FCC Won't Punish Stephen Colbert For Controversial Trump Insult (slashdot.org)

Earlier this month, the FCC said it would look into complaints made against The Late Show host Stephen Colbert over a homophobic joke he made about President Donald Trump. Well, it turns out the FCC is not going to levy a fine against the comedian for using the word "cock" on late-night network television, reports The Verge. From the report: "Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was the subject of these complaints," reads the FCC's statement, according to Variety. "The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules." Helping Colbert's case was the fact that the broadcast, time delayed for incidents like these, bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it. The FCC has broad authority to regulate what can and cannot be broadcast based on legal precedent regarding obscenity laws. Yet looser rules apply during the hours of 10PM and 6AM ET, when Colbert's show airs. So it would appear that the ample self-censorship on behalf of CBS saved the program from a guilty verdict in this case.

Comments

If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock holster

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't America.

Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.

Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[sexconker]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.

Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.

It's not hate speech because hate speech doesn't exist. Hate is subjective.

But if you do believe in hate speech and related legislation, your "for what he does" vs "for what he is" doesn't hold water.
If you're a choz, and someone says "fuck you, you shib sankler!", are they insulting you for being a choz? After all, chozzes frequently engage in shib sankling, though not all do. Or are they insulting you because you sankle shibs? Maybe they're fine with chozzes but are just against the act of sankling shibs.

And of course you bring it full retard with your last line. Yes, yes, fuck conservatives. THEY don't get to decide what hate speech is! THEY'RE TOO HATEFUL! Only WE get to decide, because we're not HATEFUL! FUCK THEM!

This is why ALL speech has to be free. Otherwise some group of idiots like yourself will decide that they control all speech.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Narcocide]

So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "conservatives," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Republican party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely conservative about their key views anymore. The label "conservative" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Aighearach]

The whole claim that it is "homophobic" is silly, because the clear purpose of the joke was to offend Putin because Putin is believed to be homophobic.

If Putin isn't homophobic, then the homosexual nature of it is irrelevant anyways. There is no "phobia" there at all, it just becomes an accusation that they're too close, even personally close.

If somebody wants it to be phobic, it is merely homophobaphobic.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people -- whether it's women, illegal immigrants, or Ted Cruz -which in turn comes from the set of values that no human being should be so treated, yet Colbert demeans Trump.

Sorry, that's bullshit. It may be the far left view that no person deserves being demeaned, but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned--Ted Cruz, possibly, but I don't know enough about him. It follows from the same logic that one cannot take away freedom or liberty from all people, but a person who commits a crime can be judged and punished that reduces or removes freedom or liberty.

Of course the flip side of that is something like respect which is earned, which I think is like being demeaned*. The "let others live their own lives" aspect of the left doesn't have the time or desire to waste respecting or demeaning the vast majority of people or persons. It's mostly nosy busy-bodies that involve themselves in that, including writing letters to government officials about they're offended.

Now, if you can show me something from Colbert that he's actually far left and is of the do-not-demean crowd, I'll change my mind. But there's plenty of people who are decried as "far left" who aren't of the sort to think individuals aren't, well, individuals.

* Funny thing, btw, since it would seem more of a southern thing--and hence a "conservative" thing--to be of the mindset of "if you have nothing nice to say [about someone], don't say anything at all". Although I've always seen that as a rather thin veneer on either (1) very vindictive people who are so prone to think negatively that they have to give themselves such a rule and/or (2) people who simply don't actually follow that rule. Not being an expert on Christianity or anything, but the whole "love thy neighbor" doesn't mean not speaking negatively of other people but of trying to engage them in more positive action through talk, which invariably brings up discussion of the not-nice things you believe they're doing. It also includes not, you know, trying to force yourself on them to do your bidding or otherwise make them live under your world view because smothering people is not love.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[LynnwoodRooster]

Then it hasn't been America for decades. You can say what you like, except on public broadcast TV where there are some limits, as George Carlin famously pointed out.

Re:US censorship?

[desdinova 216]

there is an extremely vocal minority of "christian" fundamentalists who tend to file complaints over anything remotely sexual. There was also a possibility of Trump, being as thin skinned as someone who claims that any negative news stories are "fake news" would use the FCC to silence a critic.

Not homophobic

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being. I had to make the point that, while yes, I'm sure some people use that term for that purpose, I didn't and I didn't like that she jumped to that conclusion with me. The phrase "my wife" refers to my relationship to her, just like "my uncle" or "my brother" does not refer to ownership. In that conversation, was I being sexist because I was using words that could be construed as sexist if you tried really hard?

Homophobic refers to the attitude in which the comment was made, not the way it was received by you. Could someone uttering those words be trying to make disparaging remarks about the President by suggesting he was homosexual? Sure. But a person uttering those words could instead and equally likely be making a point about the subservient position the person doing the pleasing is in relative to the person getting serviced, without any consideration toward the genders involved.

Knowing the history of Colbert's advocacy, I am as certain as anyone can be that he was making the comment with the latter intent. He could just as easily have made the comment about Theresa May if she were as deeply in Putin's pocket as Trump and it would have the same meaning. His point is about Putin having his way with Trump, not about a male having his way with another male.

Re:Not homophobic

[Pfhorrest]

like how all the tiny hands jokes aren't parvamanuphobic or actually suggesting that there's anything unusual about Trump's hands even, it's just a know sore spot with him, a hangup about being thought to have small hands, which makes it a good insult against him whether or not he really does and whether or not there'd be anything the matter if he did.

Re:Fucked

[Imrik]

I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.

Re:Fucked

[DogDude]

But we all know that's now how these labels are used. They're weaponized. Had a conservative figurehead said a similar thing about a liberal figurehead, or an actual homosexual, that word would be bandied about like stink at Coachella.

You're arguing with a scenario that you created in your own mind.

Colbert's remark wasn't homophobic

[hyades1]

Colbert's remark was in no sense homophobic. It was about power and a non-reciprocal relationship. In fact, the only way it could be perceived as homophobic is by people with an agenda...people attempting to insulate themselves from charges of homophobia by falsely accusing others. Colbert's remark could only be considered homophobic by somebody who believes a submissive man fellating another man who is in a position of power is somehow worse than fellatio performed by a woman who is in a subservient position.

In either case, the remark is intended to insult a person, in this case Trump, who has voluntarily reduced themselves to nothing more than an appliance for the sexual gratification of their master. Referring to Trump's mouth as Vladimir Putin's "cock holster" is about Trump's fawning, servile obsequiousness with respect to Russia's dictator, not about homophobia.

Sorry to shoot down that simplistic, misleading right wing meme, but there ya go!

Re:Fucked

[ceoyoyo]

The phrase "cock holster" itself very strongly denotes a dominant-submissive relationship, whether it refers to two men or a man and a woman, a mouth, a vagina, a whole person, whatever.

Colbert wasn't in any way calling Trump a bad person for being homosexual. He was calling Trump a bad person for being Russia's cock holster.

Re:US censorship?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, but what was bizarre about this case was the timeline. One day, the FCC chairman was interviewed saying it's a free country. The very next day the FCC chairman basically announced that "if we hear complaints, we'll investigate" on Fox. By this point the story had blown up on the internet for a few days. SURPRISE! -- The next day he announces that they've heard complaints, so they'll investigate! Well sure, you basically told them on TV to complain the day before.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[gl4ss]

well trump would argue that it's the thought that counts ;).

coincidentally, trump didn't ask the fbi boss to drop the investigation to russia ties, he merely expressed hope that he could drop it without hassle.

so yeah, do the actual words matter or the thought?

(of course colbert should be able to say a blurred cock on his show).

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[Aighearach]

The "thing" was a complaint, which they have to investigate. They got the complaint, they investigated, and they didn't find anything worthy of a fine.

Some people are simply confused about why they were investigating. But if you get the details, it is hard to claim it is bad for the government to investigate complaints about rule violations. They didn't even get it wrong!

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[LifesABeach]

It kind of says something about the Trump Snowflakes who can't sleep at night? My wife says, and I agree, "Trump Snowflakes can dish it out, but they can't take it. Typical of a bully."