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.'"
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
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.