Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
load "$",8,1
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.
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.
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.
My blog
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
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.
"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.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
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.
The first amendment, emphasis mine:
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
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!
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.