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

[Dachannien]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

['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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[paulthomas]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[bky1701]

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

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!

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!

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.

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

[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.

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: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.

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:Of course

[shma]

On behalf of Dick Cheney, go fuck yourself.

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: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

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?

FCC

[Ender77]

FCC = FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMITTEE The are like the RIAA of television. Turning everything they touch to *Bleep*

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.

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

[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.

Monty Python

[wiredlogic]

And yet a recent episode of Monty Python aired on PBS that featured a long duration shot of a topless woman.

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: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.

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: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.

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!"

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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 :)