Slashdot Mirror
FCC Considers Fining Stephen Colbert Over Controversial Trump Joke (rollingstone.com)
FCC chairman Ajit Pai said on Friday his agency will be looking into complaints made against Late Show host Stephen Colbert for what some labeled a homophobic joke about President Donald Trump. From a report: On Monday's Late Show, Colbert quipped that "the only thing [Trump's] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c**k holster." The joke drew accusations of homophobia, a viral #FireColbert campaign and FCC complaints against Colbert. In an interview Friday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai told a Philadelphia radio station, "I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints -- and we've gotten a number of them -- we are going to take the facts that we find and we are going to apply the law as it's been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we'll take the appropriate action." Pai added, "Traditionally, the agency has to decide, if it does find a violation, what the appropriate remedy should be. A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do."
It is odd that the joke is being labeled "homophobic." Nothing in it implies that homosexuality is wrong. If Colbert had said the same thing about Hilary Clinton, it would have made just as much sense, had the same meaning, but could not be described as "homophobic."
When this story broke out, I searched for the clip to see what the fuss was about. When I did find it I realised that I had seen it before, and while I did think at the time that it was an unusual type of joke for one of those monologues, I didn't see how it could be labelled homophobic. The joke doesn't say that homosexuality is bad, nor did it say anything about anyone who is gay. It merely suggested a closer relationship than has been admitted and a power dynamic that Trump is Putin's bitch. It's strong stuff, but nothing different that calling Hillary Clinton a witch ("jail the witch").
The funny thing is, a lot of the people who are complaining about this would also say that gay marriage should not be allowed. I think that if gays and lesbians had a choice they would rather be able to live their lives as they want to and put up with the odd joke or two than not be allowed to marry the person they love and be told that they are going to hell.
The Libs are eating their own now
Not really, Liberals understand that the joke was inappropriate, but not really homophobic.
The joke was inferring a relationship between two heterosexual men where the weaker one sexually submits to the stronger one for protection, basically a "prison bitch".
All the complaints are just political theatre, Conservatives don't actually care that if it's homophobic or not, they just know it sounds homophobic and that's enough to trigger the faux-outrage.
Ajit Pai is just playing the part of the establishment Republican captured by the Trump administration.
I stole this Sig
I think you're wrong about this. He wasn't suggesting Trump would give or has given a blowjob to Putin. He was drawing a word picture of Putin pissing in Trump's mouth, which is a) not a common sexual act and b) something that is in keeping with what we know about Trump.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're projecting a bit, he never suggested it was a vile act. You can only see it as a homophobic insult if somehow a blow job is a bad thing, which is what that argument hinges on. The joke works because it implies a consensual servitude on the part of Trump towards Putin, as well as the fact that Trump is pretty terrible at talking. Talk of homophobia is a diversion.
I disagree. He was looking for a way to depict Trump as sexual partner for Putin -- a way to paint him as literally "in bed together" with the Russians. If either Putin or Trump had been female, it could have been any other sexual act... or possibly one with a strap on or other phallus.
Just because it was a homo or bi sexual act doesn't place the negative on the act -- the negative is on the improper relationship -- especially Trump's desire to please Putin.
It's worth looking at what's happening while we're distracted with this. Because what's happening is just not funny:
Russian violated the mid range missile treaty. Trump said nothing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/world/europe/russia-cruise-missile-arms-control-treaty.html?_r=0
Russian flaunted the artic military base treaty, Trump said nothing.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-flaunts-arctic-expansion-military-bases/story?id=47091750
When Trump bombed the Syrian airbase, he informed Putin ahead of time, Putin told Assad. Assad removed all his fighters and bombers from the base. US blew up a bit of tarmac as a result. If Trump did that with ground troops, Assad would have ambushed them.
Not funny I know, but that is why we need Colbert.
This whole tempest in a teapot is an attempt to punish criticism of the government in general, and criticism of Trump specifically. Colbert did nothing to apologize for.
Trump sucks Putin's cock. Come at me, FCC!
(captcha: quoted)
What's actually happening is a bunch of alt-right dipshits are pretending to be offended because they can target a liberal by doing so. It's essentially a false flag operation. Moreover, they lack the self-awareness to tell the difference between what Colbert said and actual homophobic slurs, so it's no wonder they're labeling it inaccurately.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
People complained to the FCC about Colbert's joke, so the FCC is supposed to review the case. This is the FCC's job, and they would be remiss if they didn't investigate. The FCC isn't investigating because they have a problem with Colbert criticizing Trump, but because it's their job to investigate complaints. The FCC regularly gets complaints about SNL, including a sketch last year in which Dave Chappelle used the n-word on the show. They investigate those complaints, just like they have to investigate the complaints against CBS and Colbert. It's their job. There are a number of factors that go into the FCC's decision, including the context of the objectionable content, whether it was live or not, and the time at which the program aired.
I don't think Colbert's comments merit a fine from the FCC, but that would be the typical penalty for objectionable content on broadcast TV. I don't believe Colbert's comments were homophobic, but they do refer to the act of oral sex, and content relating to sexual acts can still draw a fine from the FCC. There wasn't anything graphic about what Colbert said, and there's a long history of sex-related jokes on late night TV going back at least to the days of Johnny Carson. There were far more objectionable things that aired regularly when Conan hosted Late Night, including characters like the masturbating bear. Then there's all the things Sean Connery has claimed to have done with Alex Trebek's mother on SNL Celebrity Jeopardy, which, by the way, is hilariously funny. I think it would be strange if the FCC issued a fine, especially given that this is late night TV where such content is pretty common.
That said, I didn't find Colbert's comments funny. There wasn't anything particularly clever and I just didn't find it amusing. Personally, I think Colbert is the least funny of any late night TV hosts in recent memory. I didn't really like Conan when he was on Late Night, because I felt too much of his humor was toilet humor. He did have some really good sketches, though, like the recurring In The Year 2000. To his credit, he's gotten a lot better since moving to the Tonight Show and now to TBS. Leno didn't quite measure up to Carson, but he was more in the style of Carson than other hosts. I really enjoyed Leno's Tonight Show, though Fallon is also really good. I didn't find Letterman particularly funny, though he was better than Colbert. James Corden has his moments on the Late Late Show, and Craig Ferguson was pretty good at times. That said, I prefer Seth Meyers, who I think is quite amusing and does a great job with interviewing his guests. I really liked Meyers when he did SNL's Weekend Update, and he's gotten a lot better at hosting Late Night.
No, I don't think Colbert's comments were homophobic or merit a fine. As late night TV goes, Colbert's comments weren't particularly pushing the envelope, though the FCC has to investigate these complaints. They should investigate and hopefully decide that no further action is warranted. I don't think Colbert should be fired over this, but I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced because he's just not that funny. My opinion has nothing to do with these comments, but rather my overall opinion of him as a late night TV host.
By the way, the lameness filter shouldn't be preventing me from using the n-word. Dave Chappelle has a long history of using it in his sketches, including the classic Black White Supremacist, and it's on-topic because he used it in the same time slot on SNL. I know, trolls use it on a regular basis, but it's actually on topic here in providing some context for other content that's been aired on late night TV and why I don't think Colbert's comments merit a fine from the FCC.
Putin said emphatically: "I did not have sexual relations with that man"
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Well, I heard the reason Melania doesn't sleep in the white house with Donald is because Putin snores.
So there are better and wittier ways of making the same point.
"Trump was a dick, and Colbert used rephrased versions of TRUMP's insults into a sharper attack."
Actually, it's a bit more subtle than that. A "Cock Holster" is US Military Slang, going back as far as the Vietnam War, and probably farther back than that.
A "Cock Holster" is a Raw Recruit, and the only two words that they are allowed to say is "Yes" and "Sir", together, followed by blind obedience and with no other contributions to the conversation.
Of course, President Bone Spurs would have no knowledge of this, and neither would any of his Chicken Hawk followers, as is so evident here in the comments here.
If the homophobia complaints were coming from gays, then there would be something to it. The fact that it's coming from Trump supporters shows that it's insincere. You can't be outraged on behalf of another group when that group doesn't care, and especially when that group is one that your side goes out of it's way to marginalize.
I'm living in Europe and I bet tomorrow morning in Church, people will be laughing not at the joke but at how America is still arguing left wing and right wing when most of the free world sees it as far right wing and further right wing.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is the definition of right and left in America anymore? Should we start calling it team red and team blue or team elephant and team donkey? This has so little to do with left and right or conservative and liberal that people simply make fools of themselves saying these things.
It's a competition of who can pretend to claim the high ground more than the other by declining into the deepest and darkest pits to do so. Good people don't choose sides. Good people treat everyone with kindness, dignity and respect... even the people they don't like. Good people don't say "it's ok to talk badly about this person because someone on the news does... or because he said something bad first".
The accusation got worse, it was upgraded from slander to betrayal of state secrets.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.