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!

Senate Committee Passes FCC Indecency Bill

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the they-thought-of-the-children dept.

Censorship 507

An anonymous reader writes "US Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for slip of the tongue expletives, negating a ruling by federal appeals court in New York that commission's policy on 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious. 'A mandate by Congress that a "fleeting expletive" can now be found indecent will create a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech, the advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology claims. CDT points out that prior to this bill and the FCC's policy change, the FCC exercised discretion in determining which utterances were indecent, and consistently found that one-time uses of curse words were not indecent.'"

cancel ×

507 comments

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

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927037)

Shit.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927455)

"This is really, really fucking brilliant." (Unfortunately not meant in the same spirit as the original utterer used it.)

The evil CDT (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927055)

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

Re:The evil CDT (4, Insightful)

fishthegeek (943099) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927185)

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Re:The evil CDT (5, Insightful)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927291)

but why do people have so much more of a problem with words like "fuck"? why should that be considered any different than "go to hell"?

perhaps it's because we dont use these words casually that they have so much more of an effect, and if we stopped giving them special emotional status the problem would resolve itself.

Re:The evil CDT (3, Funny)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927299)

And that's where the parental duty of discipline comes in. Never underestimate the corrective powers of a sock full of quarters.

Re:The evil CDT (2, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927347)

Where the hell am I going to get enough quarters to fill a sock?

Re:The evil CDT (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927511)

You can substitute pennies in a pinch.

Re:The evil CDT (4, Insightful)

wbattestilli (218782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927315)

Thank god that my seven year old will only hear cursing from N sources rather than N+1. Once we get people to behave and clean up the internet everything should be ok.

Re:The evil CDT (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927323)

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.


See, it's not the inappropriate words that are the problem, it's the inappropriate behaviour. There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'. Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s.

Re:The evil CDT (2, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927525)

There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'.
Yeah, sure. There's no difference between telling someone to 'go away' and 'go stick your finger in your vagina'. Absolutely none.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

corifornia (995298) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927585)

True that. When I was a kid I could say whatever I wanted. I could scream 'fuck you' at a video game or tell my parents that the dog tried to fuck the cat. But the one time I told my dad to 'fuck off' he tipped over a large wooden computer desk/hutch on me. I was almost bisected, but I learned my lesson.

Re:The evil CDT (3, Insightful)

manowar821 (986185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927349)

Oh stop it.

That has very little to do with television, as shitty and monotonous as it is. The fault is squarely on the parents for not realizing their kid is acting like a douche-bag, and punishing him/her accordingly. Hell, it's probably something you enabled!

Oh but I forgot, in this day and age, we blame everyone but ourselves, right? DISCIPLINE YOUR KID AND STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.

Stupid parents, I swear, 75% - 85% of them are complete failures as role models.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927485)

STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.

Do they not offer cable in your neighborhood? Are satellite signals jammed where you live? How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves. You'll have your channels, leave mine alone!

Re:The evil CDT (2, Insightful)

Darby (84953) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927601)

How about you let ME worry about my kids and stop trying to fuck up the public airwaves.

Except, you ignorant cunt, you're the one who is *not* dealing with you own fucking mewling brats and therefore are trying to fuck up the public airwaves as opposed to dealing with your own problems.

Don't even fucking try to play that Orwellian bullshit role reversal.

You had the kids, you fucking deal with them. The TV turns off and if you're really that concerned about dirty words then your problems are legion and will not be solved by merely giving massively overreaching powers to yet another fucked up nanny state government agency.

You go and be a parent and quit expecting the TV to do it for you. Don't deny that that is exactly what you are doing, becasue if you weren't, then this couldn't possibly be an issue.

You should have taken care to grow up yourself before having kids you weak willed, cowardly, nanny state fuck.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927355)

But what if the teacher really deserves it?

Seriously, I have children, and I don't really mind if they say 'fuck', or whatever. The words themselves aren't evil. I do try to teach them that there is a time and a place for it, and that they have to use good judgement about how using vulgar language affects other people's perception of them. That, to me, is the main issue with so-called profanity.

And yes, I understand that the younger they are, the harder it is for them to make those distinctions. I do deal with my 8yo differently than I do my 16yo. But the underlying principles remain the same.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927367)

You know where I learned the word "fuck?" In a church. I was second grade, which would place me about seven years old.

Guess what - I never told a teacher to fuck off or started cursing in a Wal-Mart.

I'd expect that a seven year old can figure out what times are appropriate to use curse words (e.g., when trying to tick off your parents) and what times are not (e.g., when trying to act polite).

Censoring television isn't going to help anything. What type of TV are you planning on watching with your seven year old child that contains the word "fuck" anyway? Shows aimed at children aren't going to start containing characters who curse like sailors just because they can.

There are plenty of other places to learn curse words. Like on the school bus, from older students who think that teaching elementary school students to say "fuck" is just hilarious.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927389)

The more forbidden "bad" words are, the more powerful they become. Shouting "INTERCOURSE!" just doesn't quite have the same effect. If cursing wasn't frowned upon, no-one would bother.

Re:The evil CDT (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927399)

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

I know a kid who has been allowed to cuss at home since he was like six. He's never had a public cussing problem because he was explicitly taught by his mother when it is and is not appropriate, and the instruction was approached from a position of respect and reason, and above all responsibility, rather than by treating the child like a slave and instructing them as to what they will do (from my own experience I can tell you that the "orders" approach is very hit and miss. certainly it did not work at all on me.)

This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you! Most parents swear inappropriately and so their children learn to do so as well. And most parents use fear, not respect, to keep children in line. They use an appeal to authority, not one to respect, to guide their behavior.

Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children". Yet I seem to have better results dealing with children than most people do. I talk to them like humans, not like we talk to animals (actually, in most cases that's a disservice to the animal, let alone what it's like when we do it to a child) and the results are typically positive. Children are more willing to listen to you when you're not treating them like a monkey. (Even if they're acting like one.)

I never really had the issue addressed for me at all, except having my mouth washed out with soap at a day care once because before I even understood it I used the word "hump", no joke. This mountain of a woman named Jennifer ran (or runs) a day care across the street from Mar Vista elementary school. She had two or three spoiled kids and decided to add a bunch of others to the mix. One kid accused me of humping one of the others, so I told him he did it, and I got a mouthful of palmolive as a reward. Guess how I reacted to her henceforth? Dumb bitch. (They did instruct me to swallow the soap, but I spit it out. Even as a kid I wasn't an idiot. It says right on the bottle not to drink it.) This event taught me that stupid people are offended by certain words, but I cuss up a storm today. And I enjoy it.

Bottom line: Parenting from a position of respect and responsibility makes more sense than parenting from fear.

Postscript: Most parents seem to treat Walmart as a children's play area anyway. I don't think most of them give a shit if they start cussing. Walmart is the least classy place on earth.

Re:The evil CDT (2, Interesting)

profplump (309017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927409)

Yes, because that would demonstrate that my seven-year-old was making child-like and sometimes embarrassing decisions about what to say and where to say it. Oh the horror.

I understand there are traditional societal expectations, but being upset about "cursing" is really just as arbitrary and useless as being upset about people that wear blue socks.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927413)

Who cares? Yes I'm not a parent but you know what, the problem is not that the child told the teach to FUCK off. The problem THAT the child told the teach to fuck off. Who cares what words were used, it is the INTENT and the LACK OF RESPECT behind it that should worry you. Or would it be more pallatable if the child told them to FRACK off, or to INTERCOURSE off.

My comment applies doubly in Walmart. Kids WILL learn curse words if they are on TV or not, try being a parent and teaching them that they are crude, rude, and only to be reserved for appropriate situations (never if that is your bent).

Stop associating the word with the meaning/intent/lack of social restraint behind it.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927431)

You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.

Exactly, because parents can't be expected to take the time to explain to their children that even though these words exist, they are not always appropriate - especially for children. Nor can parents be expected take responsibility for their children's behavior. :-)

Re:The evil CDT (1)

Ender77 (551980) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927447)

Well, stop cussing in front of your kid and maybe he will follow the example. Reminds me of a Christmas story where the kid cusses and the parents wanted to know where he learned to cuss from. He said he heard it from a kid down the road but really his father cussed on a daily. Before blaming others for your kids problems, maybe you should look a little closer to home.

Re:The evil CDT (3, Insightful)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927597)

Hearing them and using them are two different things. They need to be taught what is and is not acceptable.

p.s. My youngest son used the word "fucking" correctly and in context at the age of 5. I was proud, not horrified. At 12 he still asks sometimes if the word he wishes to use is appropriate for the situation and context before saying something.

Re:The evil CDT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927263)

(mods: yes, parent post was sarcasm)

-- mg

Re:The evil CDT (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927371)

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

Your sarcasm is noted.
Are you saying "fuck the children"? What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable. It's not like the outlets this affects can't get a cable channel of their own and do nothing but say "fuck" over and over while showing a nipple.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927481)

What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves?


See the posts under the person in this thread who responded to me. I agree with most of those. To sum it up: the problem ain't the words, the problem is parenting skills. If you can't teach your kid the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, you have no right to be a parent.

Re:The evil CDT (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927449)

Will someone please think about the children!! It would be just horrible, evil and wrong for children to naughty words! Why, it might psychologically damage them for life! The horror!

At least they can get their dose of forensic porn in CSI / Law & Order etc. US TV has the weirdest of standards - swearing & nudity bad, violence good.

Of course (1, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927089)

This will not apply to the politicians.

Re:Of course (2, Insightful)

solios (53048) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927165)

They won't be the ones paying the fine. Why should they care?

Bono says "fuck" on the Grammy awards and CBS foots the bill. If anything, this will help kill off what's left of "live" media coverage in favor of the rolling five or ten minute delay a lot of broadcasters use to catch and scrub things like this.

Re:Of course (2, Funny)

shma (863063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927175)

On behalf of Dick Cheney, go fuck yourself [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927243)

This will not apply to the politicians.
Of course not. In fact, the bill ended with:

I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this bill.
At which point the FCC commissioner will depants Speaker for the Senate (Vice President Dick Cheney).

Do something that matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927305)

Legislation like this really bugs me. This issue is so trivial compared to issues like patent reform, the war on terror, the president's abuse of his powers, the economic impact of current immigration policies, the battle for sexual/lifestyle freedoms, the growing problem of identity theft, and so on. There are so many important issues (issues in dire need of deep analysis and open debate) facing us today, and somebody thinks it is worth time and money to quibble over long-standing policies of fines for slips of the tongue.

Outrageous. The asylum is run by the inmates.

Re:Of course (1, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927309)

Of course This will not apply to the politicians.
Can anyone tell me why this post is insightful?
Was there something in TFA that I didn't read?

If the parent is trying to say something, they need to back it up with proof and not just some vague insinuation.

Even now, this policy change will only allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for one word utterances, it won't mandate it. The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.

If nobody complains, nothing happens.

Re:Of course (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927555)

The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.

The FCC shouldn't have the power to do anything other than regulate spectrum. When did the FCC become my mother? Oh yeah, when the conservative factions on both sides of the fence decided they know best.

Need we say more? (2, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927097)

Well [BEEP] that!

Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor.

Re:Need we say more? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927157)

Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor.
I don't have a fucking delay you insensitive clod!

It's necessary (3, Insightful)

Bullfish (858648) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927099)

Otherwise, kids might think it is okay to swear, and think of the chaos if the curse word is accompanied by a nipple. Surely we can't have this as it will lead to all kinds of promiscuity etc. Catastrophe! Better the kids see people getting their legs etc blown off. It's good clean wholesome fun that will prepare them for living in the modern world.

Re:It's necessary (1)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927125)

I think you were saying all that in jest. But really it's all truth. Think about it.

Can't understand it! (1)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927397)

In addition to your point, I really can't understand the reasoning behind the bleeping. I mean, what do they expect? How are people supposed to react to the bleeped word? "F*bleep*? What did he say just now? Fun? Farm? Fart? Oh, if only I knew!"
I mean, what exactly is gained by this? Are American children so stupid they can't make the connection between "f*bleep*" and "fuck"? "Daddy, why did that man just buzz? Is buzzing a bad thing?"
Is there anyone in the world stupid enough to look at one of these broadcasts, hear a censored word and genuinely be happy, not knowing what the original text was?

Re:It's necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927461)

Fun Fact:

most kids do not listen to the radio. Most kids listen to mp3's or XM/sirius. My daughter pays for her own Sirius subscription and got a portable receiver so she can take it in the house, car, friends car, etc...

Most kids do not watch OTA Television. Most watch Cable TV, sattelite TV or no tv at all but get their entertainment in a different way.

This change is not only retarded, but flat out bizzare. If the congresscritters that voted for this stay in power afterwards It will be utter proof that the conservative minority has way more power than everyone else simply because the bulk of you are too damned lazy to get out and vote.

Grey haired granny votes and controls your life because you cant get off your ass and go stand in line for an hour or two to vote.

Wahh young america. Wahh.

Fucking pricks (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927109)

Fucking bunch of pricks need to fucking learn to read. There's no fucking "indecency" exception in Amendment fucking I.

Barring "indecent" speech is barring political speech - there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration or the limp-dick (what's the female equivalent? Limp-clitoris just doesn't ring right...cobwebbed-cunt, maybe?) cowards in Congress without "indecent" language.

Re:Fucking pricks (3, Informative)

antv (1425) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927359)

there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration


You're joking, but because of this law there's literally no way for radio news station to report what Dick Cheney said to Sen. Patrick Leathy on a Senate Floor [washingtonpost.com] .

Re:Fucking pricks (3, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927457)

Actually, broadcasters have significantly reduced First Amendment rights, and have for decades. In fact, the recent trend has been for them to enjoy more First Amendment protection.

Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.

And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.

--AC

Re:Fucking pricks (1)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927567)

Fucking bunch of pricks need to fucking learn to read. There's no fucking "indecency" exception in Amendment fucking I. Barring "indecent" speech is barring political speech - there's no way to adquately describe the shit-for-brains Bush administration or the limp-dick (what's the female equivalent? Limp-clitoris just doesn't ring right...cobwebbed-cunt, maybe?) cowards in Congress without "indecent" language.
Maybe the terms should be "Numb Nuts" and "Numb CLit" ? Either way, no sensation.

Well, fuck (2, Interesting)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927113)

So, if you don't like a particular radio station that does live call-ins, you can just call 'em up and swear and then file a complaint?

Re:Well, fuck (1)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927199)

Almost every radio station broadcasts on a delay of a few seconds. There's someone in the booth with their finger on a button to bleep your horrible, dirty, nasty word.

Your best bet is to learn a bunch of sci fi swear words and use them in common speech.

Re:Well, fuck (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927375)

Goram bleep guy sitting in that booth.

Re:Well, fuck (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927521)

Maybe on the big radio franchises, but the smaller, independent stations won't have such expensive equipment installed. Coincidentally, the independent stations are the ones most likely to have talk shows which deal with heavy issues that make certain people very angry, and will be the most vulnerable to the OP's call-in-and-swear scenario.

Re:Well, fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927205)

They probably all have delay machines by now, and the bigger shows will often have screened callers. One (small, unimportant, low-budget) show I once listened to experimented with the delay machine live (or should I say six seconds before live?)

Re:Well, fuck (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927487)

No because of the 15 second delay, it'll be bleeped before it goes on the air.

more pointless censorship (1)

lusid1 (759898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927137)

Ground based radio in the US was bad enough before this ruling, now it will be completely pointless. Lets all just go home, watch fox news, and take the blue pill.

Re:more pointless censorship (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927407)

You obviously didn't RTFA.

The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act introduced by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) would effectively overturn the court decision on the Fox Television Stations v. FCC in which the court ruled: "We find the FCC's new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy."

This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.

Re:more pointless censorship (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927519)

You insensitive clod, my pill is green.

Fucking Republicans... (2, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927141)

Oh, wait...

Re:Fucking Republicans... (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927311)

Don't blame just the Republicans. As I recall, it was Al Gore and his wife who were leading the charge against Dee Snider and WASP not too long ago. I'm afraid this crosses party lines.

Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.

Re:Fucking Republicans... (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927453)

Don't forget about Joe Lieberman. It's pretty easy to say you're tough on "the media" because who's going to stand up and defend the rights of people to swear online? The ACLU might, but they always manage to look like jackasses.

Vast chilling effect [on media] (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927147)


Anybody who thinks this is something new may find this book/youtube trailer of interest:

The Myth of the Liberal Media
The Propaganda Model of News
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/CommercialismPolitic sAndMedia/TheMythoftheLiberalMedia [mediaed.org]

All this new decision does at the end of the day is cut into profits, hence the vocal "outcry".

Obvious name for the Act (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927161)

Well, "thinkofthechildren" definitely applies here, since the act is named "Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act ". It doesn't get any more obvious than that that these politicians are desperate for reelection.

Re:Obvious name for the Act (1)

EricWright (16803) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927273)

The worst part is that it's not just protecting children from "indecent programming" ... it's protecting all of us. Dammit, I don't WANT protection from indecent programming. Hell, if anything, I want more of it!

Re:Obvious name for the Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927473)

Perhaps they should call the proposed laws "Prohibition of Egregious Naughtiness In Society" or "Foulness and Unseemliness Criminality Kibitz"...

Then the media would be allowed to say things like "Politicians in Washington are very excited about FUCK..." or "If there's one thing the government is in favor of, it's more PENIS."

I was right - 3 of 4 are up for reelection (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927535)

And, I was right about the reelection. The sponsor, John Rockefeller (D-WV) is up for reelection in 2008, as are cosponsors Mark Pryor (D-AR) and of course Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Decency Smeshency (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927171)


#$$%#!#@&*@!@#@!@@#^^*&^*&^##@!~ Bush [whitehouse.org] .

Re:Decency Smeshency (0, Troll)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927357)

#$$%#!#@&*@!@#@!@@#^^*&^*&^##@!~ Bush.


You f'ing moron. You do realize that a) the Senate is not the White House, and b) the Democrats are running Congress right now, right? Oh wait.... Bush is the source of all evil, I forgot.

Re:Decency Smeshency (1)

jmyers (208878) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927617)

the one time GW was very articulate...
"major-league asshole from The New York Times." - GW Bush
"Oh yeah, he is, big time." -Cheney

Liability and A/V issues? (3, Interesting)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927173)

Who is responsible for accidental broadcasting of expletives. the example that comes immediately to mind is the stump microphone used in cricket that picks up on field chatter and sounds that add to viewer experience (would be like a mic placed on the bases in baseball). If a player accidentally curses, it is heard world over and in most instances, the commentators entirely ignore it or express that a certain player is extremely angry. Would the player be fined?(fair IMHO) or would the network be punished?(unfair IMHO). Here's an example of it in cricket:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SLpqAymTE [youtube.com]

Who would be liable for this? Who SHOULD be liable?

Another issue is that even if it is bleeped out through human monitoring (with a 10 second delay or something), can mouthing of the word be considered as 'broadcasting' it? Communication is not only about sound, but given the weird laws regarding recording cops' audio/video output, it might be a similarly absurd law.

Or maybe I just don't understand TFA.

Cheers!

Re:Liability and A/V issues? (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927255)

Who is responsible for accidental broadcasting of expletives.

Whoever has the deepest pockets. In other words, those who can afford the fines.

This will also mean that "Saving Private Ryan" or any other Spielberg film will not be shown on TV anymore because in order to get permission to show it, you are not allowed to edit it for any reason. This, of course, could change if Spielberg changes his mind.

Freedom of speech indeed.

Re:Liability and A/V issues? (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927303)

I'm fairly certain that cricket will never be carried on broadcast TV in the US, so you really don't need to worry.

Re:Liability and A/V issues? (1)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927381)

Actually we regularly get cricket broadcast at Georgia Tech through GTCN. Most of the watchers being expats, nobody will care because only 'terrorist babies' are affected. This lack of involvement is welcomed by me.

Cheers!

Not a done deal (2, Informative)

steve802 (99297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927189)

It should be noted, for the social-studies-ignorant, that this is not the passage of a bill into a law, just the passage of a bill through a committee, one of many hurdles a bill must go through. Of course, the committee is often the hardest hurdle to overcome, but there are many chances to defeat this bill. It must still pass the full Senate and, assuming the bill has not already gone though the House, must go through all the same hurdles in the House. I suggest that now is the time to voice your concern about the bill to your elected officials.

Re:Not a done deal (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927293)

right.. it is not yet a law. But i'm sure it will be. The government signs anything at this point. None of them actually read the shit they sign. None of them actually debate these things in that big fancy building our tax dollars built them for debating ideas in.

The problem with this is...

Once you take the strip club out of the community... you cant be the politician that runs on that platform of "i'm bringing back the whores to the community!"

We all act puritan, but in our bedrooms, we're choking on cock, licking assholes, peeing on each other, wanting to be raped, simulating forced sex, bondage, cheating on our wives, husbands, with same or different sexes...

We are a bunch of fucking uptight people that act like we dont kill animals for food, or wipe our own ass... or eat cum.

Our children cant learn our deviant behavior, our evil bad language... for they will do all the things we love and are ashamed to tell anyone about. FUCK AMERICA. FUCK THE CHILDREN. FUCK THE GOVERNMENT. FUCK YOU ALL FOR LETTING IT HAPPEN.

Re:Not a done deal (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927475)

Um... I most defiantly kill animals for food, its actually fun sometimes, well no cleaning a deer is actually rather disgusting and frankly well not something i look forward too, but hey deer meat tastes pretty good.

Bull Sh_t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927201)

I am SICK AND TIRED of this buttkissing and clearly worthless pandering to america's christian taliban. So, we'll allow the showing of mass murder on television, but 1 "shit" gets you a big fine? Our congress and senate are nothing but corporate shills now, and I'll be writing SCATHING letters to each of my reps that voted for this piece of crap.

Until they impeach, convict and throw the death penalty at the mass murderers in our cabinet, and bring our troops home, our elite representatives are worth no more than a dessicated piece of crap.

The Cheney/rice/perle/kissinger/bush/wolfowitz cabal has destroyed this country. Our image, credibility, progressive taxation, environmental stewardship, and representative democracy have been destroyed. They should all pay the ultimate price for their treason, and I'd be glad to flip the switch.

DOWN WITH THE FASCIST CORPORATIST BASTARDS AND THEIR ENABLING UNDERLINGS!!!

How long (1)

bilbodh (1072728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927209)

One wonders how much longer until the moral majority decides that pay services (satellite radio for example) are too terrible for human consumption and try to apply censorship there as well.

Re:How long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927477)

I didn't realize the Democrats had become the moral majority. A Democrat sponsored the bill.

Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (1, Insightful)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927215)

What gets said on TV and Radio is now so irrelevant compared to what is on the Internet that one wonders why they bother trying to regulate TV and Radio at all.

All any of these congress people need to do is get on Google and search for "sex" and you will find so much pr0n that you could have a TV channel that played the word "FUCK" over and over 24/7 for a year and it could never match the "indecency" that you can find on the internet in 30 seconds.

These guys really are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927339)

wake the fuck up, the internet... IS NEXT. Dont fucking kid yourself, the government doesnt owe you shit. They do, but they're out for your vote and they will sell out the internet and its freedoms as well. So get your fucking ass in gear and do something.

START HERE: http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/ [peopleagai...orship.org]

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927421)

"This [insert institution] is not sinking, this [insert institution] is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg." -- Steven Colbert

Re:Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (1)

kfaroo (719510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927613)

Oh great! Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag and ruining it for the rest of us. So far they thought it was just a collection of tubes. Now they will start trying to regulate the internet.

Umm, hello? (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927219)

Isn't it part of the FCC's responsibility, as given to them by Congress, to monitor/police the airwaves and to determine what would be considered "indecent"? Why is Congress micro-managing the FCC's affairs?

Re:Umm, hello? (1)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927509)

Because they tried to limit the use of fleeting indecency until a New York Court said that the FCC couldn't do that (under the statutes that granted the FCC its authority). So now, Congress is expanding the FCC's authority to expressly address the perceived problem.

--AC

Puritanism strikes again! (0, Redundant)

mmeister (862972) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927231)

Goddamn, motherfucking, hypocritical asshole Senators can go fuck themselves!

Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Enough (1, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927237)

I've had it with America. I'm so tired of this fucking country i live in. Fuck America and its bullshit ideals that mean absolutely NOTHING. We simple do not understand freedom, nor do we deserve it, because we do not fight for it when it is being taken away from us. We assume someone else will, and that the constituion protects us... IT DOES NOT.

The FCC should NEVER have the power to define what is and is not decent. That is fucking unbelievable. The fact that they've had this power for so long, and now it is tightening... is disturbing to say the least.

America is a fucking shit hole. I know i live here in NY. I wouldnt want to live anywhere in the US other than NY and CA at this point. But really i'd rather just live somewhere else where tits aren't deemed scary and offensive by the uptight people and a government that panders to them.

Dick Cheney can say fuck you on the floor of the senate... but if you say it, you're being fined. The FCC would never dare fine King Dick Cheney. But Fuck Opie and Anthony, Don Imus, and Janet Jackson's titty.

I suggest you all join the PAC movement at http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/ [peopleagai...orship.org]

I want this country to burn the fuck down to the ground and i dont give a shit anymore about it. We lost it a long time ago. Just let the fucking horse die, or shoot it in the head. There is nothing we can do at this point.

WE NOW all live in that same corporate bullshit world they make you sign into at work... except its in your fucking living room now.

Re:Fuck the FCC and Fuck us all. Fuck America. Eno (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927385)

If any on what you said were true, you'd be executed for what you said.

Which I would be perfectly happy with, as you're obviously a waste of resources.

Lastly, you're free to leave if you hate it so much. Loser punk-ass cocksuckers like you always like to bitch, from the safety of their living room.

You're nothing but a whining fuck, thinking that joining some stupid movement no one has heard from or cares about will make any kind of difference.

Shut up before you say something else stupid.

So leave ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927391)

An take your f*cking attitude with you!

Third party expletives? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927253)

So how much would this [iracane.com] have cost Fox?

Damnit. (1)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927287)

They're just fucking words. Words most of the fucking shitheads I know were saying by the fourth grade explicitly BECAUSE they were told they were naughty. They do no harm, they hold no foul power. They're naughty only because we say so, and virtually everyone uses them from time to time no matter how we regulate media. They're just fucking words.

Why the fuck does the FCC even care? Why do the politicians care? What the fuck is the matter with these people?

Fuckshitfuck.

no more funny stuff on line tv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19927295)

How Laws Are Made (1)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927415)

Now, in true slashdot fashion, we'll get about 300 comments filled with expletives as if that somehow makes a point. Yeah - awesome - you really showed them, tough guy! And you're ultra smart too!

Anyhow, just a reminder to read up on how the legislative branch works, if you have a chance. Note this from TFA: "But CDT also points out that if Senator Rockefeller's bill becomes law[...]". This suggests that, strangely enough, a committee in the Senate "passing" (questionable word choice by "pressesc.com") a bill isn't the same as it actually becoming a law! Weird, huh? There's a big difference. Of course, this doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it; just that it's not a law right now.

What I'd be more interested in (instead of a bunch of whining) would be knowing where most people think the line should be drawn. Obviously there are extremes on both ends, but I think most would agree that a line needs to be drawn at least somewhere(?) Where is that line?

Comments (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927469)

First television, then the Internet. Kids are going to learn swear words somewhere. If not from t.v., then from the Net.

The real issue is this. If you cannot solve health care, the rising cost of tuition, tax reform, etc., you might as well do something that will make some people happy back in your district. As long as it gets you re-elected, right?

They'll be in trouble now.. (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927479)

When some poor bastard has to report a story on this bloke [turkishdailynews.com.tr] ..

A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech? (2, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927489)

This will cause "a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech"? Oh, please.

Is it so bad to learn a little self control?

taboo words (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927491)

Does every culture have taboo words?

Has anyone ever demonstrated that the existence of taboo words is socio-evolutionarily beneficial in some way?

Has anyone ever demonstrated that hearing taboo words actually harms children in ANY way?

FCC (3, Interesting)

Ender77 (551980) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927497)

FCC = FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMITTEE The are like the RIAA of television. Turning everything they touch to *Bleep*

Hilarious comment on the article (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927531)

The first comment on the article is hilarious:

Goy (gentiles...I.E. those who are not Jewish), are to stupid.
Submitted by You can not stop us (not verified) on Fri, 2007-07-20 15:21.

Of course we as a country should have no rules.

No conduct.

We should be able to subtly program small children into the ways of perversion, lust, greed and self-centered living.

We do this through "slip of the tongue" statements, and we hide very well under the "freedom of Speech" amendment in order to do so. We are experts in subterfuge, we the zionist-talmudic-Jews who run the media and the ADL and the ACLJ and the ACLU.

We are the most effective at hiding our nefarious actions, we can program your children while you work your life away (YOU DUMB WAGE SLAVE YOU)....while we program your children to discard you, disobey you, become perverted and generally godless.

America, you are in our grasp (the zionist-talmudic-cyrpto-so-called Jew), and their is nothing you can do to stop it.
Everything but the drinking of children's blood and holocaust denial!

Proper responce... (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927565)

I REALLY think that this is something that the free market can and would deal with. We're smart enough to determine what we want to watch and not watch, and I am perfectly willing to turn off the TV (which I do anyway). There does need to be a mechanism for parental control, and I would think that it could be managed properly in the market, and possibly the only requirement would be to allow parents to monitor and control what their kids can view/hear. Other than that, measures like this are more a waste of time than anything else...there's far more important stuff to deal with, something that this Congress has yet to figure out.

Broken logic (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927573)

Are they going to maintain a list of words that are okay to use on TV? It's so arbitrary and transient. What happens when "asshole" gets shortened to "hole" with the meaning determined by context? Would the FCC start regulating words and their context? It's totally insane.

Better yet, what happens when the FCC decides the word "Republican" is an obscenity? Not so funny now, is it Right Wing Freak Boy?

Fuck Fuck Fuck (0, Redundant)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927603)

Shit piss fuck fuck asslick blowjob buttsex pearl necklace golden shower midget anal sucking horsecock man on man mutual masturbation lesbian analingus fuck fuck fuck grandma sex leather chains nipple clips gerbils gerbils gerbils wang bang come in your eye fuck fuck fuck fuck.

This is so stupid. (3, Insightful)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19927607)

In this day and age, who actually goes out of their way to not let their children hear curse words? I'll bet these are the same kind of parents who wonder why their perfect little angels are doing drugs and drinking behind their back at age 13. Wake up guys, the social scene has changed in the last 30 years. Kids are exposed to everything from a very early age.

The tighter you control, the more your kids will try to get away with. Everyone knows that from their own childhood, but forgets that when they become parents themselves!

My personal philosophy: Assume kids have access to every bad thing out there. Give them the tools to deal with it so they don't wind up killing themselves or doing something stupid. At the same time, tolerate a little bit of abnormal behavior. Any other control you try to impose is just going to turn them into a social retard or push them away from you.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?