I've been aware of the word 'fuck' since I was about five years old (although it was a few years later that I found out its meaning). I heard the older kid from across the street say it when he crashed into a wall on his bike, and later that day discovered the magic of the word when I repeated it in front of my mother. I don't see any problem with little kids being aware of these words as long as they are made to understand that they are offensive to some people and are not appropriate to certain situations.
Worry about whether or not kids will be able to get a good education and a decent life, not whether or not Howard Stern is corrupting their young minds.
for those who don't know the history... "The Seven Words You can't Say on Television" (aka "7 Deadly Words") sketch is a classic take on this subject
Quote:
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things ? bad language and whatever ? it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. ... There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
and I did enjoy one of the comments google returned from another blog while seeking carlin
"WIll George W. *BLEEP* & *BLEEP* Cheney be baned from US airwaves?"
The FCC should stay out of moralising and regulate the industry in an appropriate way. Like how bout they not let clear channel, viacom and fox own every station, newspaper, and cable network they please. I'd rather see a campaign come out against that than indecency. It's ridiculous that I have Time Warner cable service, who broadcast several of their own networks who program shows that they own. It was not always like this and it would be much better for the entertainment industry if the cable companies were not allowed own networks and the networks were not allowed own programming, but that's too complex for most people to understand.
I hate the way this country is so closely mirroring 1984 in a lot of ways. We have the liberal media and politicians having to be so politically correct and then on the conservative side we have fundamentalists banning Harry Potter, as an example. Luckily, we are at a time where information and technology is inundating us, so we can learn to decide what and who is right, if anyone.
I hate the way this country is so closely mirroring 1984 in a lot of ways. We have the liberal media and politicians having to be so politically correct and then on the conservative side we have fundamentalists banning Harry Potter, as an example. Luckily, we are at a time where information and technology is inundating us, so we can learn to decide what and who is right, if anyone.
Actually, the paradox of the information age is that we just can't trust the information!
I hate the way this country is so closely mirroring 1984 in a lot of ways. We have the liberal media and politicians having to be so politically correct and then on the conservative side we have fundamentalists banning Harry Potter, as an example. Luckily, we are at a time where information and technology is inundating us, so we can learn to decide what and who is right, if anyone.
Terror alert! yellow level! we are fighting the iraqis to take out saddam, we have always been fighting the iraqis to take out saddam terror alert orange!
I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000.
So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000.
Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: "Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely."
I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000.
So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000.
Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: "Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely."
Oh no... you miss the point. They have to protect the children from words they'll hear every day of their adult lives. Plus if they let you get away with "naughty" words then they won't be able to base any of their other restrictions of constitutional and cival rights when they come down the line as well.
You're also missing the fact that you can be retroactively fined. So if there was a transgression 3 years ago they can now fine you with the new penalties for that.
They're attempting to combat the shift in the moral compass of secular America. I personally do not like some of the shifts that are occurring, but AS an American I urge caution in how the government responds to this issue. Our media outlets have quietly been squatting in that territory considered to be "over the line" for so long that a lot of people feel the media is entitled to that freedom even though it is, by law, off-limits.
Society is almost always viewed as "slipping" by every aging generation and Victorian-style reactions have been common occurrences over the ages, by many societies. These phases don't last forever and are viewed as "corrections" akin to those that occur in the stock market. It's a societal balancing act.
Imposing RULES is our American way of dealing with societal issues. The quick fix, the magic bullet. I don't entirely have a problem with the spirit of the crackdowns, but the execution is sloppy and antiquated and completely ignores societal shifts and technological options.
The easiest solution is an existing technology, channel locks....an improved version of the infamous V-Chip. Create a new, improved version that reacts in real-time to any broadcast that exceeds the content-allowance setting you've programmed into your device. For instance, the network ABC would be accessible for shows like "Funniest Home Videos" but when "NYPD Blue" comes on that channel would become "off limits" without the correct passcode.
Create a similar setup with radio broadcasts and work with the manufacturers of radios to develop this radio version of the "smart V-chip". Sure, it would take years to implement (by which time another generation would become inured to the objectionable content), but it would be a better system.
Then, if the stations broadcast offensive material that exceeded stated levels, they would indeed be liable to pay expensive violation fees.
In the meantime there needs to be a careful observation of the FCC's actions.
They're attempting to combat the shift in the moral compass of secular America. I personally do not like some of the shifts that are occurring, but AS an American I urge caution in how the government responds to this issue. Our media outlets have quietly been squatting in that territory considered to be "over the line" for so long that a lot of people feel the media is entitled to that freedom even though it is, by law, off-limits.
Society is almost always viewed as "slipping" by every aging generation and Victorian-style reactions have been common occurrences over the ages, by many societies. These phases don't last forever and are viewed as "corrections" akin to those that occur in the stock market. It's a societal balancing act.
Imposing RULES is our American way of dealing with societal issues. The quick fix, the magic bullet. I don't entirely have a problem with the spirit of the crackdowns, but the execution is sloppy and antiquated and completely ignores societal shifts and technological options.
The easiest solution is an existing technology, channel locks....an improved version of the infamous V-Chip. Create a new, improved version that reacts in real-time to any broadcast that exceeds the content-allowance setting you've programmed into your device. For instance, the network ABC would be accessible for shows like "Funniest Home Videos" but when "NYPD Blue" comes on that channel would become "off limits" without the correct passcode.
Create a similar setup with radio broadcasts and work with the manufacturers of radios to develop this radio version of the "smart V-chip". Sure, it would take years to implement (by which time another generation would become inured to the objectionable content), but it would be a better system.
Then, if the stations broadcast offensive material that exceeded stated levels, they would indeed be liable to pay expensive violation fees.
In the meantime there needs to be a careful observation of the FCC's actions.
Yes but time and time again the government tries to legislate what was once the territory of the PARENTS. If parents object to something on the radio (ie. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Bubba the love sponge) these shows are clearly marked and you can simply NOT LISTEN (at least while the kids are around...). As for TV, parental warnings aren't bad. NYPD did it when they used to show bare asses. That way, if you object to that material, DON'T WACTH IT.
It sickens me that people point at Ms. Jacksons (I'm nasty...) bvreast and says "SEXUAL IMAGERY!" and throw a fit. What about the rest of the infamous half time show? "It's gettin' hot in here, so take off all your clothes" is pretty damn blatant. If they object to breasts, why isn't the rest under fire? personally, i thought the whole show was in bad taste for the biggest family TV event of the year. The NFL should have known better than to allow it. but of course, that would mean someone taking responsibility.
Comments
Fvck, I use fvck several times a day...
Worry about whether or not kids will be able to get a good education and a decent life, not whether or not Howard Stern is corrupting their young minds.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
SDW, don't impose your values on me.
www.stopfcc.com
for those who don't know the history... "The Seven Words You can't Say on Television" (aka "7 Deadly Words") sketch is a classic take on this subject
"The whole problem with this idea of obscenity and indecency, and all of these things ? bad language and whatever ? it's all caused by one basic thing, and that is: religious superstition. ... There's an idea that the human body is somehow evil and bad and there are parts of it that are especially evil and bad, and we should be ashamed. Fear, guilt and shame are built into the attitude toward sex and the body. ... It's reflected in these prohibitions and these taboos that we have."
and I did enjoy one of the comments google returned from another blog while seeking carlin
"WIll George W. *BLEEP* & *BLEEP* Cheney be baned from US airwaves?"
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I hate the way this country is so closely mirroring 1984 in a lot of ways. We have the liberal media and politicians having to be so politically correct and then on the conservative side we have fundamentalists banning Harry Potter, as an example. Luckily, we are at a time where information and technology is inundating us, so we can learn to decide what and who is right, if anyone.
Actually, the paradox of the information age is that we just can't trust the information!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Actually, the paradox of the information age is that we just can't trust the information!
Yes I don't trust you
Originally posted by hmurchison
Yes I don't trust you
See!
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
I hate the way this country is so closely mirroring 1984 in a lot of ways. We have the liberal media and politicians having to be so politically correct and then on the conservative side we have fundamentalists banning Harry Potter, as an example. Luckily, we are at a time where information and technology is inundating us, so we can learn to decide what and who is right, if anyone.
Terror alert! yellow level! we are fighting the iraqis to take out saddam, we have always been fighting the iraqis to take out saddam terror alert orange!
I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000.
So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000.
Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: "Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely."
Dennis Mulvihill, Cleveland
Via Atrios
Originally posted by Northgate
Link
I was wondering why the Republicans believe that hearing a four-letter word on the radio is more damaging than death or catastrophic injury. Consider that the Bush administration wants to increase FCC fines for indecency up to $500,000 per violation per station, yet at the same time, it wants to restrict noneconomic damages in tort cases to $250,000 or $350,000.
So if a DJ says a four-letter word on the radio, the harm is so appalling that a fine of $500,000 per word, per station is justified. But if someone is paralyzed, killed or otherwise catastrophically injured, the most the family could get for the (noneconomic) loss would be up to $350,000.
Apparently, Republicans have reworked the children's adage about words never hurting to: "Sticks and stones may break someone else's bones, but words will hurt me worsely."
Dennis Mulvihill, Cleveland
Via Atrios
Oh no... you miss the point. They have to protect the children from words they'll hear every day of their adult lives. Plus if they let you get away with "naughty" words then they won't be able to base any of their other restrictions of constitutional and cival rights when they come down the line as well.
You're also missing the fact that you can be retroactively fined. So if there was a transgression 3 years ago they can now fine you with the new penalties for that.
Society is almost always viewed as "slipping" by every aging generation and Victorian-style reactions have been common occurrences over the ages, by many societies. These phases don't last forever and are viewed as "corrections" akin to those that occur in the stock market. It's a societal balancing act.
Imposing RULES is our American way of dealing with societal issues. The quick fix, the magic bullet. I don't entirely have a problem with the spirit of the crackdowns, but the execution is sloppy and antiquated and completely ignores societal shifts and technological options.
The easiest solution is an existing technology, channel locks....an improved version of the infamous V-Chip. Create a new, improved version that reacts in real-time to any broadcast that exceeds the content-allowance setting you've programmed into your device. For instance, the network ABC would be accessible for shows like "Funniest Home Videos" but when "NYPD Blue" comes on that channel would become "off limits" without the correct passcode.
Create a similar setup with radio broadcasts and work with the manufacturers of radios to develop this radio version of the "smart V-chip". Sure, it would take years to implement (by which time another generation would become inured to the objectionable content), but it would be a better system.
Then, if the stations broadcast offensive material that exceeded stated levels, they would indeed be liable to pay expensive violation fees.
In the meantime there needs to be a careful observation of the FCC's actions.
Originally posted by drewprops
They're attempting to combat the shift in the moral compass of secular America. I personally do not like some of the shifts that are occurring, but AS an American I urge caution in how the government responds to this issue. Our media outlets have quietly been squatting in that territory considered to be "over the line" for so long that a lot of people feel the media is entitled to that freedom even though it is, by law, off-limits.
Society is almost always viewed as "slipping" by every aging generation and Victorian-style reactions have been common occurrences over the ages, by many societies. These phases don't last forever and are viewed as "corrections" akin to those that occur in the stock market. It's a societal balancing act.
Imposing RULES is our American way of dealing with societal issues. The quick fix, the magic bullet. I don't entirely have a problem with the spirit of the crackdowns, but the execution is sloppy and antiquated and completely ignores societal shifts and technological options.
The easiest solution is an existing technology, channel locks....an improved version of the infamous V-Chip. Create a new, improved version that reacts in real-time to any broadcast that exceeds the content-allowance setting you've programmed into your device. For instance, the network ABC would be accessible for shows like "Funniest Home Videos" but when "NYPD Blue" comes on that channel would become "off limits" without the correct passcode.
Create a similar setup with radio broadcasts and work with the manufacturers of radios to develop this radio version of the "smart V-chip". Sure, it would take years to implement (by which time another generation would become inured to the objectionable content), but it would be a better system.
Then, if the stations broadcast offensive material that exceeded stated levels, they would indeed be liable to pay expensive violation fees.
In the meantime there needs to be a careful observation of the FCC's actions.
Yes but time and time again the government tries to legislate what was once the territory of the PARENTS. If parents object to something on the radio (ie. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, Bubba the love sponge) these shows are clearly marked and you can simply NOT LISTEN (at least while the kids are around...). As for TV, parental warnings aren't bad. NYPD did it when they used to show bare asses. That way, if you object to that material, DON'T WACTH IT.
It sickens me that people point at Ms. Jacksons (I'm nasty...) bvreast and says "SEXUAL IMAGERY!" and throw a fit. What about the rest of the infamous half time show? "It's gettin' hot in here, so take off all your clothes" is pretty damn blatant. If they object to breasts, why isn't the rest under fire? personally, i thought the whole show was in bad taste for the biggest family TV event of the year. The NFL should have known better than to allow it. but of course, that would mean someone taking responsibility.