ashamed to tell anyone about. FUCK AMERICA. FUCK THE CHILDREN. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT. FUCK YOU ALL FOR LETTING IT HAPPEN.

Re:Not a done deal

[Broken scope]

Um... I most defiantly kill animals for food, its actually fun sometimes, well no cleaning a deer is actually rather disgusting and frankly well not something i look forward too, but hey deer meat tastes pretty good.

How long

[bilbodh]

One wonders how much longer until the moral majority decides that pay services (satellite radio for example) are too terrible for human consumption and try to apply censorship there as well.

Re:How long

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize the Democrats had become the moral majority. A Democrat sponsored the bill.

Re:How long

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It's already happening. Reference: XM satellite radio and the Opie and Anthony show. A home guys said he would fuck Condoleza Rice and punch her in the face and choker her, and the company (XM) made them disappear for 30 days, because they're afraid of the government coming down on them at a time when they're trying to merge with Sirius satellite radio.

Granted it wasn't the government coming down on them legally... but inst it kind of the same thing? If you're affraid of government... theres a problem.

Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[maillemaker]

What gets said on TV and Radio is now so irrelevant compared to what is on the Internet that one wonders why they bother trying to regulate TV and Radio at all.

All any of these congress people need to do is get on Google and search for "sex" and you will find so much pr0n that you could have a TV channel that played the word "FUCK" over and over 24/7 for a year and it could never match the "indecency" that you can find on the internet in 30 seconds.

These guys really are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

wake the fuck up, the internet... IS NEXT. Dont fucking kid yourself, the government doesnt owe you shit. They do, but they're out for your vote and they will sell out the internet and its freedoms as well. So get your fucking ass in gear and do something.

START HERE: http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This [insert institution] is not sinking, this [insert institution] is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." -- Steven Colbert

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[kfaroo]

Oh great! Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag and ruining it for the rest of us. So far they thought it was just a collection of tubes. Now they will start trying to regulate the internet.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[drinkypoo]

What gets said on TV and Radio is now so irrelevant compared to what is on the Internet that one wonders why they bother trying to regulate TV and Radio at all.

The internet is pull technology. You request a document, it shows up at your computer. TV is push technology. You select a channel and you get everything they give you. Can you really not see the difference here?

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[thisissilly]

Shhh! You want them to try and sink the Internet as well?

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[the lightbulb sun]

What gets said on TV and Radio is now so irrelevant compared to what is on the Internet that one wonders why they bother trying to regulate TV and Radio at all

This is not meant to sound condescending, but the government regulates broadcast television and radio because the airwaves they are broadcast over actually belong to the people. They are required to do so. Broadcasters pay a fee to the government to use said airwaves, which, again, belong to the people.

That's why the internet, cable television, satelite radio, etc., are exempt from such scrutiny. Generally, the only thing which holds them in line is advertisers.

Hopefully that satisfies your wonder.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[ed.markovich]

What gets said on TV and Radio is now so irrelevant compared to what is on the Internet that one wonders why they bother trying to regulate TV and Radio at all.

The simple answer is that TV and Radio stations are the domain of FCC regulation while websites are not. The FCC will say that they're trying to keep the public broadcast spectrum 'decent' and what goes on on the Internet is not their concern, which is true. It's like someone not allowing their children to curse at home, knowing full well they can't control their language outside the home.

That being said, the current effort to crack down on accidental obscenity in broadcast is misguided in its nature. It's one thing to have standards regarding the type of content allowed on public airwaves, but fining a station when their microphone picks up a passer-by's curse is another. The net effect of this legislation will be that TV and radio stations will have to broadcast anything 'live' on a small delay and someone will have to sit at the button during such broadcasts, ready to dump out of anything 'indecent'

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Do not fool yourself into thinking that matters. The internet is next, because it is easier to find porn on the internet than television... and its in little debbie's highschool and little debbie shouldnt see a penis until shes 50 or her daddy fuckers her with one.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[maillemaker]

>The internet is pull technology. You request a document, it shows up at your computer.
>TV is push technology. You select a channel and you get everything they give you. Can you really not see the difference here?

The difference you note is only technical in nature. In practice, there is no functional difference to the viewer. In both cases, the viewer chooses the content they want to view from all available content stream choices. In terms of functional usage, a web page is no different to the viewer than a TV channel. They choose the "channel" (or web page), they see the content.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[maillemaker]

>The simple answer is that TV and Radio stations are the domain of FCC regulation while websites are not.
>The FCC will say that they're trying to keep the public broadcast spectrum 'decent' and what goes on on the Internet
>is not their concern, which is true.

Yes, it is true. But my point is that what they are attempting to do, even in the domain that they control, is /futile/. We are rapidly approaching the point, if we are not there already, where the Internet will have far greater reach, especially to people under 18 (presumably the people they are trying to protect), than television and radio have.

So my point is that compared to the VOLUMES of indecent material instantly available to anyone on the Internet, regulating the occasional "shit" over the airwaves is asinine. You could have a radio announcer do nothing but repeat the word "fuck" over and over 24/7 and you could not even begin to compare to the "indecent" material available on the internet in 30 seconds.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of functional usage, a web page is no different to the viewer than a TV channel. They choose the "channel" (or web page), they see the content.

Advertising is easier to ignore on the internet with the proper software, system configurations, and simple discipline.

Advertiser supported, interruption-driven, televised mass-media communications is almost worthless in real time due to the advertising that suffuses it.

The problem is getting worse as I have recently seen a glimpse of the 'future' of such programming. The techniques (ploys really) I saw used on one show simply turn 'product placement' inside out where the show content is 'stretched' into the multiple ad breaks in such a way that both clearly co-exist through the use of a 'top ten list' and informative 'ticker tape' along the bottom of the screen. Now you can't use the fast forward button anymore and have to resort to using the mute button to enjoy the content and ignore the pushy ads. Such programming is essentially VCR/DVR-proof.

Push-based advertising is wastefull and basically dead and needs to be outlawed--but won't due the money at stake.

Word of mouth, a phone book, and the Internet itself has made push-based advertising obsolete.

Umm, hello?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Isn't it part of the FCC's responsibility, as given to them by Congress, to monitor/police the airwaves and to determine what would be considered "indecent"? Why is Congress micro-managing the FCC's affairs?

Re:Umm, hello?

[Goobermunch]

Because they tried to limit the use of fleeting indecency until a New York Court said that the FCC couldn't do that (under the statutes that granted the FCC its authority). So now, Congress is expanding the FCC's authority to expressly address the perceived problem.

--AC

Re:Umm, hello?

[mrchaotica]

Isn't it part of the FCC's responsibility, as given to them by Congress, to monitor/police the airwaves and to determine what would be considered "indecent"?

It sure as Hell shouldn't be!

Re:Umm, hello?

[lusid1]

No, the FCCs job is to assign frequencies to broadcasters, regulate transmission power levels, certify (through licensing) that individuals and organization are qualified to run their broadcast equipment, and generally keep operators of RF transmission equipment from stepping on each others spectrum.

They have no place in the censorship business, but insist on using their licensing powers as leverage to push the personal agendas of the commission members.

Puritanism strikes again!

[mmeister]

Goddamn, motherfucking, hypocritical asshole Senators can go fuck themselves!

Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Enough

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I've had it with America. I'm so tired of this fucking country i live in. Fuck America and its bullshit ideals that mean absolutely NOTHING. We simple do not understand freedom, nor do we deserve it, because we do not fight for it when it is being taken away from us. We assume someone else will, and that the constituion protects us... IT DOES NOT.

The FCC should NEVER have the power to define what is and is not decent. That is fucking unbelievable. The fact that they've had this power for so long, and now it is tightening... is disturbing to say the least.

America is a fucking shit hole. I know i live here in NY. I wouldnt want to live anywhere in the US other than NY and CA at this point. But really i'd rather just live somewhere else where tits aren't deemed scary and offensive by the uptight people and a government that panders to them.

Dick Cheney can say fuck you on the floor of the senate... but if you say it, you're being fined. The FCC would never dare fine King Dick Cheney. But Fuck Opie and Anthony, Don Imus, and Janet Jackson's titty.

I suggest you all join the PAC movement at http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/

I want this country to burn the fuck down to the ground and i dont give a shit anymore about it. We lost it a long time ago. Just let the fucking horse die, or shoot it in the head. There is nothing we can do at this point.

WE NOW all live in that same corporate bullshit world they make you sign into at work... except its in your fucking living room now.

Third party expletives?

[goldspider]

So how much would this have cost Fox?

Damnit.

[Wordsmith]

They're just fucking words. Words most of the fucking shitheads I know were saying by the fourth grade explicitly BECAUSE they were told they were naughty. They do no harm, they hold no foul power. They're naughty only because we say so, and virtually everyone uses them from time to time no matter how we regulate media. They're just fucking words.

Why the fuck does the FCC even care? Why do the politicians care? What the fuck is the matter with these people?

Fuckshitfuck.

Re:Damnit.

[yipper]

Of course you are incorrect. Words are an expression of thoughts and intentions.
Violent, shocking, demeaning words are an expression of violent, shocking, demeaning intent.

Otherwise those specific words would have no purpose and would fall into disuse.

It sounds like congress would demand a certain level of rational and civil discourse as a requirement of holding a license to broadcast over the public airwaves. I'm for that.

Re:Damnit.

[Wordsmith]

Are you suggesting it's impossible for rational and civil discourse to include expressions of violent, shocking or demeaning thought? That's fucking absurd. Certain things deserve to be demeaned, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. Certain things deserve to have violence done to them, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. And all progressive ideas are shocking.

But you know as well as I do that in practice, the deadly words have been watered down to the point where they rarely are used to express their most potent meanings. Are we to regulate broadcast expression of perfectly typical sentiments, like those expressed by Joe Average daily?

And why should congress get to make that demand in the first place? And who is congress, or any governmental entity, to decide what's rational and civil? Government shouldn't be in the business of telling us what's an acceptable way to think and feel, or drawing and distinctions between when it's appropriate to express sentiments outside of that norm and when it's not.

Fuckers.

Re:Damnit.

[Anonymous Coward]

To the parent post,

Hmm... Fucker.

Re:Damnit.

[yipper]

> Are you suggesting it's impossible for rational and civil discourse to include expressions of violent, shocking or demeaning thought?

No, I am suggesting rational and civil discourse would be improved by limiting its gratuitous
peppering with pointless juvenile expletives.

Re:Damnit.

[Wordsmith]

If the words have real meaning, they're not pointless or gratuitous. If they don't, they're not harmful.

Again, they're just fucking words.

no more funny stuff on line tv

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk5NgML9hCg

Do something that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Legislation like this really bugs me. This issue is so trivial compared to issues like patent reform, the war on terror, the president's abuse of his powers, the economic impact of current immigration policies, the battle for sexual/lifestyle freedoms, the growing problem of identity theft, and so on. There are so many important issues (issues in dire need of deep analysis and open debate) facing us today, and somebody thinks it is worth time and money to quibble over long-standing policies of fines for slips of the tongue.

Outrageous. The asylum is run by the inmates.

Re:Decency Smeshency

[Etcetera]

#$$%#!#@&*@!@#@!@@#^^*&^*&^##@!~ Bush.

You f'ing moron. You do realize that a) the Senate is not the White House, and b) the Democrats are running Congress right now, right? Oh wait.... Bush is the source of all evil, I forgot.

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno

[Anonymous Coward]

If any on what you said were true, you'd be executed for what you said.

Which I would be perfectly happy with, as you're obviously a waste of resources.

Lastly, you're free to leave if you hate it so much. Loser punk-ass cocksuckers like you always like to bitch, from the safety of their living room.

You're nothing but a whining fuck, thinking that joining some stupid movement no one has heard from or cares about will make any kind of difference.

Shut up before you say something else stupid.

Can't understand it!

[PontifexPrimus]

In addition to your point, I really can't understand the reasoning behind the bleeping. I mean, what do they expect? How are people supposed to react to the bleeped word? "F*bleep*? What did he say just now? Fun? Farm? Fart? Oh, if only I knew!"
I mean, what exactly is gained by this? Are American children so stupid they can't make the connection between "f*bleep*" and "fuck"? "Daddy, why did that man just buzz? Is buzzing a bad thing?"
Is there anyone in the world stupid enough to look at one of these broadcasts, hear a censored word and genuinely be happy, not knowing what the original text was?

Re:Can't understand it!

[nasch]

"Daddy, why did that man just buzz? Is buzzing a bad thing?" Pretty much. My son asked me what that beeping was, and I explained that he used a bad word. My 6-year-old may have heard these words a few times, but I doubt he could figure out what motherfbleep is. And I'm fine with that. :-) Anymore though I don't put on the Daily Show when he's around. Between the adult topics and jokes, and coverage of violence such Iraq, it's just not something he needs to see.

How Laws Are Made

[Foolicious]

Now, in true slashdot fashion, we'll get about 300 comments filled with expletives as if that somehow makes a point. Yeah - awesome - you really showed them, tough guy! And you're ultra smart too!

Anyhow, just a reminder to read up on how the legislative branch works, if you have a chance. Note this from TFA: "But CDT also points out that if Senator Rockefeller's bill becomes law[...]". This suggests that, strangely enough, a committee in the Senate "passing" (questionable word choice by "pressesc.com") a bill isn't the same as it actually becoming a law! Weird, huh? There's a big difference. Of course, this doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it; just that it's not a law right now.

What I'd be more interested in (instead of a bunch of whining) would be knowing where most people think the line should be drawn. Obviously there are extremes on both ends, but I think most would agree that a line needs to be drawn at least somewhere(?) Where is that line?

Re:How Laws Are Made

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, in true slashdot fashion, we'll get about 300 comments filled with expletives as if that somehow makes a point. Yeah - awesome - you really showed them, tough guy! And you're ultra smart too!

Fuck off, cunt!

Re:How Laws Are Made

[iter8]

You're right. It was just reported out by the Commerce committee, not passed by the senate. http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAc tion=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=248882&M onth=7&Year=2007 Interestingly, the bill is co-sponsored by Ted "Tube" Stevens and one of the Commerce committee members is David Vitter, friend of the working girl. The senate site didn't give any information on how he felt about bad words on the radio.

Re:How Laws Are Made

[gurps_npc]

I disagree strongly. I support the Consitution of the US. Free Speech.

It is not "Free speech as long as you don't use words that I REALLY dislike." It is FREE SPEECH. Yeah, they put in some stuff to stop outright lies and dangerously stupid things (no yelling fire in a crowded theater), but that is about it.

There are two views of child rearing:

One: Protect the children!!!

Two: TEACH the children.

You can NOT do both. When you teach, you expose them to dangerous ideas. That includes words that you are only supposed to use when you are really angry. If the kids use them in the wrong times ("Xuxk off little sister") than that is wrong and should be retaught. But if a kid sees someone run his mother over with a car and drive away, than that little, tiny 5 year old should be screaming "COME BACK YOU FUCKIN' A HOLE, YOU RAN OVER MY MOM!"

Re:How Laws Are Made

[Anonymous Coward]

How about right here: thoughtcrime.

It's bloody simple (**expletive** easy) to see these bendejos (idiots) think that speech can be federally regulated, and it's more than a slippery slope to see it leads to attempts at regulating thought.

I hear that in Newfoundland the word "fuck" is as common as "um" or "like" in California. Who get's to say what "bad" language is for me (and do they use "good" language themselves)?

Re:How Laws Are Made

[orclevegam]

Isn't "Ted "Tube" Stevens" being investigated for something or other right now?

Re:How Laws Are Made

[iter8]

Yes, but Alaska Senator Stevens claims the investigation enhances his role as a US Senator.

Re:How Laws Are Made

[nasch]

Really? I think he should be calling 911. And what gives you the idea teaching and protecting are mutually exclusive? Sometimes teaching is the best way to protect. For example, teaching your children to watch for traffic before they cross the street, in order to protect them. I now let my 6-year-old cross residential streets by himself because he's been taught (though I still remind him). My 2-year-old I must protect by crossing with him, since he has no clue how to judge whether it is safe to cross. So I TEACH him that he must hold my hand in the street. When he is ready, I will then teach him how to cross safely by himself. A similar approach can be taken in other areas as well. I can (mostly) protect my children from profane speech until they are able to understand what it is, and then I can teach them about it. The most important teaching of course is by example, so speak the way you want your kids to speak. "Teach always. When necessary, speak."

Obligatory links ...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U058nz0Jepg

Comments

[Antony-Kyre]

First television, then the Internet. Kids are going to learn swear words somewhere. If not from t.v., then from the Net.

The real issue is this. If you cannot solve health care, the rising cost of tuition, tax reform, etc., you might as well do something that will make some people happy back in your district. As long as it gets you re-elected, right?

Re:Comments

[Goobermunch]

Actually, it's unlikely that the reasoning that permits regulation of broadcast speech will impact the Internet at all.

Unlike the Internet, regulation of broadcast speech is grounded in the theory that the broadcast stations are licensees using a scarce public resource who agree as part of their license to be regulated. Thus, it's a voluntary arrangement.

--AC

Re:Comments

[Antony-Kyre]

I mean we're on a slippery slope. If we keep allowing them to infringe on some things, regardless of how justified it may be, once they're done with that "problem", they will begin looking for another "problem" to "fix".

They'll be in trouble now..

[sqldr]

When some poor bastard has to report a story on this bloke..

A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech?

[Digital Vomit]

This will cause "a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech"? Oh, please.

Is it so bad to learn a little self control?

Re:A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech?

[GnarlyDoug]

I deem "vom*t" an indecent word. Please change your screen name. Acceptable replacements include "regurgitate" and "disgorge". Please note that "r*tch", "upch*ck", "sp*w", and "h*rl" are also indecent and not acceptable. In fact one of the criteria is that the replacement word be at least six characters long and not sound nasty. Short, explosive words are indecent, long flowery ones are OK, but only if someone of authority like me has examined them and given them a stamp of approval.

Re:A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech?

[drooling-dog]

Is it so bad to learn a little self control? That statement is going to irritate me all day now. I guess you could say that anyone who runs afoul of despots is guilty of not exercising enough "self control".

Re:A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Is it so bad to learn a little self control?

If it was a matter of self control, I'd agree; but it's not. It's a matter of someone else trying to control me. It used to be called "community standards" of decency, and now we're faced with the potential of "national standards" of decency.

It's fucked up, and my neighbors don't care if I use that word. Why does it matter if someone out of earshot cares?

Re:A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous Coward finds Digital Vomit's use of the word "it" offensive, and in fact all pronouns to be offensive on the basis that they don't show proper respect to item, person, idea or place to which the pronouns refer. Digital Vomit, please censor Digital Vomit's posts in the future so as not to offend Anonymous Coward.

Anonymous Coward find mention of the "Presidency", "War", "Political", "Congress" or "Senate" offensive, as "Presidency", "War", "Political", "Congress" and "Senate" are controversial. Moreover, referring negatively to any people who are in positions of power is being unpatriotic and thus indecent. Please, refrain from using these terms. .. get the point? ...

I personally find peeing on or burning the flag to be indecent and offensive to me, but "I will defend to the death [the] right" of anyone to do these things, say "fuck", "shit" or "damn" or even offer political ideas contrary to my own regardless of if I agree with it. It isn't just the spirit of the First Amendment, it is what the First Amendment says. I find it particularly odd that private Cable is more free than than public air waves, dispite the fact that the "Government shall pass no laws ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

taboo words

[Lord Ender]

Does every culture have taboo words?

Has anyone ever demonstrated that the existence of taboo words is socio-evolutionarily beneficial in some way?

Has anyone ever demonstrated that hearing taboo words actually harms children in ANY way?

FCC

[Ender77]

FCC = FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMITTEE The are like the RIAA of television. Turning everything they touch to *Bleep*

Hilarious comment on the article

[operagost]

The first comment on the article is hilarious:

Goy (gentiles...I.E. those who are not Jewish), are to stupid.
Submitted by You can not stop us (not verified) on Fri, 2007-07-20 15:21.

Of course we as a country should have no rules.

No conduct.

We should be able to subtly program small children into the ways of perversion, lust, greed and self-centered living.

We do this through "slip of the tongue" statements, and we hide very well under the "freedom of Speech" amendment in order to do so. We are experts in subterfuge, we the zionist-talmudic-Jews who run the media and the ADL and the ACLJ and the ACLU.

We are the most effective at hiding our nefarious actions, we can program your children while you work your life away (YOU DUMB WAGE SLAVE YOU)....while we program your children to discard you, disobey you, become perverted and generally godless.

America, you are in our grasp (the zionist-talmudic-cyrpto-so-called Jew), and their is nothing you can do to stop it.

Everything but the drinking of children's blood and holocaust denial!

I was right - 3 of 4 are up for reelection

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

And, I was right about the reelection. The sponsor, John Rockefeller (D-WV) is up for reelection in 2008, as are cosponsors Mark Pryor (D-AR) and of course Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Proper responce...

[Notquitecajun]

I REALLY think that this is something that the free market can and would deal with. We're smart enough to determine what we want to watch and not watch, and I am perfectly willing to turn off the TV (which I do anyway). There does need to be a mechanism for parental control, and I would think that it could be managed properly in the market, and possibly the only requirement would be to allow parents to monitor and control what their kids can view/hear. Other than that, measures like this are more a waste of time than anything else...there's far more important stuff to deal with, something that this Congress has yet to figure out.

Broken logic

[HangingChad]

Are they going to maintain a list of words that are okay to use on TV? It's so arbitrary and transient. What happens when "asshole" gets shortened to "hole" with the meaning determined by context? Would the FCC start regulating words and their context? It's totally insane.

Better yet, what happens when the FCC decides the word "Republican" is an obscenity? Not so funny now, is it Right Wing Freak Boy?

Re:Broken logic

[halber_mensch]

Are they going to maintain a list of words that are okay to use on TV? It's so arbitrary and transient. What happens when "asshole" gets shortened to "hole" with the meaning determined by context? Would the FCC start regulating words and their context? It's totally insane.

They'd have to, or else the Eukanuba Championship would never be aired again. "She's a lovely bitch, that one there!"

Re:Broken logic

[Anonymous Coward]

It is better than what they do currently. Currently they just take complaints about shows, if they get a complaint about your show, you get a fine. There is no standard. This forces them to have a standard and because SEC. 16. [47 U.S.C. 303 nt] (a) requires ""The regulations required under this subsection shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code"", this should result in the FCC publishing a list of words to the federal register so that everyone knows if they can or cannot say certain things. Currently, Saving Private Ryan airs without issue, but programming seen as less 'artistic' has unlimited roadblocks.

Fuck Fuck Fuck

[gelfling]

Shit piss fuck fuck asslick blowjob buttsex pearl necklace golden shower midget anal sucking horsecock man on man mutual masturbation lesbian analingus fuck fuck fuck grandma sex leather chains nipple clips gerbils gerbils gerbils wang bang come in your eye fuck fuck fuck fuck.

This is so stupid.

[ErichTheRed]

In this day and age, who actually goes out of their way to not let their children hear curse words? I'll bet these are the same kind of parents who wonder why their perfect little angels are doing drugs and drinking behind their back at age 13. Wake up guys, the social scene has changed in the last 30 years. Kids are exposed to everything from a very early age.

The tighter you control, the more your kids will try to get away with. Everyone knows that from their own childhood, but forgets that when they become parents themselves!

My personal philosophy: Assume kids have access to every bad thing out there. Give them the tools to deal with it so they don't wind up killing themselves or doing something stupid. At the same time, tolerate a little bit of abnormal behavior. Any other control you try to impose is just going to turn them into a social retard or push them away from you.

Re:This is so stupid.

[Chris Carollo]

In this day and age, who actually goes out of their way to not let their children hear curse words?

I'm not that old so I pretty much could get access to anything that I wanted when I was a kid, but I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. In my opinion there's value in parents establishing what's accepted and what isn't, even though they know that their kids will probably circumvent their wishes sometimes. My parents by and large didn't let me watch rated R movies until I was 14 or so, and even then some of them were off-limits until I was older. I wasn't allowed to swear, or have porn. Pretty normal stuff, I think.

That's not to say that I didn't watch R-rated movies at friends houses or swear like only a 14-year-old trying to act older can. But I knew that I was pushing boundaries of what my parents thought was acceptable, and there was value in that. If they'd just let me watch whatever and swear as much as I wanted, I don't think I would have respected them as much as authority figures, and it would have been easier to cross other, more significant parental boundaries.

I'm not saying that's the way to go for everyone, clearly people need to make their own parenting decisions. But the whole "they're just going to hear swearing at school anyways" meme always struck me as defeatist and abdicating a sigificant parental responsibility.

Re:Decency Smeshency

[jmyers]

the one time GW was very articulate...
"major-league asshole from The New York Times." - GW Bush
"Oh yeah, he is, big time." -Cheney

Many assaults on free speech

[Kohath]

Add this to:

- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents on college campuses

Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[kabocox]

Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).

Hey, we have Free Speech. The problem like always, is that any one that hears your free speech that doesn't agree with it, will take offense and sometimes take action against you or the group that you support. The Supreme Court shouldn't be trying to mandate or control the actions of others that aren't illegal.

If I hear your campus side speech and think that your crazy crackpots, I have several options, mostly I ignore you and go about my business, sometimes I ask a bicycle cop if they could tell you to be quite. (I don't mind you talking, but I don't want you shouting while I'm walking by.) If you are a political crack pot that I feel has a good shot at brain washing the masses around me to your side, I might become a political crack pot the next day trying to win converts to my political point of view.

The only thing that I'm really not allowed to do is physical assault or threatening you. If I own the property that you are being a crackpot on, I'd simply call the police and ban you from the premises, then if you come back I'd have you arrested for trespassing. On a college campus, generally a bicycle cop will ask to see your student ID if you are making a disturbance and if you don't have one then will ask you to leave. If you don't leave, then they can do things along the same lines.

If I were rich and owned a newspaper, radio station, or tv station, I'd have it understood that nothing said from my belongs would be against me, my family, or my interests. If you disagreed with that, then I'd tell you to buy your own newspaper, radio station, or tv station. What makes us civilized is the means that we use to shut others that we don't like up.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[hondo77]

- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces

Don't "Al Sharpton's forces" have a right to free speech? Does free speech mean stupid speech is free of consequences? Al Sharpton didn't fire Don Imus. Didn't Al just exercise his free speech to let Imus's employer know that Al thought Don was an idiot? One could argue that fewer idiots on the air is a good thing.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[Dausha]

"Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision)."

You are wrong, Sir. The Constitution should not be defended by only one branch of government, but by all *four*. There are three active branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The inactive branch is the People. We are the authority by which Congress enacts laws, the authority by which the President enforces those laws, and the authority by which SCOTUS interprets the laws.

Running to SCOTUS every time something unconstitutional happens is a hack. It has allowed the American People to become complacent with their obligation to ensure effective government. It has allowed Congress to enact laws that are sloppy and lets the judicial branch take the heat when something unpopular happens (SCOTUS said it, so it must be Constitutional). I hate to tell you this, but just because SCOTUS said it, does not make it Constitutional---look at the "Life of Mickey Mouse+90year" rule for copyright. SCOTUS is the non-political branch, so resorting to them is resorting to an anti-democratic solution.

What is required is for the American people to focus on the real issue in this country: of rampant bad governance. We're split into left-and-right factions and so don't notice how we're getting screwed. We need to supplant all the bozos---establish term limits with a requirement that a Congressman cannot serve as a lobbyist for as many years as he served in Congress. Maximum time served is 12 years.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[Caspian]

Not detecting any conservative bias here. Nope. Nope, not one bit.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[0xABADC0DA]

Free speech is not an absolute right to say anything you want, just like freedom of religion is not a free pass to breed with your cousin, and freedom to petition doesn't mean you can assembly in the middle of the interstate and shut it down.

The problem we have these days is that people on Fox, CNN, and some other networks can say pretty much whatever they want, live, broadcast to millions of people and there is next to no consequences when it is wrong, misleading, or slanderous. Then put a line under John Conyers' picture that said something like "caught with 90k in his freezer" when that was Jeffords (but hey they are both black). Not even a retraction or apology later. They need to be fined for that kind of 'mistake', or at least a very easy and cheap way to get default judgements in court. Media companies need to be liable for what their guests say on the air.

Yeah, media companies would have to do fact-checking and delayed broadcast, but those are good things. It's not an infringement of their free speech (as if a company has rights under the constitution to begin with), it's just their responsibility in a civil society.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[Yvanhoe]

You take the torches, I'll bring the pitchforks

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[mattkime]

>>McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.

McCain-Feingold doesn't CENSOR anything! You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to be the loudest voice in the room. Buying influence in politics should be taken seriously. I really don't feel bad for the "poor little companies" having their lobbying powers restricted.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[Vitriol Angst]

Wow. You just sited all the really good NeoCon talking points. Looks like SlashDot is going to need a new, NeoSlashDot, where we check loyalty before login.

Let's break it down;
McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
>> Real translation; this bill was to stop large corporations and Pacs from running issue ads. Propaganda is real and rampant -- and thanks to this, we will hear how we have all the best of all Health Care systems just before the 2008 elections; "Don't jeopardize your good care by being forced to see a socialist doctor..." cue the spooky music.
In the next election, multi-billion $ multinational corporations, will tell us how Oil is clean, there is no global warming, we need to have vouchers to end the "hand out" of public education, we are just fine paying 15% more next year for crappy health care. They might as well just put up some white noise and flash "go to sleep," for 20 hours before each election. Because, when there is money involved -- that equals free speech. I however, who don't want my kids to have asthma, or fight in the next pointless resource war, obviously have nothing important enough to put on the TV -- because I don't have a Billion $ slush fund, nor do all my friends who just want to breathe air as well.

- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
>> BS. The "Fairness Doctrine" was to have any NEWS outlet, be required to have someone on air to argue the other side of the issue -- so you get Rush on, with someone debating him, or you get Rush and then somebody smart on the next hour. It doesn't mean RUSH doesn't get to BS you for a good 4 hours a day. It just means that the "PUBLIC" air waves can't be used for just one political point of view.

I don't think this solves much -- so I'm not too worried about it failing. Cross-Fire was a nice example, of how two sock puppets can argue both sides of the wrong issue. Having a Poser as a Liberal doesn't mean you get the Liberal point of view -- just someone who seems like a wimp who is arguing with someone in a nicer suit.

- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
>> Um, the real law, is that everyone can sue. We have courts and judges and things like that who can determine the merits. It's a pretty good system. What your nice point is making, is that people "our government has determined without a court of law to be terrorists may not have the right to the courts." Perhaps you could be a little more clear and just say; "Habeus Corpus is for Commies."

- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
>> Don't really care what the story is. I doubt you understand moderation.

- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
>> Wow, I missed the recruitment poster. Al Sharpton is an ambulance chaser poser. Imus was as critical of the administration as any Liberal -- I've heard worse stuff out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Sharpton works for Zuckerman -- nobody voted for this boob to represent anyone who can get offended and get cash. I don't certainly control him -- so he represents Al Sharpton. Don Imus is an idiot -- and if you support his comment as something people shouldn't apologize for -- you are an idiot.

That said, Don Imus was let go because MSNBC was looking to squeak by with a media consolidation issue, and being nice and Liberal before the Democrats for a few months seemed like a good corporate decision. But thanks for blaming a cracker losing money for his company, and then getting slammed by an ambulance chaser on Liberalism. I suppose we should just get rid of the Emancipation Proclamation and bring back Jim Crow -- how could we have been so wrong?

- Numerous incidents on college campuses
>> Whatever. I suppose if we let the Clan rally happen once a year, we can let some NeoCons indoctrinate our

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[k_187]

The inactive branch is the People.
You've got things more right than you could possibly have intended.

Re:Many assaults on free speech

[Kohath]

Actually, the bias is that I looked for articles on Google News to link to, and nothing popped up from the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters, the BBC, or any of the left-wing blogs.

Maybe they were down a few pages in the results. But it certainly seemed like bias.

Monty Python

[wiredlogic]

And yet a recent episode of Monty Python aired on PBS that featured a long duration shot of a topless woman.

Re:Monty Python

[mattsucks]

But did she say "fuck" ?

Re:Decency Smeshency

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. The Senate is not the White House, but currently, it might as well be.

Incorrect. The Democrats may have a majority, but they are not "running" Congress.

Incorrect. Bush is not the source of all evil. You would need to include his supporters, too.

commitee?

[Jerry Rivers]

Please pardon my ignorance, but just because a bill passes committee does that automatically make it law? Doesn't it have to go to a full vote in the Senate first? And since it appears to have originated in the Senate, wouldn't it also have to pass the House too?

Fuck the FCC

[Shihar]

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart. The idea that an entire form of media should be censored because you don't want to suffer the embarrassment (and that is all it is) of your kid acting like a little shit head in WalMart is fucking ridiculous beyond words. We do not censor entire fucking forms of media so that parents don't have to worry about disciplining their kids.

What SHOULD happen is that on the off chance your kid is watching TV well past his bed time, and on the off chance someone swears on TV, and on the off chance that kid decides to repeat that one word, act like a fucking parent. Tell your kid that that word is not acceptable and discipline the kid if he continues to say it. This is absolutely no different from any other wrong behavior from flinging feces, pushing other kids, or screaming in a high shrill voice because you didn't buy more candy. The only difference is that, god forbid, if the kid hears someone swear on TV the federal fucking government steps in like it is a matter of national security that somewhere some child might of overhead an obscenity.

Hey, maybe we should make swearing in public illegal to. I mean shit, god save the mother fucking children. In fact, I think any website that allows someone to fucking curse like a mother fucker should have an 18+ ID check.

Bah. Fuck the parents for pushing politicians to censor because they can't contemplate parenting, fuck the politicians for being so self serving that they would piss on the 1st amendment in pursuit of political gain, and fuck the FCC.

Re:Fuck the FCC

[jefu]

We do not censor entire fucking forms of media so that parents don't have to worry about disciplining their kids.

But, evidently, we do just that. Still, fucking great comment.

Over here...

[Jugalator]

We have no "indicency" regulations at all, and it's up to the broadcasters to use "common sense". That results in a bit of swearing on national TV, sure, but still *gasp* our kids don't roam the streets and are indicent, swearing scumbags. :-p Actually, I don't see a difference compared to US kids at all, because these kids swear too. I think they learn the words regardless if TV has it or not...

As an outsider, this just sounds like a big waste of money. The FCC censorship doesn't serve any special purpose to me...

Re:Decency Smeshency

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I really wish the government (especially the FCC) would just do their f%$#ing job and manage frequency allocations and quit trying to be the moral compass for the country.

We Teach our Child When It's Okay to Swear

[mpapet]

Like the parent post, it's at home and when she's legitimately angry she might use some curse words. When she does it's okay because we do it too. It's explicitly not okay to use them in the course of conversation. It's explicitly not okay to do do it around other people/kids.

Pretty simple rules that are easy to follow. Easy to enforce. It takes away the excitement around using something that's forbidden. Most of all they are consistent with the world around her. We certainly swear when we are mad. She's allowed to use the words we use, We do not use f-bombs at all. Lots of damns and variations on crap.

Re:We Teach our Child When It's Okay to Swear

[mpapet]

But the problem applying this to broadcasted content is that the principal is rarely adhered to.

In one way, it is shear stupidity that we need to have this kind of rule. There's a race to the bottom in most entertainment. Keeping swear words out of bottom feeding entertainment (Jackass anyone?) is a good idea. I would be most concerned if more resources were given to the FCC to enforce this kind of thing.

Re:We Teach our Child When It's Okay to Swear

[fallungus]

No. The only way to fight the race to the bottom in entertainment is for us to stop watching that crap. Attaching huge fines to accidental utterances of "indecent" words will do nothing to help anything, except the companies that sell time-delay equipment.

Oh, FECK!

[Bloody Peasant]

Feck off, Censors!

I can't say it more eloquently than Father Jack. :-D

It's Called a Dump Button + 7-second Delay

[geoffrobinson]

This is an issue with radio stations? They already bleep profanity.

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

hahah GO fuck your mother you little dick sucking child. You want me to leave? You fucking need me here buddy.

You're brave and proud of your country that you post anonymously? Come on... FUCK you. Go fuck your baby sister, or you little daughter you peice of shit, you know you want to you hypocritical piece of shit. You're the reason i hate America.

You cant just leave America you narrow minded baby fucker. You cant just say "well i'm gonna be Norwegian" It doesnt fucking work that way. I love America enough to let it fucking die already, rather than have dumb shits like you continue to piss all over it like its your mother.

FUCK OFF. Dont you have a baby to fuck? OH is free speech painful? OUCH.. Deal with it you aids infested busy body little zilch.

Henceforth:

[jbeaupre]

He will be referred to in broadcasts as -beep- Cheney. There has not been a formal decision yet, but broadcasters would be well advised to refer to the president as Mr. -beep- to avoid retroactive fines.

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

as for being executed.. beleive me.. I KNOW what i dare not say on the fucking internet. I KNOW the line i will dare not cross because the CIA will come knocking.. So dont tell me everything is fucking peachy. Lets here you say what i dare not say..

Why are we affraid to say such things.... you know what i'm talking about... becauase The police are watching... our words. Nice head dick.

My work around..

[Nonillion]

The US Senate Commerce Committee can just eat excrement and go fornicate themselves. I'm sick and tired of politicians procreating me with a large un-lubricated marital aid.

I find it odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's somewhat ironic that, whenver the topic of censorship props up, practically every fucking single post contains some form of rude language from uninformed cunts who think that sounding like edgy douchebags will make people overlook the fact that they have sand in their vaginas over the stupidest motherfucking shit ever. Seriously, damn these shit-eating assholes.

A counterpoint here

[gillbates]

Okay, I know it isn't popular opinion around here, but I'm wondering exactly what the problem is with this.

The airwaves are a public medium. As in, they belong to the public, not to a private entity (in spite of the fact that many private interests behave as if they did own the airwaves... - but that's a different topic). Our democratically elected Congress passed this bill. This is what the public wants.

I understand if your definition of what is appropriate is different from mine. However, there are already alternatives available for those whose tastes lean toward the tawdry side. This isn't an issue of free speech, but rather, of how the public thinks its airwaves should be used. They belong to the public, and the people have spoken - through Congress - about what they want to hear on radio and see on tv. It's not censorship, but censureship - that is, the removal of something the people don't want to see or hear.

It's as simple as that.

You can call it absurd, fine. But there are things which, while they may be acceptable to certain individuals in society, are not appropriate for the public at large. And because the public owns the airwaves, they get to decide what's appropriate for them.

Re:A counterpoint here

[Anonymous Coward]

The PUBLIC have not spoken. A small minority of christian cock suckers have.

After years of this kind of bullshit, I have no fucking tolerance for christians. (What? It's no different than they're hating everyone who isn't just like them.)

Re:A counterpoint here

[Anonymous Coward]

They belong to the public, and the people have spoken - through Congress - about what they want to hear on radio and see on tv. Do you think everything Congress does is what the people of this country want? Sounds like you need to get your head out of the sand, literally. I'm really having a hard time believing you even posted that.

Re:A counterpoint here

[jez9999]

Our democratically elected Congress passed this bill.

If you're defining the US congressional elections as 'democratic', that word loses all usefulness. It's not anywhere near representative enough, so no wonder people don't give a shit that these people passed this bill.

Re:A counterpoint here

[TheDarkSavant]

I'm not a lawyer, but since as you say, the airwaves are public then doesn't the Constitution apply to them. Laws passed by congress still need to be held up against the Constitution, and this clearly violates free speech.

I'm pretty sure your argument is backwards. Private institutions can implement their own rules and regulations and not be held to constitutional guidelines. Like when the Boy Scout controversy over gays flared up. Like it or not, the Boy Scouts, as a private institution, has the right to choose its members.

And as Americans we need to start looking out. Every hypothesis like "if we let people say 'fuck' on television then America will go to hell in a hand basket." has been played out somewhere else in the world. And bad news, countries who allow nudity and profane language on their "public" airwaves have not, as yet, gone to hell.

Re:A counterpoint here

[Chris Carollo]

They belong to the public, and the people have spoken - through Congress - about what they want to hear on radio and see on tv.

Even granting your (laughable) assumption that Congress accurately reflects the wishes of the people, that's not the way the country works. Majority (or plurality) rule doesn't trump all. The majority of the people in the country might also want to establish Christianity as the official religion of the US, but unless they want to amend the Constitution, they're not allowed to do so.

Like it or not, there are certain principles, established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that trump mob rule.

Re:Decency Smeshency

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're missing an obvious point - the Dark Prince exerts mind control powers over all in his dominion. The Dems in Congress aren't inept - they're powerless against his will.

Re:So leave ...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Oh i think the attitude is exactly where many of us need to be. Not enough people care about this shit. As long as you can go to work, pay your bills, pay your healthchae... watch a little porn on the net, and fuck your wife... raise your kids... EVERYTHINGS ALRIGHT...

But its not.

There are serious problems. So while you sit at home and enjoy your "Everything is perfect" world... it is not. My attitude reflects the energy needed to fucking end this shit.

As for leaving the country... Canada doesnt take immigrants like we do.

Re:So leave ...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

btw i find it absolutely fucking histerical that you censored the work "fucking" in your post. unbeleivable! You've already surrended.

"Pass"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Committees don't pass things. Ever. They release bills out of committee, with or without a recommendation to the full Senate. This particular bill was in fact release with a favorable recommendation, but that still doesn't mean that the full Senate will support it. But does the bill actually reference slips of the tongue?

The text of the legislation reads: "In administering the regulations promulgated [regarding indecency], the Commission shall maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming." No mention is made of what intent is required, if any.

As for those blaming liberal Democrats for this bill, please note that it was introduced by a Democrat from West Virginia, and co-sponsored by a Democrat from Arkansas, a centrist gang-of-14 Democrat from Hawaii, and the infamous Republican from Arkansas, Ted Stevens.

Re:"Pass"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The recommendation was:

This here bill ain't worth shit and isn't worth pissing on if it was on fire but some freakin asshole up on the hill who's got more tenure than carter's got little yellow fucking pills wants the cocksucker passed so with reluctance we have to send the damn thing to the full committe but we're hoping the dickwad will choke on it in the end.

The Courts Still Have The Last Word

[Nom du Keyboard]

The courts will still have the last word on the matter. They, not Congress, decide what Free Speech is.

what I find interesting....

[SCHecklerX]

...on the radio, the word 'shit' is bleeped out. Yet the other day, the chumbawumba song "I get knocked down" was on the radio. "pissing the night away" was there in all its glory. Now how is 'shit' offensive and 'piss' not? I think the latter is more offensive in the way it is used.

Re:what I find interesting....

[Caspian]

Uh, it's a British term. It means "drinking", not "peeing".

Re:The evil CDT-Foul Mouthed Kids

[Nom du Keyboard]

I know a kid who has been allowed to cuss at home since he was like six.

This becomes a self-correcting issue. Some day he'll cuss at another kid about his own age, and get his clock cleaned for having done so. Afterwards he'll be more circumspect about "fighting words".

A potential good result of the ruling

[caesar-auf-nihil]

Maybe this ruling will force people to think about what they say before they go ahead and say it? It may slow down the ability to answer the fly (which makes one look slow) and those occasional curse words that slip out and show what we really may be feeling, but by getting those on the air to think about what they are saying, especially on political talk shows, might not be a bad thing.

But this is a potential good result. Likely instead it will just have people clam up instead of coming up with new more creative ways of saying the epithet without actually using the actual curse word.

Re:Decency Smeshency

[bill_mcgonigle]

Incorrect. The Democrats may have a majority, but they are not "running" Congress.

And they're calling Bush 'stupid'?

Who cares...

[jbeaupre]

Some rules make sense on their own (don't kill, don't steal). The rest I prefer to grade on an entertainment scale. I don't want life to be all lollipops and rainbows. A few challenges, even arbitrary, spice things up (the very definition of 99% of all video games). So a better question might be: is the taboo entertaining? Nudity taboo? Sure. I'd hate to get bored with nudity by having it show up all the time. Broadcast dirty word taboo? Maybe. Sort of funny listening to people creatively swear rather than just use the same old boring words. Then again, I'm warped enough to think the $50 million spent investigating Clinton was money well spent ... based on entertainment value. At less than 20 cents per person, it kept people occupied with jokes, debates, etc for years. If my government can't serve me, it better damn well entertain me. And I got my money's worth that time. I'm a tad bit disappointed with "security theater" though, including it's spin-off: Iraq theater of war.

Not possible...

[maillemaker]

>wake the fuck up, the internet... IS NEXT. I really don't see how this will ever be possible, for a variety of reasons.

Are the Dems in Charge now?

[Lawrence_Bird]

And will /. er's pummel them like they do the R's?

If I were a network exec I'd be tossing that FCC license away soon since 80% get cable or sat and the 20% that don't probably aren't valuable to your advertisers.

Re:Are the Dems in Charge now?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

They're not really in charge, because the president has veto power, and the dems dont quite have the numbers to do something about it. BUT.. yes.. I said this the other day while watching the idiot Democrats grandstanding during an all night session in the house. Where one of the morons had a sign saying "LET US VOTE". This was this guys form of intelligent debate. He's a fucking tool, a grand standing nothing, in a house where debate doesnt take place and its just a fucking photo op.

I said to myself... You've been there for almost a year.. and you're still complaining that you cant vote. Give me a fucking break. I hate both parties, and i generally know them all by name but i cant remember who it was that night... but i just have no faith in any of thse morons. They represent the same interests, the only difference is the voters they pander to. Thats it. The result is the same no matter who is in office.

Third parties only. End this fucking cycle of corruption.

Re:Are the Dems in Charge now?

[BoberFett]

Check the sponsors of this bill. Three out of four are Democrats. So much for hoping the other party would save us. They all need to go, violently if need be.

The seven words you cannot say on televsion...

[thebdj]

Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits

These marvelous words brought to you by George Carlin.

Re:The seven words you cannot say on televsion...

[CapnGrunge]

Also, cocks.

MOD PARENT UP

[Eco-Mono]

The bill hasn't been signed into law yet, it's just left committee. And people on Slashdot need to know that.

Targeting specific words is not a solution...

[PotatoHead]

Heck, when I was in 6th grade, we just made up a few and used those. "Aw, ship, shig, frack, etc..." The sentiment was the same, so was the trouble back then. (and rightfully so too)

I don't have a problem with cussing in my home because we allow profanity, given it's used in a solid and defensible way. There are emotions and things in this world that are less than beautiful. That's what we have profanity for.

Early on, we grappled with this. Decided the best way to solve it was to just have at it, explore it and understand it. Enter cussing night! Yes, you too can cuss all you want for one night! (and they have asked for it from time to time --it's a hilarious evening watching them try to actually find ways to use profanity, hosing it up and looking like total boobs.)

We arrived at a point where everyone knows what lazy speech is. Nobody likes it --it's just bad form. If you can get teens to understand what bad form is, you've done a lot. Think of it like encouraging reading with pr0n. That works too, trust me.

I actually don't have a big problem with working for decency on the public airwaves. But a balance is necessary if the programming is to be real at all. This whole affair is just not balance, but pandering to those of us, who choose to self-lie instead of dealing in reality.

Today I see my teens call each other out on bad form and it's just priceless. Friends come over and think our home is just liberal in that lazy way and cut loose. When they are corrected by my kids, not us, the looks on their faces shows an impact. Often that leads to some discussion on their part. This kind of advocacy really punches home. I know it when I hear kids, who are not part of my family, apologize for poor form.

I'll just put it here right now.

IGNORANCE IS NEVER A SOLUTION.

That's what this bill aimes to preserve. There is a case for innocence, and I think said case is fairly solid. But it's not the governments job to preserve that. Bringing tools to the table for parents to use is all good. A balance is all good. But this reeks of the kind of ignorant and foolish no tolerance policies that always end up being marginalized due to their futility.

BTW: Using almost profane words can have more of an impact than full on profanity! My daughter recently was being leered at by some bozo. After a brief exchange, she said, "grow up and quit acting like an ass." Very mature for her young age. The guy looked guilty as hell. Had she just launched into a profane tirade, he would have gotten the reaction he was looking for.

The FCC Song

[turly]

Do US radio stations take requests anymore? If they do, perhaps you can ask them to play ex-Python Eric Idle's "FCC Song"...

The FCC Song by Eric Idle

Fuck you very much the FCC
Fuck you very much for fining me
Five thousand bucks a fuck so I'm really out of luck
Thats more than Heidi Fliess was charging me.
So fuck you very much the FCC
For proving that free speech just isn't free
Clear Channel's a dear channel
so Howard Stern must go
Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't like strong words and so
He's charging twice as much as all the drugs for Rush Limbo
so Fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much dear Mr. Bush
for heroically sitting on your tush
For Halliburton, Enron, all the companies who fail
Lets send them a clear signal and stick Martha straight in jail
She's an uppity rich bitch, but at least she isn't male
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you dickhead Mr. Cheney too.
Fuck you and fuck everything you do.
Your pace maker must be fake
You haven't got a heart
As far as I'm concerned your just a pasty faced old fart
And as for Condolezza she an intellectual tart
So fuck you all so very much

So fuck you very much the EPA
For giving all Alaska's oil away
It really is a bummer
When I can't fill my Hummer
The ozone a no go zone now that Arnold's here to say
The nuclear winter games are going to take place in LA
So fuck you all so very much

So what the planet fails
Lets save the great white males
And fuck you all so very much

YouTube video of Idle performing his "FCC Song" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4ajZ-5kTXk
Also available as downloadable MP3 here: http://www.pythonline.com/plugs/idle/index.shtml

Warning: uncensored and contains naughty words. As you might have noticed.

COÑO! PUTA MIERDA! JODER!!

[alegrepublic]

At least, expletives in other languages will remain legal for a while, so I encourage English speakers to switch to Spanish expletives, which are widely understood but safe for TV. Use the loophole while it lasts, coño !

That's it, no more movies for the Senators

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously they were watching a rerun of Demolition Man and got carried away.

So weird how standards change over time

[Deagol]

A few days ago, my wife and I got *really* bored and watched the 1987 film "White Water Summer" with a very young Kevin Bacon and Sean Astin. Horrible movie -- this was via NetFlix's "Watch Now" service, and the selection is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. Anyway, it's rated PG (remember, the PG-13 rating was added in July 1, 1984) and I was surprised to see a scene where a very pissed off Astin tells Bacon to "fuck off" (or maybe it was "fuck yourself").

Not that *I* cared, but it does illustrate how the spectrum of tolerances shift over time.

Nudity and foul language were a staple of movies long ago. While before PG-13, the PG movie "Airplane" has an obviously-gratuitous naked breast shot in one scene. We had lovely young Jane Seyemore showing all-but-nipple in a scene from the 1977 rated G movie "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger". I recall the theatrical release of "Superman: The Movie" (PG, 1978) as a kid and seeing a full-frontal nude toddler crawling out of the crater before the bewildered Mr. & Mrs. Clark (has that since been edited out, I wonder?). The 1977 "Life of Brian" (R) had a full-frontal nude scene of Brian, to no fanfare (that I've ever heard of), yet I recall the scandal of "a male actor will appear in a full-frontal nude scene" in the 1993 R-rated "Sliver".

These days, I rarely hear "fuck" in PG-13 movies. In fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head. I don't even hear it all that much in R-rated movies. I remember the hilarious scene in "Star Trek: Generations" (PG, 1994) where, during the crash scene, Data mutters "oh, shit!". But I can't recall hearing "shit" in the last 20 or so PG-13 movies I've seen.

I recall seeing more nudity in PG movies of my very early youth than I often see in most R-rated movies today. I have to wonder if "Porky's" (R, 1981) would have gotten the NC-17 axe had it been released today? The closest contemporary film might be "American Pie", but that seems pretty tame in comparison. Violence was always there, to be sure, but the ratings they use these days as the result of nudity and language just baffles me. Plus, it seems that's *all* that's accounted for in pushing up ratings, leaving just the violene for our youth to consume, which is just... weird.

The pandering to the tween-to-young-adult deographic by film producers does piss me off a bit, too. It seems most PG-13 movies push the envelope in order to get the teens legally in the theater, so most films come with that rating, and are often less "adult" than I'd like. Even the R films seems pretty toned down to me.

Re:So weird how standards change over time

[Xentor]

I'd point you to Transformers: The Movie (1986)

Genre: Animation/Action/FAMILY/Sci-Fi
Rating: PG (Not even PG-13)

Quote from Spike (One of two humans in the whole movie):
"It isn't even dented? Oh shit, what are we going to do now?"

Source: http://imdb.com/title/tt0092106/quotes

Just another example, much like the Star Trek one you posted.

(Personally, I'm against censorship in any media that the consumer actively chooses to consume. I don't like censorship in any form, but let the breeders exercise some modicum of control over their spawns if they want to.)

U.S. government at its finest

[moeinvt]

I don't really give a shit about expletives coming over the airwaves.

Even if you DO care about it, does the Federal government need to be involved? Do we need to pay people at the FCC to monitor the airwaves and protect our delicate ears from bad words?

Furthermore, when our nation is in the midst of 2 wars, the budget deficit and national debt are out of control, we've got 20 million illegal immigrants in the country, Social Security remains a looming crisis, etc. etc. doesn't it seem like out elected officials should have something better to do?

Re:U.S. government at its finest

[geekoid]

yes it does, but it has over extended it's purpose

the expert in social security(as in the study it for a living) believe it will onlyt need minor adjkustments. It is a myth that it is going bankrupt. A myth that the repiblican parties ahve been spreading sine it's inception.

"we've got 20 million illegal immigrants in the country" sigh. Maybe..MAYBE 10 million. If the count is anything like they the way LA did it, then it's probably 3-5 million.

There was a count done by some government office that basically counted everyone in the household as illegal even if it was just 1 person.

the fact the illegal immigration has helped the country grow is another issue.

Instead of fuck

[rob1980]

Say mmmkay, because fuck is the worst word that you can say!

Sure there is

[Valdrax]

You just can't quote him or play a soundclip without bleeping it. There's all sorts of amusing ways to describe with euphemisms what someone else said.

My favorite is to tell some one "to perform an anatomical impossibility," and there's always "dropped the F-bomb."

Re:Sure there is

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite is to tell some one "to perform an anatomical impossibility,"

It's not impossible. See certain DVDs for details. ;-)

Legislating morality

[RiffRafff]

Why do we in this country insist on trying to legislate morality?

It doesn't work. We can see it doesn't work (Prohibition in the 1920's, the current prohibition on pot and drugs [you know, the one we laughingly call "The War On Drugs"], abortion, etc.). And yet we pass law after law in the vain attempt to change human nature into something else.

You'd think we would figure it out.

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno

[theuedimaster]

"The FCC should NEVER have the power to define what is and is not decent. That is fucking unbelievable. The fact that they've had this power for so long, and now it is tightening... is disturbing to say the least."

See, I used to have that argument for a long time, but now I believe that it's actually a little justified. There not banning everything outright, they're just trying to monitor the public spectrum. It's like a tier system - the first tier is allowed for everyone, even the little children. The second tier could be pay-per-view tv, movies, etc. whose broadcast can be controlled a little more than the viewer.

It's a bit different from text like newspapers because of the very specified audience. Words in a newspaper cannot be read or understood unless you actually look at it. A TV on the other hand, can broadcast it's sound quite a distance, and someone can unwillingly be subject to "curses".

The big problem here is that possiblity that Congress takes this as some sort of precedence in restricting words the public doesn't want to hear publicly broadcasted, and bans stuff like liberal, democrats, "i hate bush" or something of the like. But I'd like to think there's a little more thought and boundaries on this...

The whole reason they want to censor these words is to protect children. Keyword: protect. And I think that's what you've gotta prove, that whatever you're censoring is somehow protecting people. This is vastly different from making people mad or being contrary to opinion - it's something PROTECTIVE. For the same reason we don't allow old guys to have sex with young teenagers is why we censor these broadcasts. There are some instances where a child could be... damaged by having curse words on tv, at least in a parent's point of view. Remember, adults, on their own, are usually perfectly fine with hearing curse words. They may not like it or look down upon it, but they understand it's someone's way of expressing themselves, albeit in a vulgar manner. It's a bit stretched I know.. but I think it may make a little sense.

Chilling Effect for Politicians

[bratwiz]

So if that's the case how will politicians get any air time now?

When asked about the new policy, Dick Cheney said "Fuck You".

Why stop at words

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a few number and letters that I find indecent, let's ban them too. O your days are numbered. Why stop there, certain sounds are offense. Ah, heck just cut to the chase and ban independent thought.

Foul language is the cuase of GCC

[belligerent0001]

If we analyze the data we will note that since the '50 our society's language has deteriorated. at the same time the globe has been growing warmer. Therefore it is obvious to conclude that foul language is the REAL inconvenient truth here. So by giving the FCC the ability to levy fines against broadcasters is just another way to save the fucking planet!!

Re:Decency Smeshency

[spun]

"Running" congress means having a 60% super-majority so you can force "up or down" votes. The Democrats don't have that.

Brilliant!

[LittleGuy]

On a future live press conference, the President will say "Fuck", and the FCC will fine all the stations who broadcast it, bankrupting them into oblivion.

Who needs censorship when you have economics?

And now for something completely different

[Anonymous Coward]

but why do people have so much more of a problem with words like "fuck"?

Second Pepperpot: Besides, if it were from the zoo, it'd have "property of the zoo" stamped on it.

First Pepperpot: They don't stamp animals "property of the zoo"!! You can't stamp a huge lion "property of the zoo"!!

Second Pepperpot: (confidently) They stamp them when they're small.

First Pepperpot: (snapping back) What happens when they moult?

Second Pepperpot: Lions don't moult.

First Pepperpot: No, but penguins do. THERE! I've run rings around you logically.

Second Pepperpot: (looks at the camera) OOOOH! INTERCOURSE THE PENGUIN!!!

(The television warms up: a man is sitting behind a news desk)

Man: Hello! Well, it's just after eight o'clock, and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.

Before you all beat me silly with a dead parrot, be advised that I run Mandriva at home and it has never once exploded, unlike my 1960s science fiction computer running the special Star Trek version of XP. And that only explodes when I shoot it with a phaser. So you can go intercourse yourself. And your bloody penguin!

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

So in public i cant say fuck because a child may be around me?

Just because its the publics airwaves, does not mean it belongs to children. I can say fuck my nigger ass in public... but not on TV.

Some say its because its piped into your home. But you have a valve to which you can stop that pipe. Several infact. You have the Vchip which is a powerful tool that is never used! The Vchip was supposed to stop this kind of nonsense from happening, but parents are too lazy and they just want it made easier for them. They want the government to just stop all offensive material because they're too lazy, too busy to raise their children. It is not the governments job, and it certainly aint at the cost of my freedom.

So... I think there are enough tools in place to help parents protect their children as they see fit, and i think we could certainly make use of the vast amounts of tv channels now on cable to air material to specific audiences. There are kids channels, and there are adult channels, there can be inbetween channels. There are gay channels. Why cant we enjoy democracy and freedom as it was meant to be. The market can dictate it. Thats why there are religious channels, food channels, music channels...

The old scope of NBC ABC, CBS was a technological limitation of a flourishing new industry. We've far surpassed those limits today, and media is broader than ever... So why is government and a good handful of the angry mothers out there, trying to control everything we see and hear?

Why is it wrong to say shit on the radio, if the guy in the car the stop light can roll down his window and say "GO FUCK YOURSELF!"

This is the very challenging puzzle of freedom, that has no answer other than to either compromise free speech and expression, or to allow it to just be so that everyone has their say.

TV again has many channels and we're legislating radio and tv as if it were the 1950s. Dad could have porn on his fucking tivo! I mean dad could have a gun in the house... Dad could have porn in the house... Dad could be fucking the mother in the house, and the child hears or sees...

Dont act like you havent seen your parents naked at some point.

I just think we over protect, rather than educate and realize that everything will be ok. Society isnt going to unravel because boobies are on tv. We might be a little less stressed, and we might even be happier and more caring people. Whos to say that controlling us in such a way, is making us BETTER people?

The government?

Which is it?

[spun]

Don't blame just the Republicans. As I recall, it was Al Gore and his wife who were leading the charge against Dee Snider and WASP not too long ago. I'm afraid this crosses party lines.

Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable. So, what you are really trying to say is, we can thank Democrats like Al and Tipper for doing the right thing censoring evil curse-mongers like Dee Snider.

It's just a tempest of cognitive dissonance in that teacup of a mind of yours, isn't it?

Re:Which is it?

[ArcherB]

So, what you are really trying to say is, we can thank Democrats like Al and Tipper for doing the right thing censoring evil curse-mongers like Dee Snider.
Pretty much, yeah. I had no problem with "Fuck Like a Beast", but I didn't think the album cover should be displayed at a child's eye level or sold to 10-yr olds without a parent present.

It's just a tempest of cognitive dissonance in that teacup of a mind of yours, isn't it?

I was just pointing out that a Democrat let committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due.

Re:Which is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of Dee Snyder's testimony:

Thank you for having me here. I do not know if it is morning or afternoon. I will say both. Good morning and good afternoon.

My name is Dee Snider... That is S-n-i-d-e-r. I have been asked to come here to present my views on "the subject of the content of certain sound recordings and suggestions that recording packages be labeled to provide a warning to prospective purchasers of sexually explicit or other potentially offensive content." Before I get into that, I would like to tell the committee a little bit about myself. I am 30 years old, I am married, I have a 3-year-old son. I was born and raised a Christian and I still adhere to those principles. Believe it or not, I do not smoke, I do not drink, and I do not use drugs.

This attack was contained in an article written by Tipper Gore, which was given the forum of a full page in my hometown newspaper on Long Island. In this article Ms. Gore claimed that one of my songs, "under the Blade," had lyrics encouraging sadomasochism, and rape.

The lyrics she quoted have absolutely nothing too with these topics. On the contrary, the words in question are about surgery and the fear that it instills in people. Furthermore, the reader of this article is led to believe that the three lines she quotes go together in the song when, as you can see from reading the lyrics, the first two lines she cites are an edited phrase from the second verse and the third line is a misquote of a line from the chorus.

That the writer could misquote me is curious, since we make it a point to print all our lyrics on the inner sleeve of every album. As the creator of "Under the Blade," I can say categorically that the only sadomasochism, bondage, and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore.

Last Tuesday a public forum regarding the lyric controversy was held in New York. Among the panelists was Ms. Gore. Trying to stem the virtual tidal wave of antiratings sentiment coming from the audience, Ms. Gore made the following statement:

"I agree this is a small percentage of all music, thank goodness. But it is becoming more mainstream. You look at even the t-shirts that kids wear and you see Twisted Sister and a woman in handcuffs sort of spread-eagled."

This is an outright lie. Not only have we never sold a shirt of this type; we have always taken great pains to steer clear of sexism in our merchandise, records, stage show, and personal lives. Furthermore, we have always promoted the belief that rock and roll should not be sexist, but should cater to males and females equally.

I feel that an accusation of this type is irresponsible, damaging to our reputation, and slanderous. I defy Ms. Gore to produce such a shirt to back up her claim. I am tired of running into kids on the street who tell me that they cannot play our records any more because of the misinformation their parents are being fed by the PMRC on TV and in the newspapers.

I would like to thank the committee for this time, and hope my testimony will aid you in clearing up this issue.

-mcgrew

Re:Which is it?

[spun]

You call for censorship in the same post you blame people for censorship. I just thought that was funny. You are basically saying "ooh! those censors really make me mad! Let's have more censorship!" Are you blaming or praising, or does that depend on party affiliation?

Re:Which is it?

[ArcherB]

You call for censorship in the same post you blame people for censorship. I just thought that was funny. You are basically saying "ooh! those censors really make me mad! Let's have more censorship!" Are you blaming or praising, or does that depend on party affiliation?
My post was neither, really. The GGP was titled "Fucking Republicans". Well, it's not the Republicans this time. Here is what I said in the post you responded to:

I was just pointing out that a Democrat led committee, in a Democrat led congress passed this. To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest. Republicans are not to blame here. Give credit where credit is due. For that matter, I was agreeing with these Democrats... sorta, so you can't call it a partisan thing. I have no problem with the channels that broadcast over the airwaves having to go through government censors. We're talking about...what... five stations here? I don't give a shit about the rest. They can be all porn, all the time for all I care. For that matter, I'd probably order it! But leave just a few stations clean. Is that too much to ask?

Re:Which is it?

[R2.0]

"To title a post "Fucking Republicans" is simply ignorant or dishonest."

Did you read the body of the post?

That whistling sound was the joke flying 10' over your head.

Several purposes

[Tony]

The FCC censorship doesn't serve any special purpose to me...

1. It increases the size and power of the government.

The US government is like a young beast. It is only healthy while it is growing, increasing in girth and strength. The government has only a couple of food sources: the money of its citizens, and the liberties of its citizens. If it can eat the two at the same time, it's really happy. So, by increasing the power of the FCC, it also gets to increase the money for the FCC.

2. It gives mouth breathers a sense of self-satisfaction

Nothing gives non-thinking citizens more happiness than knowing their neighbors can't do something. If it's something they don't do themselves, all the better, as then they don't lose anything. As the US Prohibition proved, all it takes is a few self-righteous individuals to pass laws restricting all kinds of things.

Laws like this make people like that very, very happy.

3. Freedom isn't free

As we are repetitively told, right is left, wrong is right, dark is light, and freedom isn't free. It's chained in a dark closet in the White House, waiting for the night some unsmiling secret service guy opens the door and caps its ass.

Actually, we really *are* bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. And since it has to come from somewhere, we in the US are sending them ours.

We weren't using them anyway.

Wait? What do you mean about Public media?

[Vitriol Angst]

I don't understand when you talk about airwaves on radio and TV as public.

If they were public, people who put out propaganda and lied, would be in trouble. I'm a HELL of a lot more worried about my kids not understanding economics, and civics, and the TRUTH than I am about them hearing a swear word or seeing a boob. My son was breast fed -- so far, nakedness has not hurt him either.

Just read a recent story about $480 Billion in frequency bandwidth being given away without compensation. Did I get any money for that? No. But I can tell you, the Media didn't get it for FREE -- they are going to put out some darn good corporate and government swill for that $480 billion windfall.

I can guarantee you that the FCC will use this arbitrarily, and will happen to find offenders who happen to also be expressing a little too much anti CorpGov sentiment. Both Bush and Cheney now have uttered expletives to the public and I don't see them getting fines.

Boycott! Watch only fucking explicit stuff!

[cthulhuology]

Now I'm a new father, and you'd think that I'd be sensitive to this issue, and I am. I'm now boycotting all television, music, and movies that do not include swearing or other explicit content. Growing up, I was one of those kids who never swore. When I went to work, that's when I started swearing like a sailor. It wasn't that I was around sailors, and the engineers and MBAs I was working with didn't swear more than the kids on the playgrounds where I grew up. It was because you can't function in business if you can't drink and swear with your boss. So I say think of the children, and teach them useful real world skills, like telling their politicians to fuck off.

Load of Felgercarb!

[Anonymous Coward]

(again only made offensive by silly attempts to declare it offensive and taboo)

What utter frackin' nonsense.

Speaking of BEEP

[PCM2]

All these comments about free speech and yadda yadda are at least partially on the money, but you know, the technology required to put a couple seconds of delay on live broadcasts so that engineers can beep out swear words is decades old. Networks apparently aren't using it, either because they are not being diligent in their observance of FCC rules, or maybe -- maybe -- because they are trying to get more profanity on the air as a way to titillate consumers. The latter would be a slippery slope, societally speaking.

Yes, yes, free speech is good. But part of me feels that arguing for the right to scream "fuck" in a crowded movie theater sort of dilutes the argument in favor of free speech in general. Saying "fuck" really isn't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. Yeah, yeah, if you start banning one kind of sentence then it's only a matter of time before some other kind of sentence gets banned -- I get that. But forget thinking about the children, some grown adults would like to live in a society where they aren't subjected to people cursing like sailors all day.

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[Admiral Justin]

And some of us adults would like to live in a society where our allowed language range on TV isn't only slightly beyond that of teletubbies.

Time for carlin's list to make a comeback :)

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[PCM2]

And some of us adults would like to live in a society where our allowed language range on TV isn't only slightly beyond that of teletubbies.

You have a right to pay for that privilege. It's called cable.

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[XnavxeMiyyep]

But it's ok if someone screams "MONGOOSE!" in the middle of theater, just because it's not a "naughty" word?

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[spun]

As the airwaves are a public good, the American public, in all it's collective genius, is free to set whatever restrictions it feels like when granting artificial monopolies on their use. Meaning, if the majority feels as you do, that is the standard to which broadcast TV should adhere. But if the majority wants to watch people swear a blue streak, then YOU are then one with the right to pay for the privilege of clean TV on cable. As we do not live in a dictatorship, you don't get to decide all on your own how we collectively use our airwaves.

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! That's why nanny groups got the FCC to impose large fines after some superbowl incident, right?

Get a grip - even if the "majority" pay for cable, the one group that makes %97 of all the lame indecency complaints kill that content too.

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[Original Replica]

if the majority feels as you do, that is the standard to which broadcast TV should adhere.

So will this tally be made by what people say they want, or will there be some kind of study done to see how many people swear in front of their own children all the fucking time.

Re:Speaking of BEEP

[spun]

Yeah, that is the problem. People are hypocrites.

Speak for yourself

[Tony]

You don't have to beat them...

Yes. Yes I do.

Oh! You mean as punishment. Gotcha.

Freep? FREEP?!?

[spun]

Isn't there someplace a little less batshit, bugfuck insane than freep that might have a copy of that testimony? I wouldn't trust those brain dead poo flinging monkey fucks to wipe their own asses, let alone quote Dee Snider correctly.

Re:Freep? FREEP?!?

[ArcherB]

Isn't there someplace a little less batshit, bugfuck insane than freep that might have a copy of that testimony? I wouldn't trust those brain dead poo flinging monkey fucks to wipe their own asses, let alone quote Dee Snider correctly.

I don't know if you'd consider VH1 to be any less batshit, but HERE it is.

FCC song

[ElMiguel]

I can't believe nobody (at least at +3 and above) has linked yet to the FCC song.

Re:Decency Smeshency

[bill_mcgonigle]

"Running" congress means having a 60% super-majority so you can force "up or down" votes. The Democrats don't have that.

No, that would be ram-rodding bills through congress. Running congress is plenty of power, as those in the majority decided which bills get to the floor, get voted on, etc.

After all, we had to vote out the Republicans as they were running Congress and ruining the country, remember? With what, 51 votes?

Don't have to go to Quebec

[Tony]

Fuck, we do that in our household, and I live in Ohio.

It's not like it's a big fucking deal.

Semprini

[sjames]

Ever get the idea the FCC is run by kindergardeners? "OOOOOOHHH!!! He sad a DIRTY WORD!!!"

Delay and Dump

[Mal-2]

Is there any live show left on TV or radio that does not have a delay (typically six seconds) and a "dump" button to avoid exactly this problem? If the engineer hears a banned word, regardless of the origin -- could be a caller, could be the host carelessly dropping an F-bomb -- he hits the dump button and everything in the delay cache is gone. Either there is a short span of "dead air" until the delay cache can fill up again, or (on the nicer systems) the system will cut straight ahead to real-time audio, slowly stretching out the audio until it once again has its six seconds of delay. (Obviously the latter works better on radio than with a video signal present.)

For sporting events, it is not uncommon to have each individual sound source on its own dump, so they can dump the announcer's indecency (or the player's tirade) and not go completely silent.

Mal-2

One Question

[mattt79]

Does this apply to C-SPAN too?

Here's a new expletive...

[Randym]

...conGRESS it all!

Short form: Gress. As in: "You gresser! Gress you! You mothergresser! Son of a gress! Gresshole! That's just bullgress!"

Let's see them try to censor that one!

What if Johnny *WANTS* to be a builder?

[celtic_hackr]

Let's fight this, this could ruin our economy. Take the case of poor little Johnny. Johnny is 5 years old and wants to be a builder when he grows up. Well one day he spent the day watching some builders at work and when he came home his mom asked him what he learned all day. Well after explaining how to properly hang a door,
the last step being "then you put the motherfucker back up",
his mother was thoroughly shocked and told Johnny to wait until his father came home. Well when he told the procedure to his Dad, his father told him to go outside and get a switch> To which Johnny gave the correct response "FUCK YOU! That's the electrician's job!".

So tell me if this law holds how will we ever educate the next generation of builders!?

Submitted for your disapproval by the father of a three year old, and let me tell you, it's not the words that they learn, but how they use them against you. So if you take out all the cuss words they'll just find other ones to assault you with, that may be even worse. I've also raised a few teenagers (not my own). All I can say, is that one of them could make a sailor blush. Words will out. If you don't see it in the movies or on TV or in print, it just makes it that much more attractive as a weapon word to use at the worst possible moment to cause adults the most pain. Or has every adult forgotten this key law of teenagers? I know I put it to much application myself as a teen. It's my considered opinion that it is a job requirement to be dead from the neck up to be a politician.

Offtopic, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer's on the commentary on the DVD - 2 to spread, 3rd to scrape.

Senate Committee, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is after the president of this very Senate told a U.S.Senator to go [bleep] himself.

titillate

[normuser]

hehe TIT-illate....TITI-llate hehehe....ll TITI ate.....TITI eatll....oh lL EAT TITI hahahahahaha.

Ok I'm done now.

Nigger guy

[r_jensen11]

From now on, the word "nigger" must be at least seven words apart from the word "guy"

Reverse euphemism treadmill

[Cairnarvon]

This legislation is dachshund, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a litotes.

And not a single mention of why we have this issue

[dircha]

The spectrum is a necessarily shared resource. Its use is a government mediated monopoly. There are very few if any *viable* alternatives to this arrangement.

It would be unfair to impose use of this government mediated monopoly upon citizens and taxpayers in mode to which they have no democratic political recourse. And I know what you may be thinking, but what we are seeing is *exactly* that, citizens exercising their political recourse to exercise democratic control over this necessarily shared resource. The fact that most voters choose to elect representatives at odds with your agenda to allow unrestricted profanity to be broadcast, has no bearing, so long as you agenda for this naturally limited resource would undermine the democratic will of the people. Most voters also choose to elect representatives who would not favor the idea of painting profane murals on the Senate chamber walls. This is little different.

This is also not a free speech issue. You can stand in front of the capitol building and hurl verbal expletives at your elected representatives, and someone who disagrees with you can shout right back. But just as you can not *paint* expletives on the stairs in front of the capitol, you also can not fill the public broadcast spectrum with expletives in opposition to the democratically expressed will of the people.

For anyone who still does not understand this concept, give some thought to the role of an agency like the FAA. You will find the parallels are remarkable.

Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness the Government is raising our children for us.

BLEEEEEEEP

[rhendershot]

<broadcast>
  Fuck That!
</broadcast>

sorry. it just slipped out....