there's not a lot of logic in it.

it's like they're saying, "here's this movie we KNOW has the f-word in it, so because it's really somber and steven spielberg directed it, we'll let it air - no problem! meanwhile, we know you have no control over cher or bono's behavior, but their tourettes just cost you a mountain of indecency fines. we hope you learned a valuable lesson. SHAME!"

Thanks for trying to save my shit thread Anx

Imago said:

well, i'd like to take credit for trying, but i was just babbling. i learned long ago there's no saving one of your threads. it's like trying to gently talk a herd of bison from running off a cliff.

We in radio land now have all of our programming on a delay in case someone has a slip. There was a complaint about a station in DC playing Lil Jon's "Get Low". You know when skeet skeet was used. Finally when the White world realized what skeet skeet meant, ONE DC radio station that was in the complaint was sued. (Nothing came of it).

The FCC would argue that with Saving Private Ryan, there was an appropriate warning before viewing. The FCC has become increasingly conservative in the past years. Colin Powell's son heads it up. You have him to thank for the increased conservative - ness.

We in radio land now have all of our programming on a delay in case someone has a slip. There was a complaint about a station in DC playing Lil Jon's "Get Low". You know when skeet skeet was used. Finally when the White world realized what skeet skeet meant, ONE DC radio station that was in the complaint was sued. (Nothing came of it).

The FCC continues its conservative reign. I'd say make the connection to what has been in office the last 8 yrs. FCC has got media shook...I tell you that much. A lot of shock jocks getting fired (Stern) and so forth. And if anyone on air let anything indecent slip, it is 32,000 per obscenity...if someone complains about it, anyway.

KatSkrizzle said:

Can you explain the skeet skeet thing, cuase the Asian world has no fucking clue what that means either.

Imago said:

shooting of the baby batter

DanceWme said:

I wonder what the FCC would say about painting.

DanceWme said:

I wonder what the FCC would say about painting.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/20/decency.hearing/index.html


Fox is arguing that a ruling against them with regard to FCC violations (no fines are being leveed) is unfair. Moreover, they argue that Saving Private Ryan was cleared for the very words used by Cher and some other celeb over the use of the word "fuck".

Fox argues that the FCC leaves them in an unfair position of determining when the word is actually "appropriate".


Now here's what I want to know: Why is the FCC allowed to regulate bad language? Isn't that a way of regulating morality? You'd think that if the language over the airwaves was offensive enough, they'd be faced with advertiser pullouts or the threat of boycotts, and you could just let the market take care of what is or is not acceptable.




Mods, I understand that this might be a political question. Or that it might be a philosophical question. I even understand that because Cher is mentioned it might belong somewhere even worse.

Imago said:

I wonder why the FCC never does anything about your threads.

I don't know why they do but they shouldn't

their argument is stupid. "saving private Ryan" had all kinds of warnings before it was shown. awards shows are assumed to be family safe.

what i do not get is, why not fine the person that says it? why just the stations?

that is the harsh part. the FCC can fine the individual broadcasters that have no direct control over content much less live content.

for Stern...he should get more leaway as people KNOW what to expect from his show.

as far as regulating morality the government does it all the time... the civil rights act? the whole not killing people or not stealing stuff...it is all part of regulating morality.

which is why i think stern should have more room. because people KNOW what to expect from him. people listen to hear that content. which is different than if it was some show on Disney radio.

i don't disagree with you. how do you protect tween age kids though. if the parent isn't around to monitor what the kid is listening to, how do you deal with that?

purplerein said:

yeah that is what Bill O'reily argues. that some content needs to not be out there. that the artists should know better to make it (not that they do not have the right to make it, just that they shouldn't)

being that you present your feelings so clearly, how do you feel about what Bill Cosby has said recently in regards to parenting, and not cursing, etc..?

purplerein said:

i agree with him (stupid me i HAD ticketes to one of thoes presintations and i gave them away)

i'm not in the african american community, so it's not my place to say if he's right or wrong, but I agree with him. I don't understand why everyone doesnt however

purplerein said:

some people do not want to take personal responsibility

their argument is stupid. "saving private Ryan" had all kinds of warnings before it was shown. awards shows are assumed to be family safe.

what i do not get is, why not fine the person that says it? why just the stations?

that is the harsh part. the FCC can fine the individual broadcasters that have no direct control over content much less live content.

for Stern...he should get more leaway as people KNOW what to expect from his show.

as far as regulating morality the government does it all the time... the civil rights act? the whole not killing people or not stealing stuff...it is all part of regulating morality.