In his latest culture column, Brent Bozell welcomes the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case of whether "fleeting" profanities on television can lead to fines for the networks that air them without using the five-second delay button. Brent contends that Hollywood doesn't merely want to escape fines for unexpected outbursts of profanity. It wants the inalienable right to air them without any public or governmental action:
The point is: Hollywood wants to air them. To them, it’s all a waste of money to spare the benighted rabble in the little villages who haven’t learned to stop worrying and love the F-bomb.
Out in America, voters still have the common sense to believe that profanities aren’t the kind of speech that you wave the flag over, as if “fleeting” profanity was a cause as American as apple pie. Most Americans think that the quality of entertainment is in steep decline.
An AP/Ipsos poll last summer asked if TV shows in general were getting better or worse, and only 22 percent said “better,” while 62 percent picked “worse.” Politicians in Washington ought to find defending children from televised profanity to be the safest issue imaginable.
It’s common sense to suggest that all outbursts of profanity could be construed as “fleeting” in nature. It doesn’t matter whether the cursing was unscripted (rock star Bono’s Golden Globe victory speech) or scripted (Nicole Richie swearing at the Billboard Music Awards show on Fox right after her Fox “Simple Life” co-star Paris Hilton said “Watch the bad language.”) In both cases, dropping an F- or S-bomb is “fleeting.”
But what if that curse word is dropped twice? Isn’t that two fleeting obscenities? If it’s dropped 28 times, that makes it 28 separate, “fleeting” curses as well. How technically, is a curse word not defined as fleeting?
Let us very clear here. The networks are not seeking legal protection from a single profanity. They are seeking the courts to recognize the inalienable right to swear like a sailor on TV at any time.
Even the titans of classic family entertainment, like Disney, have signed on to the anything-goes argument for airing profanity. At a recent shareholders meeting, Disney President and CEO Robert Iger declared Disney joined the pro-vulgarity coalition "because we believe it is our right to produce and distribute different kinds of products without interference from the federal government."
But wait: the same Robert Iger just last summer announced that Disney would bow to members of Congress and drop all smoking scenes from its family films and discourage such scenes in its Touchstone and Miramax pictures. Why would those requests for less smoking be a reasonable and admirable cause worth endorsing, but pleas for less swearing are an unbearable oppression?
Hollywood wouldn’t need “interference” from Washington if they would simply do what they all know is the right thing. They know it’s wrong to encourage and glamorize smoking for young and impressionable children. Isn’t the logic of preventing the air pollution of unnecessary profanity just as much an open-and-shut case?
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Brent Bozell is twisting the story Tim
March 22, 2008 - 12:07 ET by shawn228Tim,
How often is the f-bomb on regular tv? There are slips of the tongue like Bono. That was over 5 yrs ago. Or Jane Fonda said the C word on that morning talk show. All these are accidental. Television believes they should self regulate and it is not goverments role to give them a fine.
Brent is totally twisting the story, he is trying to make it look like they want to use the f bomb at every given opportunity.
It's not a matter of want
March 22, 2008 - 13:16 ET by ArcherBThe point is not what they WANT to do, but what they WILL do. The fact is that if you allow it, they will say it, period. Could you imagine what the likes of Jane Fonda and Bono would have said if there were no rules as to what they could say. The F-word and C-word is what they say when trying to be modest, imagine what filth would come out if there were no FCC limitations. Then, try to imagine what an MTV awards show or the Grammy's would sound like. If they want to drop the F-bomb, they should broadcast their shows on HBO. That is what it is for.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
disagree
March 22, 2008 - 13:20 ET by candancePeople cuss on purpose and say it was an accident all the time. I agree with everyone else - if you can say whatever you want, call it an accident, and get away scot free, you're gonna see it happen more and more.
Candance
March 22, 2008 - 13:31 ET by shawn228I agree that children should not hear things like the F bomb. The thing is, if it is on tv all the time, I can understand parents frustrations. There was Bono over 5 yrs ago, there was Jane Fonda and the Janet Jackson wardrobe misfunction. All three of these instances the networks apologized and made sure that they were no reshown on the west coast when they a few hours behind.
Brent Bozell is implying, the networks want to spew expletives all over the place, when it happened about 5 times in a decade. The networks are simply trying to say they want to self regulate, just like the video game industry.
I know Shawn
March 22, 2008 - 13:40 ET by candanceThe point is that they apologized because they had to. When you remove the stigma they'll stop apologizing and it will slowly become commonplace.
candance
March 22, 2008 - 13:55 ET by shawn228With thousands of hours of tv, the industry has to monitor, they have done quite a good job imo of self regulating if it happenned only a handful of times in the past decade.
The fines are there and the networks don't have a problem with getting fined once. They have a problem with getting fined for each affiliate that shows the same program. That is what it is all about.
shawn, all you have to do
March 22, 2008 - 16:20 ET by motherbeltshawn, all you have to do is look at the evolution of profanity. The censors argued for weeks before allowing Clark Gable to say "I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind.
Now some of the words that appear in sitcoms are not only "damn" but "hell", "b**ch" and "ba**ard" too. Once the F bomb is allowed (and it almost was, on the grounds that it was used as an adjective, not a verb or a command), how long do you think it will be before it becomes commonplace?
Do we really need to degrade TV any more than it is?
Frankly my Dear I don't give a Damn:-)
March 22, 2008 - 18:40 ET by shawn228motherbelt,
Again, nobody is asking to allow it, they just want to monitored the government.
If they slip up all time time I would understand, but they have not. It has overall been a good wouldn't you say. Considering how many hours of tv they have to keep track of.
And I realize you are tired of hearing me say this, but if you don't like b*tch or b*stard then change the channel. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't shows give a disclaimer before the show starts if there will be strong language?
Again, nobody is asking to
March 22, 2008 - 19:02 ET by motherbeltAgain, nobody is asking to allow it, they just want to monitored the government. -shawn228
Not quite sure what you mean by the second half of that...I suspect you erred in re-wording something after editing.
You say that, but Mr. Bozell says:
Let us very clear here. The networks are not seeking legal protection
from a single profanity. They are seeking the courts to recognize the
inalienable right to swear like a sailor on TV at any time.
what did I misunderstand?
Anyway it's not that I have to reach for the smelling salts when I hear B**ch or Ba**ard..... It's the numbing of the sensibilities that I'm talking about; it takes more and more to shock.
My point was simply to comment on what the late Pat Moynihan called "defining deviancy down."
sorry motherbelt
March 22, 2008 - 19:06 ET by shawn228Grammer has never been my strong point. I meant the networks don't want to be monitored by the government. They will try to do the great job they are already doing of self censoring.
Also the government not only fines a station for airing a profanity, but want to fine their affiliates as well. That adds up to a lot of money after the whole Janet Jackson thing.
OK, now I see what you are
March 22, 2008 - 22:58 ET by motherbeltOK, now I see what you are talking about.
Broadcast TV needs limits
March 22, 2008 - 13:35 ET by nkviking75Television believes they should self regulate and it is not goverments role to give them a fine.
Television may want to self-regulate, but it won't. The whole industry's mindset is to push the envelope. When I was in my early teens, "hell" and "damn" were rare. Now they're tame by comparison. Take away the penalties, and TV will do whatever they like. They'll only give in to PC pressures, but not to common decency.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
nkviking
March 22, 2008 - 13:43 ET by shawn228The only times the f bomb was used was from a live event where the networks had no control. Can you name one time the f bomb was used or a regular tv show. I can think of one time. ABC showed Saving Private Ryan uncensored, but they posted many many warnings about graphic violence and languge. The FCC still tried o fine them.
The flaw in Shawn's logic
March 22, 2008 - 13:54 ET by nkviking75But Shawn, we've never had a period where the nets haven't had the threats of a fine or other sanctions from the FCC holding them back. Take that away, and I'm willing to bet the networks will not restrain themselves. What the networks have done with the current limits is no proof of what they'll do when those limits are gone.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Actually, yes there have
March 22, 2008 - 14:15 ET by stratmanActually, yes there have been numerous occasions where adult language has been aired.
PBS has aired documentaries and Hollywood movies where language and nudity were involved. In recent years there has been a less to none until quite recently for my local PBS station.
There have been numerous movies where the censors missed language. Typically these programs aired late at night and were on local channels, not the affiliates of the big corporations. One local channel advertised they would make sure to cut/bleep anything objectionable, but every once in a blue moon something gets by.
Humans make mistakes/slips. Some, though, do not. Jane Fonda did NOT slip. Bono you either give him a pass for stupidity (like he didn't know the rules and where he was at) or he was intoxicated and not in control or he's selfish/lazy and unwilling to control himself. If he had exclaimed the word when first hearing he had won then that would be a slip. But he had time from when he first heard his name called to when he actually spoke that he could have moderated his emotions enough to use different language. Exactly how long should we believe in something being "spontaneous".
RRAM Tough!
stratman
March 22, 2008 - 15:19 ET by shawn228I have not seen these late at light slips, but I will take your word for it. Lets focus on those words shall we? I am thinking most children are asleep at 3 in the morning. They probably do not have the time to thoroughy scrub the hours dominated by Suzie Orman and set it and forget it.
Again, I will give Bono the credit of the doubt. That was over 5 yrs ago FCC. Has he said it since? With the exception of Jane Fondas the 5 second delay is working quite well. If there are numerous complaints that is different.
I am against this because it could be a precedent for regulating everything else, and a Republican hates it when the government gets involved right? Small government remember?
My focus concerns
March 22, 2008 - 19:19 ET by stratmanMy focus concerns broadcast over free airwaves since I do not have cable or satellite TV.
I do believe in smaller government and protection of capitalism/free markets. There are always boundaries which is were people usually disagree. Even speech has boundaries of when and where it is not appropriate/legal. Just as I want governmant to oversee and safeguard medicines, I am perfectly fine with government overseeing the use of public airwaves, which the networks are allowed by law to utilize only if they agree to certain conditions. The airwaves are not owned by the networks. And the networks have shown a propensity to overstep boundaries from time to time. Hence, government regulation occurred and is enforced (though not consistently enough for some).
I agree that a time delay will solve most of the issues with the live broadcasts. The problem was/is that networks had thought it unnecessary for shows like the one Fonda was on... until Fonda was on it. Language can creep in on a local news show too. Should there be a delay for all local news shows? This gets overly complicated, and it's primarily due to people not minding their manners in public.
The censor slips do not happen often with televised movies, obviously, or else there would be more commentary on the subject. And these slip-ups occur late at night typically from my recollection when children would not be watching as you said. The PBS breaches, however, occurred in prime time and were accessible to children. PBS was watching their P's and Q's for a while after Michael Powell of the FCC flexed muscle following the Superbowl disgrace with Janet Jackson and dummy. Now PBS seems to be inching back to their former patterns.
A local channel now broadcasts South Park and the language and subject material is very adult as you may know. This occurs after 11PM and on a Sunday night, so not too many young children watching. Yet it represents a change from what was but is now acceptable on TV.
All of this represents a chipping away of the standards for over the air broadcast TV. Unlike normal childhood social/cultural development where boundaries are tested, some TV executives are methodically chipping away at the current guidelines with malice of forethought. Part of this looseness is driven by desire for profit and part is their lust for pushing the envelope and "sticking it to the man".
If I had to make a choice, I would much rather have the violence and mean language removed from the free airwaves than the titilation of a nude body. I believe that Hollywood and TV have contributed to the desensitization of youth (and adults) towards violence and humiliation. For instance, why is it that youth violence is so deadly today when compared to past generations? Guns were available to past generations yet they were never so prominently utilized as they are in recent generations.
The creeping inclusion of adult language and content into programming seen by children likewise adds to the desensitiztion of youth, who eventially grow up and may more easily behave in a fashion similar to what they were indoctrinated into as a child. It all adds to the formation of a coarser, less caring society.
Who benefits from that?
RRAM Tough!
Vulgar people use vulgar
March 22, 2008 - 12:18 ET by rbosqueVulgar people use vulgar language.
and then clueless people
March 23, 2008 - 04:15 ET by sarcasmoWant to tax me to solve a problem they KNOW they'll fail to solve with boycotts, even though they also know, deep down, that boycotts are the only moral way to solve such problems.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I can more than comfortably
March 22, 2008 - 12:21 ET by drillanwrI can more than comfortably hold my own in a cuss-laced discussion/conversation with one of our best Sailors, Marines, A/F Pilots, or Soldiers ... and have.
However, as natural as that "speak" comes to me, I have NEVER "accidently" used it when it was obviously less or NOT appropriate ... even if the conversation is heated or passionate.
While I can imagine someone has the slip of the un-guarded tongue in a moment of emotion (more than not folks have exclaimed "Oh, SH*T! when something sudden happens), anymore I DO find the celebrity "slips" not so accidential as much they are impolite or inconsiderate ... a direct trait of their self-centered and self-righteous nature.
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
Profanities
March 22, 2008 - 12:40 ET by lhbarnesWhether or not the profanities are used "accidently" by some people, they serve no purpose on TV or in movies. It doesn't add anything to the quality of the show and the emphasis could be made without it. "Damn" and "hell" were bad enough, but when the f-word and the s-word, plus numerous derivitives are used, it draws the attention to those words rather than the plot, if there even IS a plot. It just isn't necessary and is one of the reasons why the entertainment industry is suffering. But they don't seem to have enough sense to realize it.
...CEO Robert Iger declared
March 22, 2008 - 12:56 ET by MidAmerica...CEO Robert Iger declared Disney joined the pro-vulgarity coalition "because we believe it is our right to produce and distribute different kinds of products without interference from the federal government."
Yes, how dare the government interfere with their right to tap the rich vein of the 'rude and crude' market. It's everything Walt Disney stood for.
Disney is trying to cater
March 22, 2008 - 19:08 ET by shawn228Disney is trying to cater to two different audiences. Nothing wrong with that. Republicans are not for maximizing profits?
This is one of those areas
March 23, 2008 - 04:18 ET by sarcasmoWhere they're for maximizing big government control. It's fun to see them try to square this zeal for speech-control when it comes to Hollywood with their (correct) opposition to the "Fairness Doctrine," which is the far-left's version of the exact-same control-freakery. Can you say "cognitive dissonance"? :)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
i'll bet i'm probably in the minority on this one
March 22, 2008 - 15:30 ET by lunaticcringeradiobut i am of the belief that i want all the airwaves unrestricted from censorship. my primary media being radio since that's my hobby.
my reasoning is that the the free market will control the programming that will serve all types of interests.(we've seen that happen already with that pathetic excuse of programming called air america) if the market calls for programming that is clean there will be a service provider and a user of that product, the same for those users who don't need the polished clean censored speech. so it is up to the user to exercise control over what they listen to as opposed to whining about dirty words that are being said on a channel that that crybaby listener would never listen too in the first place.
i compare the arguement against profanity on the airwaves to the way that peta activists want to control your dietary habits of eating meat, even though they don't eat meat they want make that decision for you to stop too.
to me a pure conservative would absolutely defend free speech, even if it is offensive. i do. i'll defend the most vile, offensive, disgusting, racist, and politically diparaging speech to be broadcast no matter how much i disagree with it. my reasoning is if you try and hide it, it will find a niche in an underground hideout and festers until it becomes a problem. if you expose it, bring it out in the open, it is then out for everyone to discuss and identify as something that the majority of decent poeple to be warey of. because ultimately i think it is the listeners responsability to control what comes out of the radio with their own knobs that they can reach.
now i know there will be the arguement "what about the children" well i don't know about you but in my home town of atlanta, where i live now in phoenix, and throughout my travels all around the nation i can go anywhere and hear vulgar music blasting from car radios and noboy is REALLY doing anything about that for "the children". so to nix this whole "what about the children" arguement this is my solution. regular terrestrial broadcasting on radio will section 3/4ths of the lower radio dial will be reserved nationwide for clean broadcasting. the top 1/4 of the dial will have stations that can if they wat to broadcast uncensored. along with this radio manufacturers will be pressured by censorship groups to manufacture their products with a chip that is removed, one time only, and if it is removed it will permanently block out the reception of those higher uncensored channels.
i just don't think that radio should be censored. but if you do, don't tell me i'm wrong, get off your butt the next time a car full of thugs blasting some gangsta rap about rapin der hos n biatches, you get out of your car and tell them to turn it down. grow a spine and take a stand against them.
now as for tv, i don't care, i don't watch network tv because it is all shit.
lunaticcringeradio
Minority comment
March 22, 2008 - 16:00 ET by DFLowerI know that there is a fairly large branch of the conservative movement that is concerned with social issues, but I've never believed that they are truely in favor of big government programs to controll thoughts.
I've never understood how people can call for government to do something about the most recent problem (remember boobie-gate?) and yet still think the free market is the solution for every other problem.
Outstanding post LCR
March 22, 2008 - 19:11 ET by shawn228Outstanding post LCR!!!
if the market calls for
March 22, 2008 - 23:06 ET by motherbeltif the market calls for programming that is clean there will be a service provider and a user of that product,
Not necessarily. That only works if the provider truly wants to provide a product that people want, rather than pushing their own agenda.
Witness Hollywood. If that were strictly true, we would be deluged with G-rated family movies. They consistently out-perform the R-rated stuff at the box office. Yet their number is routinely dwared by PG-13 and R rated films.
So, why exactly should big-government interfere
March 23, 2008 - 05:30 ET by sarcasmoIf the free marketplace is teaching Hollywood what conservatives would say is exactly the right lesson about what sells?? Brent Bozell doesn't need my taxes and a bloated FCC to boycott left wing movies/TV any more than lefties need my tax dollars to enforce a "Fairness Doctrine" on right wing radio talk show hosts instead of turning that dial or (horrors!) hitting the "off" button.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Where did I say the
March 23, 2008 - 08:22 ET by motherbeltWhere did I say the government should interfere? I was disagreeing with the contention that the entertainment industry responds to the marketplace and makes the kind of movies that people want.
I simply pointed out that Hollywood doesn't always learn the lesson, and doesn't always care about "what sells." If they did, they would make more family-friendly movies.
But, as we discussed here in the Oscars thread a while ago, a lot of the movies are made not for the public, but for the Hollywood types to impress each other.
So we agree?
March 23, 2008 - 08:27 ET by sarcasmoThey shouldn't? And the FCC should have no tax-funded speech-control arm whatsoever, whether beloved by the left or beloved by the right? Great!! I'm sure the marketplace will eventually take care of failure-studios which don't give the people what they want.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I didn't say that either.
March 23, 2008 - 08:42 ET by motherbeltI didn't say that either. Stop extrapolating.
None of my comments in this thread have been intended to advocate either for more stringent control or complete abdication.
I have simply been deploring the deterioration of quality in programming in general, and the increase in pandering to the lowest common denominator.
The so-called "V" chip has only made things worse, IMO, as it has fostered a "Hey, we warned you!" attitude in the TV industry.
I don't know what the answer is.
Ok, it seems...
March 23, 2008 - 08:52 ET by sarcasmoThat you do want some government involvement (fines for cussing?) but don't want other government involvement ("Fairness" for Rush?). It's my contention that if you wish to be intellectually consistent, you can either have both, or none. I'm strongly in favor of "none." I boycott what I dislike, and it costs you $0 in taxes every time. Also, please note, the "V-chip" was a creature of congress, not Hollywood.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
may i sugggest that conservatives abandoned hollywood
March 23, 2008 - 11:35 ET by lunaticcringeradiothe reason that i believe that hollywood, in the free market, is so
dominently liberal, is because that liberals invest in it heavily, and
quite frankly it's conservative investors that have failed to keep up
with thinking it was important arena to focus on.
include the factor that hollywood in basically the only export that america has anymore and it's liberal message is propped up heavily outside the us. so basically conservatives should invest in an all new hollywood to combat the liberal form. can't say i have that plan all worked out. but as for myself as much as i respect some peoples taste in g rated programming, i hate the stuff, so instead of whining that i'm not entertained or i'm offended by someones religious views, i just tuuuuurrrrrnn the knobs that i'm in control of.
if you
take the radio media for instance(my favorite media and the one i
prefered to use as an example because i know and love it best) that was
invested in heavily by conservatives and i honestly believe radio is
tuned more to a conservative minded work, entertainment, and lifestyle.
the visual media was basically taken over by liberals because conservative investors ignored it.
lunaticcringeradio
luaradio,
March 23, 2008 - 20:51 ET by upcountrywaterYou think everyone should have a transmitter then?
I'm with you on the tv poo thing.
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>InfrastructureROFLMAO
Vulgarity is NOT a free
March 22, 2008 - 16:51 ET by MidAmericaVulgarity is NOT a free speech issue. Vulgarity does not express ideas. There is no concept that is restricted because vulgar language cannot be used. Vulgar language is used to annoy the listener or to give the speaker a more intimidating position in the conversation. There are scenes in movies or TV where someone is using the bathroom but nothing would be added to the story if they were to hold up their used tissue so we have to look at it.
Kevin Martin
March 22, 2008 - 17:33 ET by Marty DavisMarty Davis
http://www.chickaboomer.blogspot.com/
Love the headline! FCC Chairman Kevin Martin issued a press release on this very subject using the f-word and s**t eight times. Go on chickaboomer.blogspot.com above and type in Kevin Martin. It was an appalling double standard and the height of hypocrisy.
Vulgarity is NOT a free speech issue. Vulgarity does not expres
March 22, 2008 - 18:50 ET by shawn228"Vulgarity is NOT a free speech issue. Vulgarity does not express ideas."
Strongly disagree Mid America. Can you imagine Scarface, The French Connection, or Good Fellas without the profanity. How about Titanic or Basic Instict without the nudity. This includes smoking Democrats :-)
Titanic is the most financial successful movie all of all time. Could it have made as much money without the nudity? Probably yes! My point is that scene with the painting was important to the movie and i had relevance.
Vulgarity is not a
March 22, 2008 - 19:14 ET by MidAmericaVulgarity is not a vehicle to express ideas rather it's used as an 'artistic' device. I'm not against vulgarity when it's used in it's proper context as an expletive. If a guy hits his thumb with a hammer and he screams out something that will cause him to lose his everlasting soul then that is a proper context. What's really annoying is when it's used to shock the audience and make them uncomfortable. For instance, stand up commedians who constantly use the f-bomb when it has no relation to the jokes being told are tiresome to listen to. I always think they are insecure about their comedy and have to resort to 'sticking verbal needles' into their audience to keep them from yawning. But I digress... the examples you present are all movies and for movies I say do anything you want (short of snuff movies) but in my home I don't want to have to research the TV guide to find the offensive programs the way I might if I choose to go to the movies.
Maybe you like something
March 22, 2008 - 19:18 ET by shawn228Maybe you like something like American Idol, but I like something like 24. I should not let you force me to watch American Idol and Vice Versa.
It is our job to research what we should watch. I am for doing away with the restriction for the f word completely if we can unbundle our channels. Some channels would have restrictions and some would not have any. That would be the best solution.
Well actually I don't
March 22, 2008 - 19:33 ET by MidAmericaWell actually I don't watch much of any 'entertainment' TV because I'm not entertained. A good solution to this issue would be a word recognition chip that would automatically remove any words that a TV set owner selects not to hear.
midamerica
March 22, 2008 - 19:52 ET by shawn228That is actually an excellent idea..
which the control-freaks would hate
March 23, 2008 - 04:22 ET by sarcasmoIt puts control back in the hands of a person, and it's a kind of technology that could easily evolve in the free marketplace without costing me a dime of tax money. They want to mandate control-chips instead, and force me to buy them even if I don't want one.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Bad language filter exists
March 22, 2008 - 19:57 ET by nkviking75MidAmerica, I've heard of something like that. I don't know what it's called, but it deletes bad words based on the closed captioning feed. I can't imagine a system like that is foolproof, and I doubt it can be made to remove words as selected by the viewer. And of course, there are always new euphamisms and slang words.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
define vulgarity midamerica
March 23, 2008 - 11:51 ET by lunaticcringeradiobecause my definition is going to most definately be very very very different from yours.
vulgarity is an ambigous term and it determined but an individuals personal choice no different that one persons taste for food.
so how can you regulate taste, by controling what you the individual consumes. it is the individuals responsability to make those choices for themselves.
now if you want the government to do that then you are asking for big government to step in and control an individuals independant freedoms and that is not a conservative ideal.
the aweful thing about freedom of choice as it was established by our founding fathers, the freedom of choice comes with risk, and i just have to remind you midamerica you are wanting to sacrafice freedom for security. and we've all seen what happens with that application, it might work for a short time, then it eventually it spins out of control of the people who wanted it by someone who was trusted to lead them.
lunaticcringeradio
define vulgarity?
March 23, 2008 - 14:35 ET by MidAmericabecause my definition is going to most definately be very very very different from yours.
I'm not so sure our defination of vulgarity is different but we will probably differ on what is vulgar. Vulgarity is anything said or done that is meant to offend a persons core values and does offend the recipient or other witnesses core values. It's not the same as an insult. If I say to your mother she's a bad cook that is an attack on her abilities to which she might be greatly offended (insult) but if I tell her she's a worthless sack of s**t then I am attacking her sense of self worth (profane). As just one example: a person who is a devout Christian does not want to hear, in their home, their Lord's name used in a profane way. But..... the same use of that profanity to a non-believer hardly registers a notice. The conumdrum is how to balance the expectations of these two groups.
i respect your sense of values but
March 23, 2008 - 16:45 ET by lunaticcringeradiobut i don't know if i can agree with your definition of vulgar, i purposefully try to offend on my radio show, i do it to excess on purpose to be satirical, and i do it to offend liberals at any opportunity i can.
i can respect anyone elses difference in opinion as to what they find offensive, and that is why i fully believe that a broadcast media form that is controlled by the user should not be limits by the values of a segment of society, so long as it doesn't break a defined law such as child porn.
but let me toss this litl hitch into the definition of vulgarity. the simple way you live your life as i am assuming a middle american is highly vulgar to a certain middle eastern philosophy that has made it their goal to change the world to islamic ideals. if you give a government the authority to dictate to people how they talk sooner or later it will backfire on you. take for example the fairness doctrine that is trying to be used against the very same people who created it.
i see your point of view but i still think the balance you speak of is in the individuals hands to responsability to choose on their own what they want to listen/watch.
lunaticcringeradio
but let me toss this litl
March 23, 2008 - 19:23 ET by MidAmericabut let me toss this litl hitch into the definition of vulgarity. the simple way you live your life as i am assuming a middle american is highly vulgar to a certain middle eastern philosophy that has made it their goal to change the world to islamic ideals.
No, I don't see that as a hitch in my definition of vulgarity. I certainly agree that my way of living is 'vulgar' to many other cultures. But the question at hand is whether purposeful vulgarity should be routinely excused across the airwaves. I listen to radio and what I hear there doesn't offend me even if it's Air America, although I'm often greatly annoyed.
if you give a government the authority to dictate to people how they talk sooner or later it will backfire on you.
I do not advocate government control of speech but TV has pretty much always been a refuge from profane speech. There are those that proclaim swearing 'cutting edge' or 'pushing the envelope' but this is not true. It's merely the lowering of standards. The problem now is that as a country we do not have a common definition of what is decent. I am well aware that if I were to give the government permission to restrict words I don't like that someday somebody will restrict what I can say. But then, I already have that. I'm a white middle class conservative male.
Just so you know, I have watched plenty of broadcasts of 'offensive' material. I'm a fan of Southpark and it's main goal is to offend. My concern is that too many shows will end up with the standards of Southpark if TV can be a free-fire zone for anything goes. It should be the networks that set high standards for their own productions but I no longer feel that there are grownups in charge.
I have no real answer for this problem. Que sera sera
Vulger is as Vulger does
March 22, 2008 - 21:15 ET by ThisnThatIf anybody wants evidence on how quickly TV will compete to see which channel can spout the most profanity, just go back a few years and check on the changes that have occured with Spike TV and Fox TV. And then check out the sitcoms, which have become much more sexually explicit. There won't be a slope if the restrictions are removed -- there will be a steep cliff.
I challanged my brother-in-law a few years ago. He wanted to know why I don't watch network TV any more. I told him "Watch any program and pay attention. You will hear one sexual innuendo or statement every 60 seconds, and there will be an 'audience whooooooooo' immediately following". So, he turned on the TV and started paying attention. It was an eye-opener for him, because he just naturally accepted this up to then. And he immediately became very concerned as to what his daughter was picking up by being exposed to Network TV day-after-day. It was an unpleasant awakening for the guy.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat
March 22, 2008 - 21:33 ET by shawn228I respect your choice not to watch tv. You can watch HGTV or Disney or Nickoledeon if you want to avoid sexual inuendos. There is nothinging wrong with cutting edge tv, if you don't want to watch it don't, why is it your concern that someone else is? And why do you want to government involved? Just like the Dems that are taking away the choice of sodas and candy at school. It is none of their business.
While sodas & candy are a good analogy
March 23, 2008 - 04:25 ET by sarcasmoThe best is the "Fairness" Doctrine, since it's a left-wing version of the same kind of taxpayer-funded control-freakery they're advocating from the right.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Typical liberal response
March 23, 2008 - 12:39 ET by ThisnThatLiberals always try to use their double standards to make stupid points, don't you? Libs are trying to take away guns; restricting words we use in public ("Halloween", "Easter", "Christmas", "Terrorist"); and telling me who I can't invite to speak at colleges (e.g., Karl Rove). But then you go around and tell me I have to include homosexual education in elementary schools; print vote ballots in multiple languages; and let television air any damn words they want.
I'm tired of your double-standards, and will continue to stand up for traditions, decency, and doing what's right. It IS my concern, so if you don't like it, just shut up and go somewhere else. Don't go around trying to tell me I shouldn't get involved -- that's what's wrong around here, some pipsqueak liberal like you says something and we're all supposed to back down. Bull sh##t. I'm tired of you people constantly tearing down our standards and replacing them with yours. Your standards suck; my standards are better. Live with it.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
"Liberals always try to use
March 23, 2008 - 14:20 ET by shawn228"Liberals always try to use their double standards to make stupid
points, don't you? Libs are trying to take away guns; restricting words
we use in public ("Halloween", "Easter", "Christmas", "Terrorist"); and
telling me who I can't invite to speak at colleges (e.g., Karl Rove).
But then you go around and tell me I have to include homosexual
education in elementary schools; print vote ballots in multiple
languages; and let television air any damn words they want."
Lol, quite the soapbox you have going there. The thing is I don't believe in the fairness doctrine and have no problem with Easter, Christmas or word terrorist either. So there goes your hypocricy argument right there. Also I can't tell you to do anything. It is your choice freewill. I am just questioning why the GOP wants smaller government, but big goverment regarding any moral issues.
Also your response is a typical conservative one, when you decide to call me a name like pipsqueak liberal. My standards suck and yours are better? Nice debate btw. Why shoud I go somewhere else? I have had good discusions with many on this board, and your one of the few that have to use name calling as a defense mechanism which is really kind of sad.
Also no liberal told Karl Rove he could not speak at the graduation, there was protest by the students and Karl Rove withdrew.
What makes it fun is the
March 23, 2008 - 15:23 ET by ThisnThatWhat makes it fun is the absolute smugness exhibited by Libs when their contradictions are exposed and the backtracking begins. You always go back to the "What, why are your standards better"?, and "Well, I don't have a problems with Christmas, Easter, etc".
And you conveniently forget that the airwaves are public; that the vast majority don't like the vulgarity; and that there are places where government intervention actually does promote the general welfare. This is one such instance. Your argument of GOP = No big government is pretty lame, but typical. There are plenty of places where Government is useful. Cops on the street. Food standards. Education standards. Public airwaves standards. Defense of the country. And plenty of others.
And by the way, I don't for a minute believe you are trying to understand conservatives. I wasn't born yesterday.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
The remote control. Use it.
March 23, 2008 - 15:34 ET by balboaThe remote control. Use it. It's a free market system.
Smugness?
March 23, 2008 - 15:39 ET by shawn228I have no idea how you can interpret what I said as smugness. I simply chided you on your name calling and arrogance.
I did not backpeddle at all. You are the one that brought up Christmas, Easter and the word terrorist. Talk about twisting words.If you can come up with a example of my contradictions instead of liberals in general, maybe your not as dense as you appear to be. I also never said you were born yesterday or I was trying to understand conservatives.
The airways are public and I don't like the f word on tv either. The broadcasters are certainly doing quite of good job of it themselves without the governments help. Nice job with the comparing public airwaves standards to defense of our country and cops on the street. Yeah Bono saying the f word is as important as thwarting a terrorist attack!
Equivalence still doesn't work
March 23, 2008 - 19:56 ET by ThisnThatNow vulgarity = terrorist attack in terms of importance? What a dumb comparison.
What if I want to use the f-bomb for my licence plate? What if I ran an adult store and decided to paste posters of nude women on every street corner? What if I wanted to walk down the street naked? What if I walked down the street and swore at everyone I saw?
Just words and images, eh? According to you and Bal, everyone can just look the other way, walk the other way, go somewhere else if they're offended, right? Because I have my rights and no one can interfere, according to your arguments.
I'll say again -- your logic is illogical. You try to come up with the purest of definitions and the most idealistic of circumstances and ignore reality. The reality is that we, as a society, have to have standards, and those standards have to be enforced. Your silly arguments completely ignore that fact, no matter how you try to twist and turn. Conservatives try to set minimal Government involvement, but you're trying to turn this into "You're a conservative, TnT, and therefore you can't turn to Government at all -- Gotcha!" That's bull; you know it; I know it.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Silly TNT
March 23, 2008 - 21:28 ET by shawn228"Now vulgarity = terrorist attack in terms of importance? What a dumb comparison."
This is your comparision ThisinThat, glad we agree it is a dumb comparision.
"What if I want to use the f-bomb for my licence plate? What if I ran an
adult store and decided to paste posters of nude women on every street
corner? What if I wanted to walk down the street naked? What if I
walked down the street and swore at everyone I saw? "
The image of you walking naked down the street frightens me, you have a point. The thing is I am not asking you to not to walk naked in your own house, heck if the mood permits you can do as Canadians call it and "pull your goalie." Just like tv, you would have to be very careful if there are kids in house, they would not want them to be subject to see TNT in a compromised position. Just like you would not want them to watch anything vulger on tv
How you express yourself in the workplace and what you display near our playground affect others and not just yourself. You should be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home.
And yes, I feel it is okay to apply this double standard to republians, maybe you care to explain that point of view instead of saying i'm twisting and turning it.
You're almost there, Shawn
March 23, 2008 - 21:55 ET by ThisnThatJust a little more, and you might actually break thru that veil, Shawn. The key is Public vs. Private, and you finally are getting close. Note that I didn't say anything about my house -- I was giving examples of public behavior. You, of course, failed to address that -- instead, you insisted on setting up your own conditions and talked about what I may or may not do in my house -- to you, a Private matter.
Now ... slowly here ... we are talking about Public Airwaves. Get it? When you try to turn the subject to Cable TV, you are cleverly trying to get everyone off-topic. STAY ON TOPIC. And now -- Shawn -- you get to use your argument about Public standards correctly. And when you do, you'll realize you've wasted all these words to actually agree with us. Public standards exist, and they need to be enforced. Self-enforcement may be an ideal, but it never works because someone is always trying to take advantage.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Your getting there as well TNT
March 23, 2008 - 22:13 ET by shawn228No name calling on this post, you are making progress. I am not changing the topic at all. Your example of you naked or even wearing a thong and going into safeway is affecting others and children might have that mental scar for years to come.
The people on tv have been overall done a good job at self censoring about the f word it should not be the governments role to do anything about it.
I am talking about using the remote, when you talk about the progamming that have sexual inuendos. If you do not want to watch it, you don't have to. No one is forcing you to turn that tv on. If your naked a$$ is for all to see in public that is different than in your own home regardless if it is public or not.
Just to clarify, public is public, there is no choice but to see TNT in his bare glory "hey was the water a little cold?" in a supermarket. Pubic airwaves is on tv. you have a choice to turn it on and off, but people have no choice but to stare at your vertical smile in a public place. Do you see the difference ?
TnT & Shawn
March 23, 2008 - 22:21 ET by MrShyYour example of you naked or even wearing a thong and going into safeway....
TnT? True?? Did you blasphemously use a thong in an example you were making to Shawn? I'm calling my lawyer first thing tomorrow.
:)
http://mr-shy.com/sh...
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr Shy
March 23, 2008 - 22:23 ET by shawn228Have you been drumming up business on this site? :-) I think some shyware would be better than TNT having his frank and beans exposed.
Shawn!
March 23, 2008 - 22:27 ET by MrShyFRANK AND BEANS ?!?!?!?
Shawn, must we go there??
I prefer, "bits and pieces".
:)
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
the airwaves are described
March 23, 2008 - 12:43 ET by botgthe airwaves are described as public domain and thus are answerable to public restriction. You can 'buy' whatever channel you like on cable or satellite can't you?
"Man created god(s) Anything believed was created by man"----Syrius
botg
March 23, 2008 - 12:59 ET by shawn228The channels on cable and satellite are very limited. There are no sitcoms or dramas that they spend lots of money on. There are few great ones such as Sex and the City, but few others. Why? because they only have revenue from paying customers and not ad revenue where the real money comes from.
Also like I said, this is about the f word and the networks have done a pretty good job of censoring it. If it becomse a major problem, then and only then should the government get involved.
thats the market Shawn
March 23, 2008 - 15:41 ET by botgas soon as there is a market you will get your station
and the f word--- waiting for it to be a problem is too late (kinda like immigration)
"Man created god(s) Anything believed