Freedom, Fundamentalism and the FCC
I believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings, which makes me a Christian by all definitions. I'm somewhat bothered by the use of the word "gay marriage", but not by the idea of civil unions. I tend to vote conservatively and I believe that an abandonment of social parameters leads to generations growing up without moral compasses.
BUT.
I'm bothered by the stealthy noose of censorship that is softly closing around the neck of our nation. The notion behind the ongoing FCC crackdown isn't entirely misguided, but the execution of that crackdown certainly seems draconian....how much farther might it go?
I'm personally trying to walk the "straight and narrow", but why would I would I want to bend someone else's arm behind their back to make them walk that path with me?
It seems that reasoned middle-grounds shall remain few and far between; both parties' ideologies can't allow them to mark out a reasonable middle ground.
BUT.
I'm bothered by the stealthy noose of censorship that is softly closing around the neck of our nation. The notion behind the ongoing FCC crackdown isn't entirely misguided, but the execution of that crackdown certainly seems draconian....how much farther might it go?
I'm personally trying to walk the "straight and narrow", but why would I would I want to bend someone else's arm behind their back to make them walk that path with me?
It seems that reasoned middle-grounds shall remain few and far between; both parties' ideologies can't allow them to mark out a reasonable middle ground.
Comments
Originally posted by drewprops
I believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings, which makes me a Christian by all definitions. I'm somewhat bothered by the use of the word "gay marriage", but not by the idea of civil unions. I tend to vote conservatively and I believe that an abandonment of social parameters leads to generations growing up without moral compasses.
BUT.
I'm bothered by the stealthy noose of censorship that is softly closing around the neck of our nation. The notion behind the ongoing FCC crackdown isn't entirely misguided, but the execution of that crackdown certainly seems draconian....how much farther might it go?
I'm personally trying to walk the "straight and narrow", but why would I would I want to bend someone else's arm behind their back to make them walk that path with me?
It seems that reasoned middle-grounds shall remain few and far between; both parties' ideologies can't allow them to mark out a reasonable middle ground.
Honestly, I think this latest FCC controversy is quite ridiculous. From my understanding, the broadcast rules have not actually changed since 2001. Am I wrong? The house voted to increase fines, not change the rules. The FCC has been <gasp> actually enforcing the current rules. Should someone be allowed to say the F-bomb on the public airwaves a 9 a.m.? Should he be able to talk about the most explicit sexual material?
There is a widespread myth that "freedom of speech" means one can say anything he likes at anytime is common one, but a myth nonetheless. There have always been limits on free speech within reason. The entire concept of freedom of speech was predicated on free political speech, so that we were free to criticize our own government. We must have some basic standard of what's accepable on the public airwaves as it relates to profanity and explicit sexual material.
The FCC must go.
Hell, I would gladly let my kids hear the F-bomb day and night if they were listening to talk radio of their own volition. Granted, I don't have kids yet, so I don't really have room to speak. But you can take my word for it.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
You're missing the point. The FCC can pretty much fine anybody at any time for any present or past "slip". So the theory goes, fine anybody that you want off the air, for political reasons. And all the radio broadcasters live in fear of political dissent, for fear of losing their jobs.
The FCC must go.
Hell, I would gladly let my kids hear the F-bomb day and night if they were listening to talk radio of their own volition. Granted, I don't have kids yet, so I don't really have room to speak. But you can take my word for it.
We're not really talking about talk radio. I agree the guidleines need to clarified, specified and equally enforced. You can't just say "down with the FCC" and call it a solution.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We must have some basic standard of what's accepable on the public airwaves as it relates to profanity and explicit sexual material.
Unfortunately with the FCC that's becoming the most strict definition. If 95% of the population uses the words shit, ****, asshole and dickhead everyday and talks about sex around the water cooler at work, then the airwaves should be fair game even if that minority might be offended.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a widespread myth that "freedom of speech" means one can say anything he likes at anytime is common one, but a myth nonetheless.
*cough* *choke* *splutter*
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a widespread myth that "freedom of speech" means one can say anything he likes at anytime is common one, but a myth nonetheless. There have always been limits on free speech within reason. The entire concept of freedom of speech was predicated on free political speech, so that we were free to criticize our own government. We must have some basic standard of what's accepable on the public airwaves as it relates to profanity and explicit sexual material.
Off topic, but just a little joke about misunderstandings from our forefathers...
The Founding Fathers were sitting around a table in 1776, working on the
Constitution. It had been a long day when Thomas Jefferson said, 'Whew!
It's getting rather warm in here, isn't it?' Ben Franklin replied,
'Shall I open the window?' 'No, that's alright. I'll just take off my
jacket, and roll up my sleeves.' 'Hey, that's a good idea. Why don't we
include that in the Constitution?' 'What? That we're allowed to take our
jackets off and roll up our sleeves while we work?' 'Yeah, but that
doesn't sound very smooth. How about 'Everyone shall have the right to
bare arms?'
You can toss a pretty rich content summary header in with the digital video stream. Give the opportunity for some vendors to make use of these feeds and bam: it's a feature every overprotective, puritan, middle class mom wants on the TV her kids will be watching.
Then it's the FCC's job to see if networks are lying about their content summaries. . . which is easy, so they can fire off 90% of the bureau and save me money.
Like that's going to happen.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You can't just say "down with the FCC" and call it a solution.
I certainly can.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Should someone be allowed to say the F-bomb on the public airwaves a 9 a.m.? Should he be able to talk about the most explicit sexual material?
I have personally NEVER heard anyone say FVCK on the radio. Not un-bleeped anyways. Don't most stations have a 6 second delay to deal with that to begin with? The "f-bomb"? wtf, are you 10 or something?
[QUOTE]There is a widespread myth that "freedom of speech" means one can say anything he likes at anytime is common one, but a myth nonetheless. There have always been limits on free speech within reason. The entire concept of freedom of speech was predicated on free political speech, so that we were free to criticize our own government.[/QUOTED]It's ironic that you're saying this, but yet when someone criticizes the Bush admin. you take up arms over it.
We must have some basic standard of what's accepable on the public airwaves as it relates to profanity and explicit sexual material.
Again, I have never heard a bad word on the radio that was not bleeped. If even that is a problem for some people, maybe they shouldn't be listening to that particular show to begin with. Is it a problem when Howard Stern talks about tits, but not when Dr. Laura does? Why do people listen to H Stern? Because you like his brand of entertainment.
Originally posted by Outsider
What we need is a smartTV. It has a camera with age recognition software so when a child is in the room, it blurs out boobs and bleeps out swears.
Or flashes a message at the bottom of the screen that says "EARMUFFS!!!"
1. Ban Infomercials
2. Ban Reality shows on national television
3. Make sure Janet is "wardrobe-tested" before all her concerts
Originally posted by Gilsch
I have personally NEVER heard anyone say FVCK on the radio. Not un-bleeped anyways. Don't most stations have a 6 second delay to deal with that to begin with? The "f-bomb"? wtf, are you 10 or something?
Again, I have never heard a bad word on the radio that was not bleeped. If even that is a problem for some people, maybe they shouldn't be listening to that particular show to begin with. Is it a problem when Howard Stern talks about tits, but not when Dr. Laura does? Why do people listen to H Stern? Because you like his brand of entertainment.
And I thought our Australian Broadcasting Authority were over the top. Triple J is like "**** this", "**** that". Or it least it was, I stopped listening to them after Alex Lloyd.
Don't 90% of songs have **** in them? What do the radio stations do with that??? I wonder how your FCC would react if a radio station played TISM's "I might be a c*** but I'm not a ****ing c***"
Barto
Originally posted by Gilsch
I have personally NEVER heard anyone say FVCK on the radio. Not un-bleeped anyways. Don't most stations have a 6 second delay to deal with that to begin with? The "f-bomb"? wtf, are you 10 or something?
Again, I have never heard a bad word on the radio that was not bleeped. If even that is a problem for some people, maybe they shouldn't be listening to that particular show to begin with. Is it a problem when Howard Stern talks about tits, but not when Dr. Laura does? Why do people listen to H Stern? Because you like his brand of entertainment.
You poor bastard.
Where I live you hear it all the time on national radio. At time of writing, our children are no less depraved then yours.
On educational and documentary programs I have heard uncensored profanity, including the much maligned f-word, and seen everything up to and including actual depictions of sexual acts. On the radio, different types of music are censored differently. In addition to the usual four-letter words, "black" music (I guess they're calling it "urban" these days) usually has all references to guns, drugs, and derogitory terms for women bleeped out. This does not happen with rock or pop music. If you watch professional wrestling much lately, you know that one person on a microphone saying f*** or s*** doesn't fly, but 20,000 fans screaming it in a stadium is okay. The classic rock station I listen to doesn't bother censoring some songs at all anymore. It's as if, when a song gets old enough, the profanity becomes public domain.
I don't think there's any kind of strict double standard. It's just that broadcasters define their own standards based on context and current politics. At the very best, the FCC exists to step in and appease angry people when a broadcaster guesses wrong or something gets taken the wrong way. "Hey look, see, your government is fighting to maintain morality!" It's pretty lame and arbitrary. I think we, as a society, would benefit a whole lot more by dealing with violence, sex, and language realistically and maturely. If the believable use of these elements became commonplace in broadcast media, who knows, we might see an end to the shameless, two-bit titillation and pandering that permeates network programming right now. We might see more of the kind of brilliant artistic freedom that only channels like HBO make possible now.
Seems the USA rather uptight about words and the human body, unlike the rest of the industrial world, when it comes to such things being broadcast. Is it really thought by the FCC that a broadcasting of a Sopranos-style of television show will be the downfall of the nation?
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is a widespread myth that "freedom of speech" means one can say anything he likes at anytime is common one, but a myth nonetheless. There have always been limits on free speech within reason. The entire concept of freedom of speech was predicated on free political speech, so that we were free to criticize our own government.
So, what's your definition of "reasonable"? Freedom of political expression may well be the most important part of free speech, but in and of itself it's far too narrow a definition of what speech and other expression should be protected.
Why not outlaw bad grammar, or telling the same boring story at dinner a second time? If mere "offensiveness" is the measure of "reasonable" restrictions, I can guarantee you the there are many people more offended by listening to, like, someone, like, saying "like", like every, like, other, like, word, than they, like, are like offended like by bare, like boobs, like, you know?
We must have some basic standard of what's accepable on the public airwaves as it relates to profanity and explicit sexual material.
Since the airwaves are a limited public commodity, I don't have too big a problem with limited censorship of public broadcasts. Broadcast bandwidth, while it can be more efficiently used by new technology, it can't actually be expanded, it can't freely be doled out for just anyone's use. It's not unreasonable, therefore, for public opinion and majority public standards to play a role in who gets to use, and keep using, portions of the broadcast spectrum.
But even where the majority has a right to impose standards, where majority rule trumps individual freedom of expression, it's in the best spirit of a free society if the majority truly values freedom of expression, and treads lightly when applying any sort of limitations.
Originally posted by shetline
So, what's your definition of "reasonable"? Freedom of political expression may well be the most important part of free speech, but in and of itself it's far too narrow a definition of what speech and other expression should be protected.
Why not outlaw bad grammar, or telling the same boring story at dinner a second time? If mere "offensiveness" is the measure of "reasonable" restrictions, I can guarantee you the there are many people more offended by listening to, like, someone, like, saying "like", like every, like, other, like, word, than they, like, are like offended like by bare, like boobs, like, you know?
Since the airwaves are a limited public commodity, I don't have too big a problem with limited censorship of public broadcasts. Broadcast bandwidth, while it can be more efficiently used by new technology, it can't actually be expanded, it can't freely be doled out for just anyone's use. It's not unreasonable, therefore, for public opinion and majority public standards to play a role in who gets to use, and keep using, portions of the broadcast spectrum.
But even where the majority has a right to impose standards, where majority rule trumps individual freedom of expression, it's in the best spirit of a free society if the majority truly values freedom of expression, and treads lightly when applying any sort of limitations.
Oh here we go. "Don't impose your values on me, SDW". Please.
Reasonable: Fvck, Shit, A**hole, C**K, C**T, etc. Explicit descriptions of sex on the air. This is unreasonable? No *reasonable* person would say so.