Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PBS Feels FCC Chill On Censorship

simoniker posted about 10 years ago | from the watch-out-for-that-shark dept.

Censorship 1037

Shadow Wrought writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on PBS censoring one of its upcoming drama shows, Cop Shop, due to the chilling effect of the most recent FCC rulings on indecency. Star Richard Dreyfuss offered these choice words as part of a prepared statement, 'It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power, and so it should be treated as what it is -- a real-world moral and ethical battle with grimly wrongheaded, un-American types who play pick and choose when they define our freedoms of speech and religion as it fits their particular political needs.'"

cancel ×

1037 comments

GNAA j00 fristage postage is mine (0, Offtopic)

GNAA Goat-See (775677) | about 10 years ago | (#9677509)

GNAA Announces Victory over Apple Community
GNAA Announces Victory over Apple Community

San Francisco, California - Just three days after being the first in the world to leak photos of Apple's upcoming revision to MacOS X, version 10.4, Steve Jobs announced to the world facts about the new Operating System consistent with information leaked by elite GNAA operator Gary Niger and prospective member Ron Delsner.

"We've pulled it off!", noted Niger during Jobs' announcement at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference. "The GNAA plan was clever from the start with this one I think. When we received our leaked copy of the OS, we knew that by releasing only partial information and some screenshots, the association people would make with the GNAA would lead them to believe the screenshots were fake. Now that Steve 'Rim' Jobs has verified everything we leaked, we have managed to fool the entire Mac community. In essense, a few hundred thousand people have been trolled, a few hundred thousand people have lost. Though I do wish they have a nice day"

"I don't think it could have worked out any better; Every single one of the features shown in our screenshots, particularly Dashboard, which everybody called as fake, was demoed by Jobs. This is my revenge for being beat up on the rent", quoted Ron Delsner on being approached by reporters. "I've been wanting to join the Gay Nigger Association of America for quite some time, and knew that I help pull off something big if they were to let me in."

Delsner was right, as upon hearing this, Gary Niger immediately produced a vial of what he called the "Holy Gay Nigger Seed" from his front pocket, and asked Ron to kneel, at which time the Seed was poured upon Ron's head, making him an official member of the GNAA. Noticing the television cameras present in the press room, Gary cited that this was in fact the first televised induction of a member into the GNAA.

"But back to the troll", Niger said quickly after. "I had a sneaking suspicion that the homosexual caucasians of the Mac community would feel threatened by the GNAA's massive nigger cocks and immediately cast doubts upon any screenshots we produced for them. I saw this as an opportunity to troll hundreds of thousands of people. It just goes to show that GNAA is greater than j00, and that fristage postage is mine."

And Niger certainly did not fail it, as can be seen from the following excerpts taken from various Internet website's covering the leak:

ThinkSecret.com - "In fact, it was the source that led many users to call the shots fake; the information in that story, as well as this one, was provided by Gary Niger and Ron Delsner of the GNAA, an organization that deals in crapfloods and Slashdot trolling."

AppleInsider.com - "Enjoy the photoshop work. I seriously don't think Apple would be so crazy to use those jargons."

MacRumors.com - "Hmm... Information by "Gary Niger" of GNAA. Sounds too stupid to be true. And that dashboard thing? Hogwash me thinks ..."

MacRumors.com - "I immediately thought of them when I saw "GNAA". Anyone who reads Slashdot would be familiar with them - they put big spam posts everywhere. Yes, and it doesn't surprise me. I don't think the screenshots are real (at least not the Dashboard ones), but I have no trouble believing the PDF."

Kim Kap Sol on AppleInsider.com said "I can guarantee those are fake." He then continued by saying "Hello I R Korea KEKEKEKE OMG ZERG RUSH GOGOGOGO ^_^"

Gary's reply to this was "Way to make a complete idiot of yourself you dog-eating douchebag."

Steve Jobs was unavailable for comment immediately following the keynote address, though WWDC attendee and GNAA member Porfa noticed "A cute wiggle in Jobs' ass as he walked away."

About Apple

Apple Computer is the creator of the Macintosh, popularly known as the "gay computer". 87% of GNAA members are Mac users. Founded in 1974 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Apple was nearly out of business in the mid 90's, when Jobs was rehired. He then started the now infamous iGay marketing scheme which involved both the Step 2 ???? Profit model, and a 100% effort towards marketing towards homosexuals.


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.
clicking here.
-->

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid TBD
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_tbd@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 GNAA [www.gnaa.us]

Here we go .... (4, Insightful)

YankeeInExile (577704) | about 10 years ago | (#9677514)

The slippery slope my homeland is heading down ...

  1. Boobs are bad, because we must protect children from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)
  2. Swearwords are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern.
  3. Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack.
  4. Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure is ba, because we must protect children from policies we do not agree with.
sigh... it was a nice democratic republic we had once.

Re:Here we go .... (4, Funny)

YankeeInExile (577704) | about 10 years ago | (#9677563)

let me trump myself. 5. Profit.

Re:Here we go .... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677569)

I wish I grew up to be Howard Stern. Then I wouldn't be eating oatmeal for breakfast.

Re:Here we go .... (2, Insightful)

Blindman (36862) | about 10 years ago | (#9677590)

This is just like on the Simpsons where Mrs. Lovejoy always says, "Won't anybody please think about the children?" (or its functional equivalent). It was funnier when it wasn't the basis for actual as opposed to animated public policy.

It takes a brit... (5, Funny)

Rei (128717) | about 10 years ago | (#9677592)

It takes a Brit [pythonline.com] to say what we feel about this sort of stuff ;)

Re:Here we go .... (4, Insightful)

tcopeland (32225) | about 10 years ago | (#9677593)

> Speaking ill of the Current Power Structure
> is ba, because we must protect
> children from policies we do not agree with.

Apparently it's not too bad, since you just did it. For real censorship, see China or, perhaps, Syria.

Re:Here we go .... (2, Insightful)

Art Tatum (6890) | about 10 years ago | (#9677652)

It always amazes me when someone gets up on a soapbox and screams some silly thing, then claims that there's no such thing as free speech. Like Michael Moore.

Free speech? (4, Insightful)

YankeeInExile (577704) | about 10 years ago | (#9677719)

It always amazes me when someone gets up on a soapbox and screams some silly thing, then claims that there's no such thing as free speech. Like Michael Moore.
I never claimed there is no such thing as free speech. I claim that if things continue the way they are, speech will be seriously curtailed, perhaps to extinction. You will be far more amazed when it happens that you did nothing while you could.

Re:Free speech? (1, Insightful)

Art Tatum (6890) | about 10 years ago | (#9677790)

Puh-leeze. Get over your delusions of "standing up to the evil oppressors." This isn't Nazi Germany and you're not Niemoller.

Re:Free speech? (3, Insightful)

smclean (521851) | about 10 years ago | (#9677831)

What recent censorship acts in general lead you to believe that these things are following a political trend? Howard Stern / Clear Channel being fined? Janet Jackson's boobs? I feel that both of these actions were justified.

I think that many people feel that they haven't "done anything" about this yet because there's no particularly alarming censorship taking place. When they start censoring political messages (like yours) then I'll start "doing something" about it.

Seriously though, Clear Channel was stupid to drop Howard Stern. That smells like a reaction to coersion by the feds to 'do something or else'. That kinda legal extortion is certainly to be frowned upon.. but that isn't a free speech matter. Is Howard still on the air somewhere? Did that selfish bastard allow people to stream him online yet? That was a problem with his Clear Channel contract--No streaming.

Re:Here we go .... (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | about 10 years ago | (#9677705)

Well, to be fair, we're only#17 [www.rsf.fr] in terms of media freedom. Of course, that's out of 139. While I'd rather we be up there with Finland, I'm just glad we're not down there anywhere from Israel (#92) to North Korea (dead last at #139).

Re:Here we go .... (4, Insightful)

Art Tatum (6890) | about 10 years ago | (#9677817)

You know what I find amusing about this thing? My reply about people who screamed about free speech while exercising it was...modded down as flamebait! Kinda gives you a sense of pride...

To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (4, Funny)

RatBastard (949) | about 10 years ago | (#9677603)

"Boobs are proof that God exists and want's us to be happy".

Re:To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about 10 years ago | (#9677680)

And apo'strophe's exi'st to prove that there i's an 's coming up.

Re:To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (1)

RatBastard (949) | about 10 years ago | (#9677773)

I never did get the hang of those things in school.

Re:To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (2, Informative)

strictnein (318940) | about 10 years ago | (#9677828)

very easy...

' replaces a letter
Do not = don't
is not = isn't
we are = we're

Not used when possessive

Its
hers
His

except when it's a possessive name:

John's bike
Jill's bike
3M's new product

Those are the basics

Re:To Paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677842)

Boobs or apostrophes?

Boobs bad, violence is good (5, Insightful)

lothar97 (768215) | about 10 years ago | (#9677647)

It always steams me that they'll edit out breasts and other "sex" things in movies, but movies like "Predator" and "Resevoir Dogs" will be shown on TV, with lots of people getting shot up and spewing blood all over. Is that really a better image we'd like kids to see? I myself would just prefer not to edit anything out.

Re:Boobs bad, violence is good (1)

Cat_Byte (621676) | about 10 years ago | (#9677795)

I saw Three Kings on tv the other night and they had digitally removed all of the blood in the shootout scenes. It was quite strange....like...reminescent of A-Team.

Re:Here we go .... (0)

BigBir3d (454486) | about 10 years ago | (#9677651)

no it wasn't.

Howard Stern (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 10 years ago | (#9677656)

2. Swear words are bad, because we must protect children from scatological talk, lest they grow up to be Howard Stern.

Hey, I though you were arguing against censorship?

Keeping my kids from growing up to be Howard Stern seems worth almost any price! ;)

Re:Howard Stern (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 10 years ago | (#9677721)

Can we kill your kids then? That's a definition of "Any Price".

Youre one of the probems, saying extremist things about our future of this WONDERFUL socialis... Democratic Government we all strive to liuve in!

God Bless America and save the children..

(sarcasm detected, reread for politic jokes)

Re:Howard Stern (1)

Creedo (548980) | about 10 years ago | (#9677806)

(sarcasm detected, reread for politic jokes)
Let's try rewriting for proper spelling and grammar next time.

Re:Howard Stern (1, Interesting)

ednopantz (467288) | about 10 years ago | (#9677784)

Keeping my kids from growing up to be Howard Stern seems worth almost any price!

No joke. Why do people think that restricting their vocabulary to 7 special, magical, "sentence enhancers" makes them edgy, liberated, or some such nonsense?

Re:Here we go .... (1)

dacarr (562277) | about 10 years ago | (#9677682)

Pointing out flaws in national security is bad, because we must protect children from terrorist attack.

Funny, too, that pointing out security flaws is how they get fixed.

Re:Here we go .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677693)

A true sign you have no kids... ...and I bet 90% of the losers here have never seen a real live set of boobs.

Re:Here we go .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677750)

> # Boobs are bad, because we must protect children

> from sexual images. (Despite no scientific proof that such images are actually harmful.)

If more people breastfed their kids, all it would do is make them hungry...

Harmful, my ass.

Re:Here we go .... (4, Insightful)

CommieLib (468883) | about 10 years ago | (#9677770)

I dub thee...STRAWMAN SLAYER!!!

When, by the way, did we have an America where boobs and swear words were on TV? I don't remember it.

Chapter 243 of my new book, Things We All Fricking Know But Like To Pretend We Don't For Some Reason covers the obvious reality that maybe children should get some scope on the universe before they engage in activities that make them parents. Of course, this inhibits pleasure, so a Slashdotter cannot conceive of it.

Re:Here we go .... again... (2, Insightful)

moviepig.com (745183) | about 10 years ago | (#9677814)

Seems likely that most here would declare themselves to be anti-censorship ..... until their own particular threshold is crossed. And if one indeed has such a threshold (and most do, somewhere), then moral indignation at someone else's more restrictive threshold seems hard to come by.

pi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677515)

u are a failiure

I guess that means we won't see Cheney (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677522)

on Sesame Street.

But first . . (-1, Offtopic)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 10 years ago | (#9677530)

before you enjoy our brand new bleeped series, call now! Our operators are standing by, give us your money!

here's what you can do (-1, Offtopic)

squarefish (561836) | about 10 years ago | (#9677532)

for your country [fthevote.com]

Re:here's what you can do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677632)

Parent link is NOT WORK SAFE.

are you a dumbass? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677827)

This website contains information, links, images and videos of sexually explicit material. If you are under the age of 21, if such material offends you or if it's illegal to view such material in your community please do not continue.

How hard is that to understand? Are you a dolt or what? And what were you doing going to a website that says "FUCK" in the URL at work anyway?

You deserve to be fired for your idiocy. Don't come whining here because you were the one being a moron.

Wrong poster child (3, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | about 10 years ago | (#9677540)

From the SFGate.com article's subhead:
3 no-nos bleeped from new crime drama -- Richard Dreyfuss blasts government censorship

And further down the article:
The cuts prompted executive producer and writer David Black and Dreyfuss to whip out prepared statements before facing the nation's TV critics here on Friday.

Tonight on PBS: the world's smallest violin plays "My Heart Bleeds For You".

I'm no fan of corporate-owned media, and the whoring of the airwaves by the likes of FOX. Today's "Reality shows" remind me of the government-run pornography industry in Orwell's 1984 -- a handy way to distract the masses from reality (election? what election?).

But I doubt that "Cop Shop" is going to be the poster boy for government interference with free speech. I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings. They had a prepared statement -- the press release crying "censorship" was composed before the show was even screened. That tells me that the show needs propping up by the controversy, because it's likely to fall down under its own pompous weight.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Re:Wrong poster child (2, Funny)

kelzer (83087) | about 10 years ago | (#9677663)

I suspect that the star and producer have no higher goal than propping up their show's ratings.

Yeah, so they could charge more for the commercials. Greedy opportunistic PBS bastards! Money grubbing wh... ummm, commercials... PBS...?, uh, nevermind.

Re:Wrong poster child (1)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 10 years ago | (#9677737)

You are aware that most of that money that they extract from people eventually ends up in someone's pocket, right? And that commonly watched shows will draw more sponsorship dollars?

Whipping 'em out... (5, Funny)

panicboy (253687) | about 10 years ago | (#9677685)

So the fact that they did not choose to speak extemporaneously indicates some sort of behind-the-scenes plan? The President reads prepared statements all the time; he doesn't seem to have a plan.

Re:Wrong poster child (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677697)

Now I don't want to sound like a pompous ass either, but bite me.

Stop being the typical cynical asshole and actually look at whats going on. At least these two are doing something to stand up against the FCC instead of waiting until the FCC turns into the taliban and makes all women dress in full lenght garb.

Don't come crying to me when the Gov takes away your Porn and Live TV.

awwwwwwwww....... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677542)

Ahh, look at the little liberal, questioning his Government. Isn't he cute! I
bet he reads the constitution and drives a volvo and everything. Here, I know,
start talking about tax cuts and let's see if he turns red. Oh look he does!!

No no don't give him any granola bars. That's like cats and milk, everybody
says they like eating it but it just makes them shit.

Re:awwwwwwwww....... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677761)

How fun! Look at the big bad conservative, ignoring the issue, choosing instead to hide behind insults and red herrings!

Netcraft: PBS dieing (4, Insightful)

strictnein (318940) | about 10 years ago | (#9677544)

Talk about a made up controversy. PBS is slowly dieing and now they're trying to get attention.

With the excising of three not-so-little terms -- "s -- ," "f -- " and "blow job,"
Ok, now I'm confused. They're censoring "Fuck", "Shit" and "Blow job". Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now. Really, this whole thing is absolute crap. "Chilling censorship" my ass.

It's also really "surprising" that PBS doesn't like conservatives (who cut their funding again?). And that there's an article in the SF Chronicle about it (strange...). And, this might surprise you, a hollywood actor is also upset about this. This is really a new low for slashdot that'd they post such a ridiculously idiotic article.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (2, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about 10 years ago | (#9677642)

The problem is enforcement. These things used to not be enforced significantly. The degree of enforcement has been enough to literally drive Howard Stern off the airwaves due to costs... it's no trivial thing. Now producers are afraid to even come close to offending the FCC.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677679)

Talk about a made up controversy. PBS is slowly dieing and now they're trying to get attention.

Why not - look what it did for Michael Moore.

G,D&R!

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | about 10 years ago | (#9677730)

Had I any mod points, you'd get most of them (the parent would warrant one or two). You hit a bullseye on that one.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (5, Funny)

LightningBolt! (664763) | about 10 years ago | (#9677802)

>>Talk about a made up controversy.

>Why not - look what it did for Michael Moore.

Yeah, the war in Iraq wasn't at all controversial until Michael Moore came along.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (1)

smclean (521851) | about 10 years ago | (#9677722)

Yeah, I don't really understand the issue either. Since when does PBS broadcast 'fuck' or 'shit'? This is a public television broadcast, the laws prohibiting the use of those words in publicly broadcasted TV have been on the books for god knows how long. As for "Blow Job".. Maybe maybe maybe this is something that PBS didn't want to air because like the article said, they don't have money to fight the FCC. (And if they did, I get the feeling they would censor it anyway). From what I read, I think maybe you are jumping the gun saying that they are blaming the Bush administration, or Republicans/Conservatives. If you read the wording of the article it sounds like Richard Dreyfuss, and his Cop Shop friends are trying to get attention, not PBS.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (2, Interesting)

ElForesto (763160) | about 10 years ago | (#9677735)

Well, that's no secret. I don't like government-supported media at all because of the potential influence they can have in the content.

On another note, the article seems to pretty much be a rehashed press release for PBS. No quotes from the FCC, no attempts to contact the FCC (that were mentioned), no opposing viewpoint at all. The bias is obvious.

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (3, Interesting)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#9677786)

They're censoring "Fuck", "Shit" and "Blow job". Are they saying that they had to remove these words because of he evil Bush government? Those words haven't been "allowed" for many years now.
I heard the word "fuck" on PBS programming several years ago. I don't recall the name of the show, it was some sort of documentary about homelessness or poverty. IIRC, they were interviewing a homeless guy about something when "fuck" slipped through.

A couple of months ago, definitely post-Janet-Nipple, an episode of NYPD Blue used the word "bullshit." This was the hyped up episode which was supposedly going to feature a steamy love scene at the end, where they toned down the love scene, but didn't bother to edit out "bullshit."

Bullshit is right. One quote from the article that gave me a hearty laugh:
"As for the word 'f -- ,' " he said, "I stand with Vice President Cheney, who recently used the word on the Senate floor and who said sometimes you have to use it unapologetically because you feel better afterward."

Re:Netcraft: PBS dieing (4, Insightful)

anim8 (109631) | about 10 years ago | (#9677837)

Clearly, you have not watched PBS for a very long time -- if ever.

PBS programming has never been censored until now. Profanity and nudity were not uncommon in primetime. Frontline, POV and even NOVA would not censor the audio of interviewees. Now and then a BBC drama would have a nipple-peek. No longer.

How long before political dissent is pursued with the same zeal? If Bush-Cheney prevail in November I would guess the answer is sometime in 2005.

But what do you care? As long as you have your cable TV you're fat, dumb and happy, right?

You mean.. (-1, Troll)

maskedbishounen (772174) | about 10 years ago | (#9677546)

..people actually watch PBS?

I mean, other than children?

Yeah for Richard Dreyfuss... (1)

bchernicoff (788760) | about 10 years ago | (#9677565)

...stick to the man!

just so you know (5, Funny)

vingilot (218702) | about 10 years ago | (#9677584)

They wanted to say "Fuck"

Hope that helps.

News For Nerds??? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677602)

What the hell does PBS and their boring shows have to do with 'News For Nerds' here? It seems slashdot has been turing into angry, leftist politics for nerds nowadays.

Anyways, there nothing wrong about the chill here. The PBS runs on a public airwaves for free, the deal being that it broadcasts according to the government's standards. If you or PBS don't like it, take it to cable, because that when you are on public access, you have rules to follow.

This isn't about your rights here, it's slashdot and PBS trying to turn this into a bigger issue than it really is. Everybody has to play by the FCC's rules.

Re:News For Nerds??? (3, Insightful)

26199 (577806) | about 10 years ago | (#9677709)

You seem to be conveniently sidestepping the real issue by pointing out that the FCC is in charge. Well, yes... but that doesn't make them automatically right.

Another Public Broadcasting Landmark Threatened.. (4, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | about 10 years ago | (#9677608)

The upcoming Seasame Street episode brought to you by the letters "F" and "U", and the number "69".

And you should hear Elmo go when you piss him off!

Re:Another Public Broadcasting Landmark Threatened (2, Funny)

mothz (788133) | about 10 years ago | (#9677646)

And you should hear Elmo go when you piss him off!
That's nothing compared to when you piss on him.

Temporary Power? (3, Informative)

fermion (181285) | about 10 years ago | (#9677610)

It is inescapably censorship under guidelines imposed after the fact by those who are in temporary political power

Not if they can help it! The US presidential election, evidently, is optional [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Temporary Power? (4, Insightful)

furball (2853) | about 10 years ago | (#9677742)

The problem is that if they don't plan then we'll just have a comission looking into why they don't plan it. These are emergency plans.

As the article states, elections have been postponed in the past due to terrorist attacks. It's just never done at the federal level because there are no agencies that can do such a thing.

We're talking about laws that'd have to be passed and such.

More censorship from Clear Channel, too (2, Interesting)

nysus (162232) | about 10 years ago | (#9677613)

Yes, and everyone should read this eye-opening article, as well. Sorry, New York Times reg req'd: Antiwar Group Says Its Ad Is Rejected [nytimes.com]

wow (0)

TedCheshireAcad (311748) | about 10 years ago | (#9677615)

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

can't censor your **** on slashdot! or, well, maybe a little ****ing bit. ****ers.

Richard Dreyfuss (3, Funny)

bhsx (458600) | about 10 years ago | (#9677623)

"The FCC chairman is going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you on the ass!"
Thank you, thank you.

Since when is (5, Insightful)

3rdParty (719962) | about 10 years ago | (#9677625)

saying fuck and shit a moral imperitive? Didn't these people know the show was being made for TELEVISION, not movie theaters? Whining that you cannot swear on television in 2004 is kind of behind the game, isn't it? Since when has it been acceptable to say those words on broadcast television?

I have no love for the current administration, but I also am aware that Mr Dreyfuss could probably pay these fines and call it the cost of doing business if he so chose. Since we have the freedom to bitch about our gov't in the US, he has every right to complain, but I don't think he is "in the right."

Re:Since when is (2, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 10 years ago | (#9677746)

Actually, I believe "shit" is now allowed on broadcase (FOX, NBC, etc), so long as it's on after a certain time.

They made a big deal about it last year (or was it 2 years ago). It sort of coincided with "South Park's" "Night of a Miliion Shits" episode, where they would say it a couple of times per scene (and there was a little counter at the bottom of the screen).

I can sort of agree with bleeping it out. Little kids (like 3rd graders) wouldn't really know the significance of it, and would just start using it endlessly. They'd be calling their teachers "FuckHeads" or tell their mom to pass the "Fucking Mashed Potatoes."

But it's not the downfall of society that they're making it out to look like. Parents can install V-Chips, educate their children, or (god forbid) DISCIPLINE them if they use the words.

"un-American" (4, Insightful)

GillBates0 (664202) | about 10 years ago | (#9677627)

Is it just me, or are the terms "all-American" and "un-American" beginning to sound hypocritical and hollow, mostly due to overuse by the beloved administration and media schills?

That seems to be the trend nowadays - label anybody or anything who/which is anti-war, anti-administration or anti-corporation as "unAmerican" and get done with it. It's right up there with the "Axis of Evil" and "Freedom".

Re:"un-American" (0)

Art Tatum (6890) | about 10 years ago | (#9677713)

No, it's just you. Nobody has been labeled as un-American. Nobody. I'm still trying to figure out where the hell people get this idea.

Let me see if I get this straight (3, Insightful)

krem81 (578167) | about 10 years ago | (#9677630)

A show that's broadcast over the air is being censored by its corporate distributor (in this case PBS) in order to avoid the imminent fines by the FCC (either that or to maintain its wholesome image), and somehow it's the fault of the big bad Bush administration? This has "publicity stunt" written all over it.

Re:Let me see if I get this straight (1)

lateralus_1024 (583730) | about 10 years ago | (#9677749)

Yes. That is correct. It's the war on values.

Re:Let me see if I get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677819)

There have been direct threats to public television stations by viewers to report them to the FCC based on content recently.

So you have little community stations now afraid of facing fines that are a good percentage of their total yearly budget.

The pressure has been pushed upstream to PBS (which is, after all, a membership organization of public television stations) as well as other public television content distributors.

Two Appropriate Quotes (5, Insightful)

riptide_dot (759229) | about 10 years ago | (#9677644)

I can't help but think of two very good quotes I've used in the past when arguing against censorship:

Censorship, like charity, should begin at home: but unlike charity, it should end there. - Claire Booth Luce

To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves. - Claude Adrien Helvetius

Re:Two Appropriate Quotes (2, Insightful)

krem81 (578167) | about 10 years ago | (#9677777)

Only, in this case, the quotes are inapplicable. You see, the reason the shows are being censored is not the content, but the means of broadcast. The airwaves belong to the public, and as such are subject to public decency standards. They could've chosen to broadcast the show on cable, but they aimed for a larger target audience (which, ironically, is doubtful, since this is PBS we're talking about); therefore the producers have to suffer the consequences of broadcasting over the air.

And so it begins.... (3, Funny)

Giant Ape Skeleton (638834) | about 10 years ago | (#9677665)

The Great Network TV Profanity Drought of 2004.

Thank goodness for cable!

Re:And so it begins.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677835)

FUCK YOU!! ... just doing my part...

How to Fix this (2, Interesting)

VonGuard (39260) | about 10 years ago | (#9677666)

Well, not really a fix....

BROADCAST EVERYTHING ONLINE! There's no censorship in these here hills.

Abandon your televisions, throw away your radios! Head to the hills, and bring your yagi!

Television needs to die. Corporate radio needs to die. These FCC rulings are just going to make that happen faster.

Blame Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677672)

Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling

I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.

You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue

Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'

I fancy myself
A brilliant tactician
But neither me nor m'buddies
Could even pass basic trainin'

See, I'm above all that
A fightin' and shootin'
I just say "Sic em!"
Then run the other direction

Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears!

I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice

'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow

Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts

Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!

Who gave the GOP mod points? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677756)

I dont know why the above post was modded down, but it is an absoutely brilliant political message. It is absolutely true and you cannot deny it. I guess political censorship is the norm on Slashdot, which is rather ironic because Republicans were the ones reponsible for starting this censorship mess in the first place.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... (3, Funny)

billmaly (212308) | about 10 years ago | (#9677677)

This is all Janet Jackson's fault. Thanks Miss Jackson, Janet cuz you not nasty, for ruining the show for all of us with the gratuitous display of your breast that no one really wanted to see in the first place. You, madam, touched off this mess, and it was so necessary. You provided fuel to the Christian right's fire, and for that, I'll....well.....I guess I'll never listen to Rhythm Nation again, so TAKE THAT you hussy!!!

Fictive Learning (3, Insightful)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | about 10 years ago | (#9677686)

So Dick Cheyney's half-thought, irrational, emotional outburts are fine for public coverage yet the use of the same expletives for a well-considered, precisely-scripted, time-consumingly produced fictional presentation are NOT acceptable is absurd.

Fiction is the ideal place to expose new ideas that aren't taught in school (profanity, sex, violence). Simply declaring that all bad words are "bleeped" and all nudity is blocked is doing a severe disservice to the (yes, real) humans watching television.

Re:Fictive Learning (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 10 years ago | (#9677791)

Cheney's outburst was neither half-thought or irrational; Patrick Leahy has deserved that "fuck you" for a long time now. He's a dick, and I'm glad the veep did it.

Emotional, yeah, sure.

But it was NOT broadcast on television. As much as I admire Richard Dryfuss, he's full of shit. This isn't censorship. Thankfully, most people seem to be recognizing that, and are calling him on it.

Comedic (2, Insightful)

mratitude (782540) | about 10 years ago | (#9677688)

It isn't an accident that Richard Dreyfuss sounds so knowledgable on efforts to censor so-called free speech; Hollywood has had years of practise in generating social/political spin all the while most Hollywood types have the blood-spitting fits when confronted with views on which they disagree.

Otherwise, this reads like a publicity stunt. No one watches PBS all that much.

No one watches PBS that much... (1)

MacBorg (740087) | about 10 years ago | (#9677787)

Bullshit. I do. ...Then again, the only channel I get is WGBH

Re:Comedic (1)

Enry (630) | about 10 years ago | (#9677797)

No one watches PBS all that much.

And Howard Stern's not funny, Michael Moore is fat, and you're a moron.

Such comments have nothing to do with the substance of the complaint.

Couldn't they... (1, Funny)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | about 10 years ago | (#9677703)

Just get the 3 people who watch PBS to sign a waiver or something?

gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677711)

BBC reporting about Dick Cheney (5, Informative)

tetranz (446973) | about 10 years ago | (#9677723)

Why is that the BBC [bbc.co.uk] can get away with accurately reporting what the Vice President said on the Senate floor while american news sources had to keep us guessing with abbreviations?

They Came For The Hackneyed Plots (2, Funny)

Hrolf (564645) | about 10 years ago | (#9677728)

What a loss to the world, that Yet Another Cop Show That Contrives Controversy For Ratings (YACSTCCFR) will be censored. Why didn't they step in years ago and save us from Dennis Franz's ass?

PBS needs a refresher course in ethics (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677740)

PBS has been feeding at the Government trough for years. They have been grabbing at taxpayer dollars like there is no tomorrow.

The ethical course would be for PBS to eschew all government funding. Let PBS use their own dime, present programming the way they wish, and let the chips fall where they may.

Beggars can't be choosers. If I give my kids some spending money, I want some influence on how they spend it. If my son comes home with a copy of Hustler, he is going to be defunded.

Good to be the Veep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677755)

Of course as long as you're part of the Bush administration, you can swear [guardian.co.uk] all you want. As long as it's at a democratic.

over at CNN (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | about 10 years ago | (#9677789)

"The new FCC regulations represent an unacceptable assault on our First Amendment rights, on everyone's First Amendment rights, an act unworthy of a free country, an act of censorship," Black told the critics. To underscore the irony of the required bleeping, Black added: "As for the word 'f---,' I stand with Vice President (Dick) Cheney, who recently used the word on the Senate floor and who said sometimes you have to use it unapologetically because it makes you feel better afterwards."

Found here [cnn.com] .

That's not the PBS I grew up with. (1)

norminator (784674) | about 10 years ago | (#9677804)

I thought PBS was all about education for young and old. My 2 year old daughter loves Sesame Street, and I hate to think of an innocent kids' show and a vulgar cop show on the same channel. There should be limits to what can be censored, but if enforcing people's freedoms means trampling on the freedoms of others, then we have to pick and choose. I don't walk around naked all day, because I know a lot of people don't want to see it (I am a Slashdotter, after all). If Richard Dreyfus wants a TV show where he can drop the F-bomb, he can join the cast of the Sopranos (and I hope he gets whacked). Don't do a show on a network that has largely been associated with children's programming and education if the show doesn't fit in with that.

Shit, Fuck, and Blow Job... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 10 years ago | (#9677816)

If the story can not be told without these three words, it's probibly not a good drama anyway. Honestly, these three words make the drama??? Please.

If you must have your profanity, here ya go: Shit, fuck, blow job.

Sounds like my kind of day!

Janet Jackson redux (1)

msblack (191749) | about 10 years ago | (#9677821)

Did anyone else catch the cover photo to the Business Section of this July 12 article [latimes.com] [no photo on website] in the Los Angeles Times [latimes.com] ? It looks as though part of Keira Knightly's breast nipple is showing through her rediculous costume.

Maybe I'm confused... (1)

rewt66 (738525) | about 10 years ago | (#9677823)

What's PBS doing airing something that needs bleeped anyway? That sure isn't my image of PBS.

You can argue about the FCC standards, about whether they should be what they are. (Remember, though, that just because you consider the standards laughable doesn't mean the rest of the country agrees with you.) But let that go for now. There's another issue here.

If I don't like what's aired on the Playboy channel, you might say, "Don't watch it." But if it's aired on PBS, I'm paying for it. So if this show offends my standards, what are my options? Refuse to pay for it? That equates to either "leave the USA" or "go to jail". Nice set of options you give me...

My point is that standards should be more stringently applied to PBS than to other broadcasters, because if someone doesn't like what is aired, "don't watch it" doesn't address the whole problem.

Get the debate straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677829)

It is perfectly fine to censor obscene material. There is nothing "chilling" about doing things like preventing hard core pornography from being sent over the airwaves during prime time. Given that this is true, the only real debate is whether or not a particular broadcast is indecent or not. Furthermore, the "slippery slope" people are fond of complaining about has been slipping toward more sex, more violence, and more foul language for the last forty years. The fact that PBS was even contemplating airing "fuck" on television is the most startling revelation of all. If censorship is really a problem, I fail to see it.

Sad to see PBS go the Cop Show route. (3, Insightful)

Deacon Jones (572246) | about 10 years ago | (#9677843)

Slightly off-topic, as I am saddened more by PBS seeking to go with modern trends than PBS not being able to use the F-word.

Like many here, I spent my time with Sesame Street and Electric Company, and then of course Monty Python, Nova, Sagan's Cosmos, Dr. Who, and many more.

These days Nova is like "Science For Dummies", and PBS has its own versions of Reality Shows. Thank god for Red Green reruns combined with British Comedy reruns. The occaisional Nature show is still allright, but its getting more and more where I can't tell where the music video stops and the science is supposed to begin. Even that miniseries on String Theory started out good and then petered out.

Now we top it off with the need for "gritty" cop shows that use realistically foul language.

To me the decline of PBS is a much more sad affair then whether or not the FCC will let them curse.

Who pays for this? (4, Insightful)

sonsonete (473442) | about 10 years ago | (#9677844)

Let me get this straight:

A government-funded station is currenctly experienceing a chilling effect because government regulations that have been in place for years prevent said government-funded station from broadcasting certain words over airwaves allocated to it by the government.

Egads!

Someone has to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9677847)

Shit, Fuck, Piss, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...