[QUOTE=Cisco]
And isn’t it funny that people like Bush and Cheney want to “protect” us from words that they themselves are on tape saying?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, for all the obscenity that Clinton supposedly brought to the office, I don’t recall Al Gore telling a fellow legislator to go copulate with himself on the floor of the House (or was it the Senate?).
I remember Bernard Goldberg being on The Daily Show complaining that the Founding Fathers would be shocked that one can walk into almost any place today and hear the “F-word.” To which Stewart replied, “We used to have Founding Father’s who fucked slaves. Given the choice between the two, I’d rather have people saying the word than doing it to slaves.” Goldberg didn’t have much of a response to that.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Is that because of Janet Jackson’s tit*?!!*
[/QUOTE]
Yes, as has been explained.
In case you haven’t noticed, over the past couple years, enforcement of “indecency” rules has gotten much harsher. Fines for using naughty words have increased, as as MsRobyn has (for some reason) been the only person to mention, the FCC cannot give actual guidelines in advance for what words and contexts would result in fines, since that would constitute unconstitutional prior restraint. Thus, broadcasters have gotten nervous about the content of what they broadcast.
For those who are inexplicably blaming the TV stations, are you stupid or something? Do you think it’s a good financial decision for PBS to avoid offending a couple people like you and get fifty bucks in contributions, in exchange for ten thousand dollars in FCC fines? The problem is quite obviously not the broadcasters, it’s the government that has appointed itself censor over the airwaves.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
In case you haven’t noticed, over the past couple years, enforcement of “indecency” rules has gotten much harsher.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve noticed. In fact, I wrote my senator (McCain) a letter during the lead-up to the Broadcast Indeceny Act expressing my concerns about it and got a form letter back basically saying “Don’t worry - we understand and agree with your concerns, and that’s why we’re voting in favor of the BIA.”
Not only did McCain not read the letter (which is fine, I didn’t expect him to), but his lackeys didn’t even read the letter. That’s one of the major reasons I don’t like the guy (as a politician - as a person I think he’s great.)
I knew JJ’s ugly nipple reigned hell upon Howard Stern, but I guess I never associated it with NPR before.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
I knew JJ’s ugly nipple reigned hell upon Howard Stern, but I guess I never associated it with NPR before.
[/QUOTE]
It’s affecting everyone. According to a story I heard on NPR, PBS stations are now basically bleeping all profanities, and further blurring the mouths of people using them on their shows. Such is the terror of the FCC.
The FCC does, in fact, have guidelines about what can and cannot be aired. However, the broadcasters’ problem is that these guidelines are extremely vague and inconsistently and capriciously applied; they want to force the FCC to clarify these guidelines and apply them consistently and fairly.
What they cannot do, however, is pre-screen programming for indecent or obscene content. So, basically, they can say (for example) that “fuck” isn’t permitted, but they can’t watch a program and tell the broadcaster that it’s indecent or obscene; that is prior restraint.
Robin
Except, of course, for “Saving Private Ryan”. Because they didn’t dare!
Funny, KQED (PBS station in San Francisco) ran a concert by Aussie Pink Floyd last night. I wasn’t listening closely enough to catch any censorship during “Money”.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
But any chance of that is gone when I saw them play money. Don’t give me none of that @#$% @##%^ @#%@#% @#%@#%#. What was that word again, folks? What was that word that PBS played on air? I don’t know, as it was BLEEPED OUT. Perhaps it was the word of the day? Anyone want to take a guess?
[/QUOTE]
What do they have against “do goody good?”
[QUOTE=Miller]
Starving Artist, as admirable as it is that you seek to defend the rights of America’s prudes and tightasses, the fact of the matter is that the American public, as a group, does not really care about obscenity being broadcast on the air.
[/quote]
I’m afraid you’re quite wrong there, chum. The hoopla and outrage over “Janet Jackson’s tit” was in fact the American public, as a group, becoming fed up to the teeth with the permissiveness that has pervaded this society over the last fifty or so years. Though a relatively minor incident in my mind, it was the proverbial last straw for many viewers and they responded accordingly. I know you’d love to lay the blame for all the uproar over this incident, and the concomitant tightening of broadcast standards, at the feet of the FCC and the Bush administration, but it just ain’t so. The administration and the FCC are simply reacting to the huge amount of public outrage that this incident triggered.
[QUOTE=Miller]
over 99% of the complaints filed with the FCC in 2003 were filed by the same activist organization: The Parent’s Television Council. You are correct in your perception that what’s happening here is a tiny minority of this country trying to force their morality on the rest of the nation, and you are right to be outraged. You’re just mistaken about who you should be angry with.
[/quote]
I see. So you’re saying that unless someone files a complaint with the FCC, they must not care about broadcast obscenity, and therefore the only people in the entire country who have a problem with it are those who make up the Parent’s Television Council?
Yeah, makes sense to me. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Miller]
Also, what’s so hard about explaining “bullshit” to a kid? “It’s when a cow makes poops. But don’t say that word yourself, it’s not nice.” We need a federal agency to protect us from that?
[/QUOTE]
No, we need a federal agency to keep public broadcasting from becoming the cesspool of vulgarity and obscenity it would surely become, through competitive pressures alone if not simply as a way for the liberal community to say neener-neener to those who are offended by it. I know hardly anyone uses CB radios anymore, but once upon a time CB traffic was polite, considerate and civilized. People asked to “break” in if they wanted to talk while someone else was talking, and profanity was quickly condemned by other users both for fear of FCC penalties and because families were participating.
Well, guess what?
CB traffic eventually grew to the point that no one had to fear the infinitesimal chance that they would be plucked out of the maelstrom and punished and everyone (the lowest common denominator, that is) abandoned the standards that were previously in place and the last time I heard any CB radio traffic 15 years ago, everyone was talking over everyone else, and like I said in my letter to my ‘congressperson’ above, nine out of every ten words was an obscenity and most likely an extaordinarily nasty obscenity.
Like it or not, someone has to impose standards or else chaos and anarchy rule. Standards are imposed on automobile traffic, courtrooms, the workplace, etc. Human beings cannot function as a society without standards, and whether you like the standards that exist or not, the fact is that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and in this case “bullshit” has been deemed to cross the line. Same with literature by James Joyce.
[QUOTE=SA]
…No, we need a federal agency to keep public broadcasting from becoming the cesspool of vulgarity and obscenity it would surely become, through competitive pressures alone if not simply as a way for the liberal community to say neener-neener to those who are offended by it…
[/QUOTE]
So much buttwhistle, so little time. First, you point out that, in your estimation, competitive pressure would drive the tedia into the cesspool. Which would be why? Because of the competition to provide what the public, apparently, would want. Otherwise , there would be no competitive pressure, no?
Or, alternatively, it could be simply the expression of the “liberal community”'s iron grip on the levers of power…
Look, SA, I keep telling you…when you fold the tin foil hat, the folds have to be perpendicular to true North, otherwise you have no protection from the telepathic rays…
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Having read Henry Miller, and having been a child that everyone who knew me claimed I was highly intelligent, I can say for certain damned few kids would have the brain power and the desire to read Henry Miller…
[/quote]
Why, thank you! I thought nothing of it at the time. 
I read Tropic of Capricorn, Tropic of Cancer, and then Sexus, Nexus and Plexus. And at some point in there I recall asking my father what “cunt” meant. (After finding out, I was glad I hadn’t asked my teacher that question in front of the class. )
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
And how many little kiddies are going to want to listen to a radio station that reads selections from a novel…
[/quote]
Probably very few. Still, a certain number will happen upon it when surfing or when their parents tune into it not knowing that this or that obscenity will be said. And then when it is, there’s a tacit approval conveyed by the fact that it’s on public t.v., which further entices the little tykelets into adopting it for themselves, perhaps against their parents’ wishes.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
…when they can tune into radio stations where you hear people singing/rapping about sex in uncomplicated language?
[/quote]
Need I point out that those of us who disapprove of that language (and its misogynistic underpinnings) were roundly excoriated for our ‘racist’ opposition to rap music when we expressed concern over the language being used. And besides, now that you mention it, I can think of few better examples of how the relinquishing of standards results in cesspools of vulgarity and obscenity than rap music. Ah, yes…I recall fondly the time I pulled up next to a cute, wholesome-looking, sweet-faced blond of the cheerleader type who looked to be about 15 or 16 years old, tapping her steering wheel and singing along to the lyrics of “get down on your knees and suck my badass dick”. Now, I’m sure many of you here could care less, but let’s just suppose she has a little sister of 7 or 8 who just loves to spend time with big sis and idolizes her. Little sister of course, hears this, and asks what it means. Big sister laughs and says, "Oh, that’s when a girl sucks on a guy’s penis…you know, his dick! So 7 or 8 year-old little sister begins life with a perspective she never had before…putting a dick in her mouth! Yep, something sure to warm the cockles of any father’s heart!
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Of course, no one’s forcing people to have a radio, and it’s not until next year that Federal requirements take effect prohibiting the manufacture of radios and TVs with off switches.
[/quote]
This idiotic and totally ineffective ‘solution’ which people like you like to trot out is speciousness made manifest. Please tell me how this would prevent the young child in the scenario I just outlined from hearing about sucking dicks?
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Lesse, Carlin’s a wealthy performer who’s had a successful career over the course of several decades, while you’re someone who uses the name Starving on an internet message board who likes to hurl insults and ideas parroted from Rush Limbaugh (who openly states he doesn’t want his followers to think). I’d say the only putz here is you.
[/QUOTE]
I see. So Carlin’s wealthy and successful and therefore knows better than me! So does that mean that the much more wealthy and successful Rush Limbaugh knows more than you?
Can you say ‘hoist’? Can you say ‘petard’? Yeah, I thought that you could.
And guess what, chum? I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in over 14 years, and didn’t listen to him regularly before that. Nope! I come up with all this stuff on my own just by using judgement and common sense. And there’s millions just like me out there who are getting fed up with what those of your ilk have wrought in this society, and it’s one key reason for something many of you don’t understand: why it is that so many people keep voting for Republicans.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
…it’s one key reason for something many of you don’t understand: why it is that so many people keep voting for Republicans.
[/QUOTE]
You mean it isn’t The Leader’s firm stance against animal-human hybrids?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
So much buttwhistle, so little time. First, you point out that, in your estimation, competitive pressure would drive the tedia into the cesspool. Which would be why? Because of the competition to provide what the public, apparently, would want. Otherwise , there would be no competitive pressure, no?
[/quote]
No. It would be because of the pressure to do outdo what the competition is doing in order to draw the small percentage of the overall population that makes up their audience.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Or, alternatively, it could be simply the expression of the “liberal community”'s iron grip on the levers of power…
[/quote]
The levers of power, no; the levers of influence (via Hollywood, the media and the halls of academe), yes.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Look, SA, I keep telling you…when you fold the tin foil hat, the folds have to be perpendicular to true North, otherwise you have no protection from the telepathic rays…
[/quote]
Perpendicular, eh? No wonder I keep getting messages intended for you! I’ll have to work on that cause what I keep hearing makes no damn sense at all! 
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
No. It would be because of the pressure to do outdo what the competition is doing in order to draw the small percentage of the overall population that makes up their audience…
[/quote]
Oh, I see now! All the real money is in the “Leave It To Beaver” wholesome, family shows, leaving only the mangy scraps left to be fought over by the likes of “Sex and the City”. Right. Sure thing.
Ah,yes, influence. More mighty than the sacred power of the Almighty Market? Using this “influence” they manage to thwart the will of the vast majority of the American people? How?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Oh, I see now! All the real money is in the “Leave It To Beaver” wholesome, family shows, leaving only the mangy scraps left to be fought over by the likes of “Sex and the City”. Right. Sure thing.
[/quote]
Ahem…I believe that I referred to the audience as being a small percentage of the overall population. I believe this statement holds true for Sex and the City as well.
However, Sex and the City is not the type of programming I’m talking about. It is on cable, not the public airwaves, and even though I’ve never seen it (don’t have HBO), it seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable form of adult entertainment presented in the proper venue. I would say the same thing about books by Joyce and Henry Miller. They all have their place, just not on the public airwaves where people who would prefer not to see it, or who would prefer their children didn’t see it, are inadvertently exposed to it anyway.
And now, luce, I must bid you adieu, as the bedroom begins its siren song.
Goodnight, and warm regards from the cold-hearted and puritanical (Hah!) right.
Starving Artist, let me ask you a question.
Who, ultimately, is responsible for making sure children aren’t exposed to anything “vulgar”?
Robin
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
They all have their place, just not on the public airwaves where people who would prefer not to see it, or who would prefer their children didn’t see it, are inadvertently exposed to it anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hate it when my television set turns itself on, wrestles me down onto the couch and straps me down, tapes my eyelids open, and forces me to watch broadcast TV with objectionable content.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Yeah, I hate it when my television set turns itself on, wrestles me down onto the couch and straps me down, tapes my eyelids open, and forces me to watch broadcast TV with objectionable content.
[/QUOTE]
Wait… it happens to you, too?!
Except objectionable content, to me, is Faux News.
Robin