I could make a case that there ought to be no regulation of spoken words, but then I would not like terrestrial show whatever images they would like.
*** The following post is as offensive as I was able to make it, I recommend not reading it unless you’re comfortable with massive swearing, obscenity etc. And even if you’re OK with that I wouldn’t actually recommend it ***
How about we let the fucking market decide. Why should some prude bureaucrat asshole dictate anything to the media? Freedom of speech is to me a smidge more important than whether some up-tight religionut is offended or not.
I’m sure there’s a huge market for self-censored bullshit or PG-rated crap. Those who are offended by hearing someone say cocksucker or asshole could exercise their right to not watch shows or networks where that happens. Just as if you don’t like seeing tits, asses, cocks or sexual intercourse, you can decide NOT to buy porn. Aren’t there enough “christian” channels with “family values” and all that crap (actually, put those on the list I won’t watch).
In a country with a 3:d world murder rate and massive poverty, it is completely fucking ridiculous to hear cussing being bleeped or seeing genitalia being blurred on TV.
Personally I draw the line at gay porn, explicit sexual violence, executions and Glenn Beck. That doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal (except for executions, the act, not the reporting of it), it just means I won’t watch it voluntarily, and if a channel I watch wants to keep me as a viewer they better not spring it on me without warning. But if the CNN were to say “The next segment will contain graphic video of a man being gangraped then executed” I would just not watch that segment (unless, ironically, it actually was Glenn Beck).
If you have millions of children living in poverty, shitty healthcare and the worlds largest prison population, hearing the word “fuck” may not be your biggest problem.
That’s probably as offensive as I can make my post (I’m not an expert).
Why?
I don’t think there need to be any rules. The networks are not going to degenerate into 24 hour porn channnels if the FCC isn’t up their asses counting how many times they say “ass” every day. This is a case where the market really does exercise pretty good control. If you want proof, look at cable. Cable networks aren’t bound by the FCC, yet they operate very well within the bounds of what their sponsors and audiences want. They’re a little looser than the networks, but that looseness reflects the desires of the market.
The First Amendment doesn’t really play into it, by the way. The FCC is about setting standards for licensing the use for public airwaves, not about speech per se. It’s not like they throw anybody in jail or anything, but they’re providing networks with airwaves owned by the tax payer (and not charging them for it), they do have a right to dictate conditions for that licensing.
That’s what I was going to say. You watch what you fucking want, I’ll watch what I fucking want. I don’t need somebody to bleep shit for me or decide when I can watch what kind of crap.
More seriously: I think these kinds of guidelines underestimate the intelligence and maturity of TV viewers, and come to think of it, that takes some doing. Even with no guidelines I don’t think programming would change very much. You might see bleeping go away on cable at night, where it was not required anyway. The fact that these guidelines existed in the first place shows that a large chunk of mainstream America doesn’t want cursing on major broadcasts when children may be watching, and the networks aren’t going to want to alienate those people and lose advertisers.
I would love to watch Glenn Beck being sexually violated by gays then executed
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Good luck getting gays to go along with that.
Rape isn’t exactly an act of love or something that requires a sexual attraction. And you don’t have to be gay to have gay sex, or in this case, rape.
But does it really? You want your programs rated by a shadowy panel that attempts to conceal all information about its makeup and ideology, that comes down harshly on sex and naughty words but gives a free pass to all sorts of violence, and that frequently works to enable restrictions on the distribution of non-mainstream ideas? Because that’s exactly what you’re getting with the MPAA.
I’m all for a ratings system that is transparent and above-board with recommendations, but that’s pretty much the opposite of what the MPAA’s doing.
I’m in favour of “anything goes, but warn me if there’s going to be scat.”
Or bondage, torture, or abuse.
See, what we really need is a consistent and rigorously-applied system of labels. Let anyone broadcast anything… but make it mandatory to label the content. That way I can be forewarned if there’s cheese-munching, my neighbour can screen out all that pinko shit, and the family down the road can set their kid’s TV to reject anything with commercial advertising.
Ok, fair warning. You might want to turn a way for a minute. Here comes the scat.
Shoo wop sha boop sha scooby dooby bip bop BAM!
That’s disgusting! :eek:
Censorship can <bleep> my <expletive deleted> and <meep> a <blank>. As for the FCC, they can <goooong> on my fucking dick and rotate.
To which of my statements is the “why”?
My post was inspired by Miller’s proposal, with which I agree, that in the case of actual live broadcasts, fair warning be given if there may arise situations beyond the director’s/station’s control.
In those cases, if the producer/broadcaster intends to put out a show targeted to a “family-friendly” audience, it would be their free business decision to use the delay system, or make a fast cut (and if someone says “Oh, fuck!” when the bomb goes off, a reasonable person should understand and let it go). In the specific case of a paid participant in the event, however, it would be entirely within the faculties of the producer to demand, as part of the contract, a certain standard of on-air conduct which if deliberately flouted, would result in forfeiture of part or all of the payment.
That is all just private contract terms, and it does not affect the rule of the marketplace, since the performer is free to appear in, and the viewer free to tune to, a less-uptight event (The FCC or penal fines part would apply only if the action or expression is such that it violates any remaining proscription against e.g. obscenity, incitement to riot, threats, violation of 3rd parties’ privacy, etc. ). Like it was mentioned before: releasing the “indecency” rule from broadcast content would NOT be a mandate that from there on out that content HAS to be included everywhere.
This ruling has the potential to make my life much easier. I do a show on our local community radio station where I play a lot of brand-new music–often tracks that I’ve only had a chance to listen to once or twice, and that are too new to have their lyrics posted online. Indie rockers love to slip an errant shit or fuck in there that can be easy to miss.
The problem is that our station is run by old hippies, and is thus seen to be hostile to the coal business. That means a lot of truly horrible people would like to see our station shut down, and if one of them caught an errant f-bomb it would take no time at all for him to get a few hundred letters to the FCC complaining about it. We run on such a tight budget that even the most minor of FCC fines would shut the whole place down for good. So hopefully this means we won’t have to worry about that so much.
The issue up until now is that there aren’t any guidelines. Carlin’s excellent routine aside, there is no list of words you can’t say on TV (or radio). The rule is that you can’t violate “community standards”, and the only way to find out what those standards are is to violate them, have people complain to the FCC, and get fined. It’s a ridiculous and unworkable system, but (as it’s been explained to me) stating outright what can and can’t be presented is clearly unconstitutional.
So if the FCC can’t give clear guidelines, and can’t fine stations based on vague and undefined “community standards”, I really don’t see anywhere they can go.
Unfortunately, I suspect that SCOTUS will find a way to preserve the status quo.