Beta
×

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!

FCC Indecency Ruling Struck Down

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the mebbe-everybody-should-calm-down dept.

Television 548

arbitraryaardvark writes "Reuters reports that the 2nd circuit has struck down the FCC's recent ruling on indecency, in a case brought by Fox. The court said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was 'arbitrary and capricious' in setting a new standard for defining indecency. 'Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience ... If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.' No word yet on whether the agency will appeal.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But Wait... (3, Insightful)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395835)

I thought fox was a republican lapdog?

Re:But Wait... (2, Funny)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395879)

Didn't you see the recent Simpsons episode? The main Fox channel funnels money through FCC fines to the republican party who supports the news channel?

Wait.... I think I just goofed that up. I was never good at conspiracy theories.

Re:But Wait... (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395903)

They explained this on the simpsons when trying to figure out why Fox News is so anti liberal while Fox airs Family Guy and other non-conservative shows.

Essentially, they said that the FCC fines Fox and that money goes into republican coffers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFtsfDjOGjs [youtube.com] - watch that.

Re:But Wait... (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395943)

That's Fox News.

Re:But Wait... (1)

hwyengr (839340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396065)

They are. But, given that they are a corporation, they want to be able to carry live events without fear of being fined upwards of $300,000 per utterance of 'fleeting expletives'. That cuts into their bottom line and has nothing to do with protecting speech.

The FCC missed the point -- as usual (5, Insightful)

Xesdeeni (308293) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396367)

Hey Kevin Martin! It's not that the FCC can't stop swear words from primetime TV, it's that the FCC has to define what constitutes a swear word (here's the hard part) BEFORE they can slap a fine on a TV station. You can't be intentionally vague with the definition of indecency and then come down hard (to the tune of millions of $$$) on the TV stations who have no idea where the line is drawn.

Kevin buddy, write down what indecency is, and everyone will comply. It's a neat idea...give it a try.

Xesdeeni

So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet? (5, Funny)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395855)

How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (1)

slothbait (2922) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395907)

fatck => fact?

Also:
Holy Fucking Macedionian Shit Balls
Dongs Butts Dongs Dongs Dongs

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (5, Funny)

uolamer (957159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395913)

I think it would sound something like F at chik or.. fatchick?

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (2, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395915)

How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?

I believe it's pronounced as FSHIFT2CK!

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (1)

Heian-794 (834234) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396035)

How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?

I believe it's pronounced as FSHIFT2CK!

I have one of those horrible JIS keyboards where @ gets its own key (to the right of the P) but you have to use shift to get the quote marks (' and ").

On these things, I can only surmise that it's pronounced as spelled: "FATCK".

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396283)

With those pronounciation rules, I sense a certain irony in the pronounciation of FCC.

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396211)

"eff at ck"

This is really, really fucking brilliant! (1)

renesch (1016465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395857)

isn't it

Re:This is really, really fucking brilliant! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395917)

No, it never should of even gotten that far.

Freedom of Speech? (5, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395869)

"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"

If I'm not mistaken, thats the whole idea of freedom of speech right?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1, Flamebait)

T_ConX (783573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395981)

Yes, but as our BELOVED, UNFALLIBLE, DIVINELY CHOSEN LEADER, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH so wonderfully pointed out:

'There ought to be limits to freedom.'

I hope you potty-mouths have fun in Gitmo!

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396405)

I know that you must really hate the man, and I'd hate to detract from a good healthy visceral hatred, but Bush came along 65 years after the creation of the FCC. "Shit" and "fuck" have been banished from the airwaves for a very long time.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0, Offtopic)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396005)

Shhh! Don't spoil the fascist's fun. Next you'll be telling him it's wrong to burn books for having 'dirty' pictures in them! Then we might as well be in Moscow with the commies! Oops! Sorry, wrong witchhunt, this is 2007 not 1967. Then we might as well be in Iran with all the islamic terrorists!

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396067)

islamic terrorists is so 2002. Now it's all about islamofacism.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396087)

Indeed -- unless you have something to gain by making government bigger. There's a reason why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people -- and it's not becauase making government bigger is unprofitable for those in the business of government.

Of course, I'm one of those radicals who actually wants to take responsibility for his own actions -- I take the time and effort to actually raise my kids myself. But in the end, my opinion doesn't count, because I'm not part of the apparent majority who believes in employing coercion (governement) as the solution to just about any coinceivable "problem".

Re:Freedom of Speech? (4, Insightful)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396437)

Where do you get your data from?

The sweeping executive powers of FDR dwarf anything fathomed by the current administration, and don't forget the massively high (at times around 1/3) portion of the GDP that was accounted for by government spending at points in the past. Not to mention the times when the top bracket income taxes were above 70%. Are you blaming Bush for the higher government revenue realized despite lower taxes?

If you want to bash Bush, fine. But don't do it for things that the progressive heroes of the past were far more guilty of.

Why don't you and the other slashbots stop being such drama queens?

Re:Freedom of Speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396141)

I'm afraid that definition of freedom of speech is obsolete. Freedom of speech today is to say what you're allowed to when you're allowed to, but only if your really have to.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396161)

Besides, they're not being forced to air the show with the offending speech. if they don't feel it should be aired, then don't put it on the air or change the schedule, but DON'T CENSOR IT. I hate TNT and its stupid bits of silence in movies when someone swears.

Re:Freedom of Speech? (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396237)

Bad example. TNT's a cable network and, as such, not subject to FCC rules. They can say anything they want, just like Comedy Central does. Of course, this doesn't counter your complaint against TNT but strengthens it. TNT is a bunch of cocksuckers for making movies unwatchable for no real reason.

Okay? (0)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395873)

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

Other than the fact that Hollywood tends to pander to the far left, I can't, for the life of me, imagine why this is a Bad Thing <TM>.

No, you're wrong. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395929)

Re:No, you're wrong. (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396135)

I didn't say they didn't pander to the right as well. But, normally, then tend to lean farther left.

Re:No, you're wrong. (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396255)

Not really, it's more like they lean less right.

Re:No, you're wrong. (0)

Qstyk (73565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396453)

You must not watch/read the news very much. The original poster was referring to Hollywood in general. If you sum up that facet as a whole and think they're anything less than way left, you need to get out more.

Re:Okay? (1)

qazsedcft (911254) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395971)

Other than the fact that Hollywood tends to pander to the far left, I can't, for the life of me, imagine why this is a Bad Thing .

Far left? You Americans have really fucked up politics.

Re:Okay? (1)

CrashPoint (564165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396287)

Every country has really fucked up politics. Ours are just more visible at the moment.

Re:Okay? (1)

Neo_piper (798916) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396145)

Don't you know?
In the "New Millennium" Free Speech isn't just A Bad Thing (TM) It's The Bad Thing (TM)

The short version (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395875)

Supreme Court to FCC: "Fuck off"

Actually, one of the most amusing parts of the ruling was the court citing the fact that the words can't be that bad if George W Bush and Dick Cheney use them (to Tony Blair and Patrick Leahy respectively).

Re:The short version (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395925)

Except it was the appeals court. If the FCC appeals, this will have to the Supremes I think?

This is a good thing anyways. It's been documented that the FCC is pandering to a very vocal minority of ultra-conservative special interest groups in recent years.

Re:The short version (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396015)

The Supreme Court also ruled in 1978 that one can't say those words on TV in FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation [wikipedia.org] . Yes, different court, etc.

Re:The short version (4, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396105)

Using Bush's and Cheney's personal behavior as justification for anything is setting a dangerous president.

F@ck (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395877)

What the fack is facking fack?

Re:F@ck (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395975)

Every freakin' fr@k knows what friggin' fr@k means... dadgummit!!

Other indecent comments possibly covered (0)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395889)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Major combat operations in Iraq are now over.

"KITT, scan the inside of the building."

Anything Rosie O'Donnell says.

Re:Other indecent comments possibly covered (1)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396241)

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
"Major combat operations in Iraq are now over."
Yea, but now we can say them like this:

"I did not fuck that woman."
"We are done fucking up Iraq."

Fleeting use... (5, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395897)

What he's leaving out is that the case was over the "fleeting" use of such words, such as during live events when something accidentally slips through. If a pre-recorded show has the words in there and it is deliberately broadcasted, the indecency rules still apply.

The problem is that currently, the FCC sometimes enforces the standard of "fleeting use," and sometimes it doesn't. The courts are just saying that it needs to be standardized and rationally applied.

Re:Fleeting use... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396059)

And here I thought fleeting use had to do with the Navy...

It doesn't just have to be a word either. Remember the flap over Janet Jackson's "fleeting glimpse"?

Re:Fleeting use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396433)

Use of these words in the Navy is anything but fleeting.

Re:Fleeting use... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396347)

Its a step in the right fucking direction though.

Censorship is good? (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395899)

"If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.


Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Why would censorship be considered de-facto beneficial?

Re:Censorship is good? (2, Insightful)

gadders (73754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396019)

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".

Re:Censorship is good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396091)

Make fuck not war? :P

Re:Censorship is good? (3, Insightful)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396117)

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".


So, public communication should be limited by government fiat to that which is acceptable for a two year old?

Re:Censorship is good? (2, Insightful)

Jimmy King (828214) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396183)

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".
Are you arguing that censorship to protect the children IS a good thing?

While I tend to believe that the first amendment is more to protect our right to express any IDEA we want rather than say any specific word we want at any time, I still think that the FCC limiting this shit is stupid.

Here's a better idea.
Parent: "Little Bobby, that show/movie/whatever is inappropriate, let's watch this instead." Then change the channel.

or perhaps
Parent: "Little Bobby, I know they say those words on TV but those are actual bad things to say and some people find them very offensive. You shouldn't say those words."

You know, kind of like how parents are supposed to raise their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong.

Re:Censorship is good? (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396393)

Perhaps that 2 year old's parents should do their fucking job and fucking monitor what the fucking kid watches instead of putting them in front of the fucking television and walking away. Or perhaps people can grow the fuck up and realize that fuck is just a fucking word and it isn't going to hurt anyone unless the fuckers let it hurt themselves.

Re:Censorship is good? (4, Funny)

profplump (309017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396097)

No, no, no. You're forgetting that the fleeting use of "obscenities" actually physically harms children under 12. Too much exposure and their eardrums will literally melt. And while their eardrums will eventually grow back, the buildup of melted eardrum material will cause long-term hearing loss if left untreated.

Re:Censorship is good? (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396247)

No, no, no. You're forgetting that the fleeting use of "obscenities" actually physically harms children under 12. Too much exposure and their eardrums will literally melt. And while their eardrums will eventually grow back, the buildup of melted eardrum material will cause long-term hearing loss if left untreated.


BUWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yes, I'd forgotten that naughty words cause little heads to asplode. Silly me.

Re:Censorship is good? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396421)

Fuck, someone should have locked my mother up for child abuse then. She would often say "Fuck that's fucking fucked."

How hypocritical (0, Flamebait)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395927)

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience
Yeah and I wonder how many times you have said shit and fuck in the presence of your children Mr. Chairman. If your like any other dad in America, Im SURE it was more than the one "utterance" which the FCC decided to reverse it's ruling on to help out Heir Bush's decency campaign.

Re:How hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396415)

I'm a father, and I've never said either of the words in question in front of my children. In fact, I've never said either one at all. Why would you assume everyone does? I also agree that neither of these words belongs on broadcast radio or TV. You're still free to pay to satisfy your burning need to hear these words spoken on satellite radio or cable TV.

Poor Guy. (1)

cliffiecee (136220) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395935)

Damn, two years too late for Charles Rocket.

(If you know who he is you are *OLD*)

Re:Poor Guy. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396101)

He'll always be Ned Grossberg to me. Now g-g-get off my lawn!

Parents: (5, Insightful)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395965)

You remember that little warning at the beginning of the show? This show contains coarse language, sexual content, and violence? Yeah, that means don't let your kids watch it. That wasn't too difficult I hope!

Re:Parents: (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396017)

Except the parents are not in the room to see the warning, as they are not policing what their kids watch on TV. My 8-year-old was bugged the other day because I wouldn't let him watch Stephen King's "The Stand" or Cops. We use the parental controls on our cable box to keep them locked out of things they don't need to watch, and to keep the cable off when they get home from school so they'll be able to do their homework. Now if I could just hook up the X-box the same way...

Re:Parents: (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396359)

Well, it was kind of my point that parents should be doing. If a parent cares about what their children see, they should be going at lengths to find out what the show is like, sit down and watch it with them or something. Cartoons, generally not a problem, although that really depends on what you want your kid to watch. But really, regulations shouldn't be in place solely to do a parent's job. Parental controls are a great idea. This way, you aren't leaving up to other people to decide what it is your kids can and can't watch. Perhaps there should be better parental controls, kind of like a per-show basis, and have some kind of basic summary/rating to help you decide if you are unsure. I think thats a much better idea rather than restrictions and censorship.

Re:Parents: (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396389)

Get an XBOX 360 and you can set Family Settings to restrict that stuff (I don't know if it actually has time lockouts but it certainly has content lockouts)

Re:Parents: (1)

teh_commodore (1099079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396049)

How can you put that little warning before a live broadcast? Just put it before every live broadcast imaginable? However, a little blurb at the beginning about how it's a live event and things happen blah blah would be a decent idea.

Re:Parents: (1)

enjerth (892959) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396221)

How about noting the "Live" caption on the upper left or upper right of the screen?

Re:Parents: (4, Insightful)

Gorm the DBA (581373) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396313)

How's about parents understand that during events which are important and emotional enough to be broadcast "live", you realize that people may, maybe, just maybe, get excited and emotional enough as a result of something that their internal censors may temporarily shut off and unpleasant words may occur.

It's called life. The only reason "Fuck" is cool to say is because it gets such a huge reaction. If it was treated like any other word, say hemmoroid perhaps, then it wouldn't be used nearly as often.

Watch TV with your kid, or ensure it's turned off. It's called parenting, and it's been fairly effective for about 3,000,000 years. It's only been ineffective for the last 20 or so.

Re:Parents: (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396431)

Mod parent up. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

foretold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19395979)

everything is permissible. no morality, only illusion. you are smarter than those fools. just do as thou wilt. you are special. those petty supernatural myths that the lemmings fear can never affect YOU. you play by different rules. on your own terms. you create your own reality. you are master of your domain. you transcend.

lies in the endtimes, enjoy

Sticks and Stones (4, Insightful)

moehoward (668736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395983)


They are only words. Banning words is what gives the words power. My wife and I allow have told our kids that they are allowed to "cuss" around their friends and we don't have a problem with it. We'd like them to not cuss around us, but it is not "banned." We have asked that they not cuss around other adults, but it is not "banned." It is their own choice.

Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are. I don't have a problem with using those words, but I choose not to (except when one-on-one with my wife... go figure). I am 100% sure that my kids have never heard me use profanity, but I am 100% sure that they hear it every day in other places. I have no problem with others using profanity at all. Sometimes it is funny, mostly it says an awful lot about the person using it. It is just words.

Anyway, we have never heard any cussing from our kids and have never heard any comments from other parents/teachers.

Re:Sticks and Stones (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396127)

When used properly, the words provide a sign of how emotionally involved one is with one's speech. It provides an extra cue to mood. The problem is when you overuse your anglo-saxon monosyllables, depriving them of their indicative value.

disgraceful (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395985)

Look how he describes it not as a federal court, but as a "New York court" in order to exploit the biases of the rest of the country.

Re:disgraceful (1)

monomania (595068) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396383)

And of course, you remember the Pilot episode of Aaron Sorkin's "The West Wing" where "New York" (as an adjective) was christian conservative code for "Jewish" and an index of a character's anti-semitism.

I've got an idea (1)

RickOfTheHillPeople (1110353) | more than 7 years ago | (#19395989)

Let's arbitrarily pick out some words and make them taboo! We can waste lots of time punishing children for saying them (while ironically preaching the good old "sticks and stones" line) AND we can waste oodles of hard-earned taxpayer cash on legislation and enforcement! This is great!

Re:I've got an idea (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396037)

Well, we're working on "amnesty"...

rj

God forbid... (4, Insightful)

OfficialReverendStev (988479) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396021)

God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.

Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)

Re:God forbid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396277)

You should try to get rid of some of that self-hatred. Its gotten so bad that you're projecting it onto other things.

drastic oversight in this article... (1)

john187 (32291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396023)

This ruling applies to live event coverage where the broadcaster does not control the content. Pre-programmed material will continue to be subject to the same draconian and childish FCC rules as before.

This is no victory for free speech or free thought.

Re:drastic oversight in this article... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396131)

This ruling applies to live event coverage where the broadcaster does not control the content.
So if, for example, Dick Cheney blurts out "fuck" on CSPAN, that's OK?

Two small victories in one day. (4, Insightful)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396055)

Today's starting off pretty well--first the RIAA gets a small smackdown, and now this. It would be nice to live in a country where parents are actually expected to make decisions for themselves about what their kids watch. As a previous poster stated, we already have the annoying warnings about the content of upcoming programs--that means that if you don't want your kids absorbing and regurgitating TV filth, then don't let them watch it.

Hmmm... (1)

mstahl (701501) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396073)

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

Isn't that why we've got that first amendment there?

Bowdlerization (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396075)

Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television...

No, he mentioned the words shit and fuck (see the article). It's ironic that someone felt the need to alter the (highly relevant) quotation in this supposedly uncensored medium.

Re:Bowdlerization (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396305)

Unfortunately, some net filters will kill your net access if it detects $X number of "offensive" words or terms. The person was likely just trying to save others the trouble of being told "no no bad monkey" by any net filters they may have in the office, on campus, at the library, etc.

Re:Bowdlerization (1)

flonker (526111) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396353)

Perhaps they're censored so that people who browse slashdot through a web filter will be able to see the front page? Either that, or it's to protect all of the little children that read slashdot.

Court to rule on /. ? (1)

draevil (598113) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396085)

So apparently a court thinks that the FCC can not arbitrarily define indecency, but /. submitters are self-censoring f@ckers ;)

the moneyquote not from that article (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396089)

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the court cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.

If President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/n ation/stories/060507dnnatdecency.388fcfc.html [dallasnews.com]

What's latin for "pwned?"

Arbitrary & Capricious (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396137)

From a Seinfeld episode
---
Kramer: Well, I have to say this seems capricious and arbitrary.
Dean Jones: You fly is open.
---

Oblig. Simpson's quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396165)

Lisa Simpson: How can Fox News be so conservative when the Fox Network keeps airing raunchy shows? They don't fit together.

Kent Brockman: Fox deliberately runs shows that will earn them huge fines they can then funnel through the FCC straight to the Republican Party. Everybody in the media knows it but no one has the guts to say it.


It seems like everything in life has been covered in a Simpson's episode, hasn't it?

Freedom of Speech (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396179)

"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want"

Isn't this one of the greatest freedoms we Americans have? Freedom of Speech? I can understand the concept of "indecent" and around kids agree, but not at the expense of censorship. It's up to parents to take care of their kids. If a show is kinda raunchy then don't allow your kids to watch it, if it's not in your personal beliefs. But don't limit people who want to express or see this form of expression.

I think we spend too much time and money in this country trying to make everyone happy and remove responsibility from those who are supposed to be in charge.

Just my $0.02

Here's the line that "gets me." (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396181)

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.'
OMFG! We should be able to say anything we want, whenever we want!!! I'm against the over-use of offensive slang, but I'm not against the use of it. People really SHOULD be proud of their vocabulary strength. But more, still, people should be allowed to discriminate against others on an individual basis for the language they use giving more social level influence over what's acceptable and what's not. Putting control in the hands of a regulatory body and/or law makers is just ridiculous in my opinion.

Exactly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396235)

If these words are in our dictionaries and everyday lexicon they can't be deemed offensive, I've been told to fuck off a couple of times already this week. I'm more offended that a minority see fit to impose their bullshit moral standards on me.

good... (1)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396213)

let them put whatever they want on television. if you don't like what they're showing, get off the couch and do something else.

Re:good... (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396323)

I should have a right to expect a standard during primetime when my children are near the TV. After hours, they can do what they want but a standard needs to be in place when children are around.

Hypocrits (1)

Davemania (580154) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396271)

Let me get this, even though this is more about government censorship and a rather trivial issue at best, the republican are crying foul but by their own free market approach this would be the logical outcome, the industry would regulate themselves yielding the optimal result. How about if they focus their faux moral outrage at more important issues such as the health care or the environment.

Speaking of cusswords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396285)

I know there is this big push by certain people to stop the overall use of the "N word." I say, we change the definition of the "N word," or more correctly, we use it as it was originally intended, to describe a lazy person. The "N word" has nothing to do with race or color, but strictly with laziness. For example: It's about time for all of us niggers to get back to work.

Slippery Slope to Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396299)

"If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.

Tech has made FCC irrelevant (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396311)

The wide array of choice enabled by technology has made the FCC irrelevant. My kids watch a few cable channels and DVDs. It is all geared for kids. The channels I let my kid watch self select into programming that does not contain profanity because they know that is a factor in the purchase factor I make on behalf of my kids. So, you see, good old fashioned free market economics has provided a safe haven for kids. FCC? Who needs them!

of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396319)

"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want"
Because in Nazi Bushland, speaking 'bad words' is immoral and should get you the gas chamber, you filthy, godless, entertainment-providing bastards.[/sarcasm]

If I concentrate on my hate hard enough, will "Republican FCC Chairman" Kevin Martin fall over dead? Because I'd be willing to try...

Why are words bad? (4, Insightful)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396337)

I've never understood why you can watch someone get shot in a drama in prime time, someone could say something like "I'd like to put a fork into your eyeball" in prime time, yet a single word like the F-Bomb can't be said?

What is the actual purpose of "bad" words? Why not just consider that bad words don't exist and everyone can say any word they want and we just not "have a cow" over it?

Seems to me we're taught to take exception to the words. It's a learned behavior. How about just not learning it in the 1st place?

And the problem is... (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396351)

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.

*WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.

( 7, 5 and 3 year old girls )

A Worthless Shill for the Fascists did speak: (3, Informative)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 7 years ago | (#19396371)

"hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience ... If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"

And since this is a "free country" you will have every right and opportunity to NOT WATCH the television. You and your children can do something like READ A BOOK, or GO FOR A WALK, or LEARN TO PLAY AN INSTRUMENT, or any number of perfectly useful activities that do not include glotzing some retarded screen full of disinformation and jejune entertainment that reinforces a false consciousness that convinces people to act and live in a way that fosters the parasitic tapeworm economy.

Feh.

RS

But does it run "f@cking" Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19396445)

"Intercourse the penguin!"
</Monty Python>
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?