(03-18-2004) FCC Cites Stern, Bono for Indecency -- AP *

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thanks for this! Done and sent! And I proudly used that nice pretty four letter word in my email!

LOL.

My dad told me something rather interesting tonight...he was telling me about these guys at this radio station somewhere who found an audio clip of Bush saying the "f" word during some press thingy or whatever recently (he'd said it without knowing his mic was still on), and the guys played that clip, unedited, constantly during their show, and were like, "Okay, FCC, when are you gonna go after us for this? And hey, since Bush said it, are you gonna yell at him, too?"

Made a good point, I reckon.

Angela

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so when all you people go out to dinner with your families and there's a bunch of teenagers dropping F bombs left and right sitting in the booth behind you, right behind grand'ma... you don't get offended? annoyed? embarassed? hope the manager kicks them out? or at the very least gives them a warning?

i find that hard to believe...

 

[U2luv]

MY reason for being uptight about this whole thing isn't the idea that Bono is or isn't in the wrong. He WAS and he admitted such. My reason for being uptight is the fact that it should have been dropped a year ago. The initial ruling was irresponsible. The idea that you can use the f word on tv in one way but not another? THAT is the reason for the furor to begin with, not Bono's use of it. There were less than 300 people that complained out of all the ones who actually saw it happen originally. It wasn't until the ruling that there ended up being over 300 THOUSAND complaints. I wonder how many of those 300 thousand actually even SAW the incident? Plus the whole ruling ended up becoming a joke and you saw the results on the MTV Music awards, the Grammy's etc. this past few months since.
Instead of making Bono the scapegoat in this, the FCC should be admitting that THEY made a mistake in thier initial ruling and stop the whole thing. It's beyond rediculous now.

 

[dream wanderer]

I was on another board discussing something else and for some reason this came up. Someone jokingly referred to him as "Bono of the F-word'

I didn't know whether to be offended or laugh.

Well..at least it keeps him in the news. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.



dream wanderer

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

so when all you people go out to dinner with your families and there's a bunch of teenagers dropping F bombs left and right sitting in the booth behind you, right behind grand'ma... you don't get offended? annoyed? embarassed? hope the manager kicks them out? or at the very least gives them a warning?

i find that hard to believe...

No such incident has happened to me in a restaurant, but if it did...*Shrugs* I've heard worse. The "f" word really doesn't bother me all that much-I've been known to use it on an occasion or two myself, so... Constant use of it would irritate me a bit, perhaps, but not enough that I'd demand that the person uttering the word shut up. I'd just do my best to tune them out. Let them look like the fool for saying the word repeatedly.

I mean, for cripes' sake, I have the quote that's caused all this ruckus in my sig. If the word really bothered me that much, I wouldn't have put it in there.

I just have never understood all the fuss over swear words. I mean, racial slurs, homophobic remarks, sexist remarks...that I could understand the ruckus over (course, again, it'd depend on the context and everything, too). But it's the "f" word. Everybody has heard it before, and I'm willing to bet that the people at the FCC have used said word themselves many times. It was not used in the manner that would make it illegal in Bono's case. He apologized for it. He had no intention of offending anybody. So therefore, as U2luv said, the FCC should've just dropped all this crap a year ago. There is absolutely no reason why the FCC still needs to be on his case about it over a year later. I would like to think they have much better things to do with their time.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

With all due respect, TheFirstBigW, the law was upheld when it was determined that it did not break the FCC laws. They have since changed it to fit their new agenda and to suit their own purpose. I don't know what else you could call it.

You're absolutely correct that the FCC flip-flopped on this issue and now finds itself in a somewhat hypocritical position because of it.

Their original ruling on the subject (that Bono's use of the word was not obscene because it was not used in a sexual context) was one of the most absurd examples of word-parsing rationalizations since Clinton's famous "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" line, as the word itself is loaded with sexual connotation regardless of the context in which it's used.

The issue really boils down to two objections: 1) many parents want to protect their children's innocence from what they perceive to be obscene language, and 2) some people believe that profanity is morally wrong and therefore should not be permissible on public-owned airwaves.

I'm not saying that their concerns should automatically override anyone else's, but I do think that those who are not offended by profanity should show at least a little thought and consideration towards those who are rather than disrespectfully dismissing all of them as idiotic prudes.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You're absolutely correct that the FCC flip-flopped on this issue and now finds itself in a somewhat hypocritical position because of it.

Their original ruling on the subject (that Bono's use of the word was not obscene because it was not used in a sexual context) was one of the most absurd examples of word-parsing rationalizations since Clinton's famous "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" line, as the word itself is loaded with sexual connotation regardless of the context in which it's used.

But if nobody thinks of sex when they hear it uttered in a manner like the one Bono presented it in, then there's really not a case, is there? Nowadays, the word's being used so much that very few people even flinch anymore when they hear it. They hear the word, and move on to the next thing.

Besides, as somebody said one time on a show, if somebody associates a word with something dirty, then they probably have a dirty mind to begin with.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
The issue really boils down to two objections: 1) many parents want to protect their children's innocence from what they perceive to be obscene language,

But that's never going to happen. I hate to break it to those parents, but if their kids don't hear swear words on TV, they'll hear them at school, in the store, sometimes in their own homes, even, with friends...anywhere. You will never, ever fully escape swear words. Ever. Not unless you hole yourself up in your room for the rest of your life.

Instead of parents making a huge deal out of them and trying to censor every single person out there who may say the word, be they on TV or not (because all that does is cause their kids to pay more attention to these words-kids naturally are curious when their parents get all outraged and tell them they can't see or hear something without really giving any reason as to why), just tell the kids, should they hear a swear word, that they would prefer the kids not uttering that word, because they don't think it's the most proper thing to say in conversation.

Course, I'm just curious...what exactly are people so afraid a kid will do upon hearing a swear word? Okay, they might repeat it, and...? Will the world come to an end? Will anyone die? No, so...what exactly is the fear?

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
and 2) some people believe that profanity is morally wrong and therefore should not be permissible on public-owned airwaves.

Well, that's the problem-everybody has their own ideas of what is and isn't moral. If swear words on the airwaves offend somebody so much, then don't listen to the station or watch the channel in which there's a chance they may air. I honestly don't know why that's such a hard thing for people to do. Can somebody please tell me why people can't do that?

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I'm not saying that their concerns should automatically override anyone else's, but I do think that those who are not offended by profanity should show at least a little thought and consideration towards those who are rather than disrespectfully dismissing all of them as idiotic prudes.

I'm not going to dismiss anybody who's offended by those words as "idiotic prudes"...if the words offend them so much...*Shrugs* Fine, whatever, they have their reasons. But then they personally don't have to watch the programs or listen to the stations or CDs in which those words air. If they're so disgusted by what TV offers up nowadays, anyway, why are they even watching it in the first place? Why not turn it off and read a book or take a walk or something?

And then for the others who aren't bothered by that stuff, they can be able to watch the shows or listen to the stuff that has those words in there without any editing of anything (editing is just plain stupid...yeah, we have no idea what word or gesture was used during the bleep or blur, that doesn't draw any attention to the offending word or gesture in any way whatsoever, nope). That way, nobody's forced to experience something they don't want to experience.

I don't mean to sound rude here or anything, by the way, so if I come across that way at all to anyone, I'm sorry. But it just bugs me that a small group of people think they can dictate to everybody else what they should and shouldn't hear or see. That's my decision to make, and nobody else's.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Nowadays, the word's being used so much that very few people even flinch anymore when they hear it.

That's called desensitization, and when it comes to vulgarity, it's generally not considered to be a good thing.

Besides, as somebody said one time on a show, if somebody associates a word with something dirty, then they probably have a dirty mind to begin with.

You don't have to have a dirty mind to associate the f-word with sex any more than you have to have a bigoted mind to associate the n-word with racism. It's what the word means and was created for in the first place, and just like the n-word, it has a tendency to shock some people when they hear it whether any malice is intended in its use or not.

You will never, ever fully escape swear words. Ever. Not unless you hole yourself up in your room for the rest of your life.

True. But what we're talking about here is public-owned airwaves, which means that the public gets to come together as a whole and decide through a democratic process what is and is not allowed to be broadcast on them. And right now, public policy says that such words are offensive and therefore not allowed. You can say them on privately owned cable television, but you can't say them on the public forum of broadcast television.

Course, I'm just curious...what exactly are people so afraid a kid will do upon hearing a swear word? Okay, they might repeat it, and...? Will the world come to an end? Will anyone die? No, so...what exactly is the fear?

For parents who believe that profanity is wrong, they don't want their child watching people cursing on a regular basis any more than they want their child watching pornography or live executions. In their mind, it's just as objectionable.

Well, that's the problem-everybody has their own ideas of what is and isn't moral.

Too true.

If swear words on the airwaves offend somebody so much, then don't listen to the station or watch the channel in which there's a chance they may air. I honestly don't know why that's such a hard thing for people to do. Can somebody please tell me why people can't do that?

Those who tuned in to the Golden Globes didn't expect there to be any cursing during the broadcast, and by the reaction of the show's producers, it's safe to say that they didn't either. If somebody curses during a live broadcast which was supposed to be free of cursing, it's too late for a parent to change the channel once the word has been said.

If they're so disgusted by what TV offers up nowadays, anyway, why are they even watching it in the first place? Why not turn it off and read a book or take a walk or something?

So that's your solution? Anyone who is offended by profanity should just give up television? What about their right to petition the system through the democratic process to define some kind of standards of behavior on a medium that they are part owner of? Should they not have the right to do that?

But it just bugs me that a small group of people think they can dictate to everybody else what they should and shouldn't hear or see.

Those who are against profanity for the right reasons are not trying to force their beliefs on others, they're simply trying to stand up for what they believe to be right, and if a person is acting in accordance with their conscience, they're willing to stand up for what they believe to be right even if they end up stepping on a few toes in the process.

That's my decision to make, and nobody else's.

What is allowed to be broadcast on public-owned airwaves is our decision to make as a collective society, and that means that everybody gets a chance to influence what society's rules of behavior are by working through the system.

And that's the one thing that I don't see much of in your otherwise fair-minded assessment of this issue: an acknowledgement that those who object to profanity have every bit as much of a right to try to influence public policy as you do.

Of course, it's frustrating when you don't like the current rules and you feel that your side isn't winning the public policy debate, but that's what a democracy is all about: if you don't like something, you can work to change it. It just means that your side needs to work harder through the system to make society reflect your beliefs.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

That's called desensitization, and when it comes to vulgarity, it's generally not considered to be a good thing.

But what if somebody doesn't see something as vulgar.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
You don't have to have a dirty mind to associate the f-word with sex any more than you have to have a bigoted mind to associate the n-word with racism. It's what the word means and was created for in the first place, and just like the n-word, it has a tendency to shock some people when they hear it whether any malice is intended in its use or not.

It'll only truly bother you if you let it bother you, though. And if a big deal is made out of the word, all that'll do is just draw more attention to it anyway.

Besides, black people use the "n" word all the time toward each other. It's in a different context now, and racism isn't associated with it. Just because a word was created with one meaning in mind doesn't mean it can't obtain new meanings later on. Look at the word "cool" and the meanings that word has, for example.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
True. But what we're talking about here is public-owned airwaves, which means that the public gets to come together as a whole and decide through a democratic process what is and is not allowed to be broadcast on them. And right now, public policy says that such words are offensive and therefore not allowed. You can say them on privately owned cable television, but you can't say them on the public forum of broadcast television.

It's not very democratic if one group of people makes that decision for everybody else, though. Most channels have their swearing at a minimum. But some people make it seem like that's all that TV is nowadays.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
For parents who believe that profanity is wrong, they don't want their child watching people cursing on a regular basis any more than they want their child watching pornography or live executions. In their mind, it's just as objectionable.

So don't have the kids watch the shows in which that occurs. Isn't that what the parental control things and the ratings were invented for to begin with? They can worry about their own children, and quit trying to parent everybody else's.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Too true.

Exactly, so why do some people feel this need to try and push their idea of morality on everybody else?

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Those who tuned in to the Golden Globes didn't expect there to be any cursing during the broadcast, and by the reaction of the show's producers, it's safe to say that they didn't either. If somebody curses during a live broadcast which was supposed to be free of cursing, it's too late for a parent to change the channel once the word has been said.

True, but then again, has cursing ever occured on the Golden Globes before (and since they usually manage to bleep it out, if there was, that would explain the lack of reaction before)? And what is the rating of the Golden Globes show? I don't recall it being rated "G". I'm guessing it's rated "PG" or "TV-14". Shouldn't that be a clue, then, that perhaps at some point and time, a swear word might possibly pop up on the awards show? And if that's the case, and the parent watches the show with their kid and the swear word occurs, well, they were warned...

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
So that's your solution? Anyone who is offended by profanity should just give up television?

No. Just don't watch the offending program (and my example was more towards those out there who just can't stand TV in general nowadays). I mean, call me crazy, but if I don't like a show or a movie, I don't watch it. Upon catching Bill O'Reilly on TV one time, I found that what he said tended to offend me, therefore, I don't watch him.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
What about their right to petition the system through the democratic process to define some kind of standards of behavior on a medium that they are part owner of? Should they not have the right to do that?

They can rant all they want about how they're personally offended by what they heard on TV. But why do I have to listen to edited shows just because they were personally bothered by what they heard? The problem is that there's those who are offended and those who aren't, and if we cater to one side, the other will be upset. Why not just let everybody make the personal decision for themselves and their own families, that way, nobody's imposing anything on anyone else.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Those who are against profanity for the right reasons are not trying to force their beliefs on others, they're simply trying to stand up for what they believe to be right, and if a person is acting in accordance with their conscience, they're willing to stand up for what they believe to be right even if they end up stepping on a few toes in the process.

If I forced all those who were offended by the "f" word to watch shows that contained said word, the offended side would understandably be upset with me and tell me that I can't make that decision for them. Well, the same applies here. I have no problem with them saying they're offended, they have every right to say that, and the side that wasn't offended can air their views. But to censor it is imposing their ideas of what is and isn't proper on those who disagree, just as forcing those who are offended to watch the offending program is imposing a certain view.

Remote controls, ratings systems, and parental control things are there for a reason. If you don't like what you hear on TV, you have every right to change the channel, and that way, you aren't being forced to watch the program.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
What is allowed to be broadcast on public-owned airwaves is our decision to make as a collective society, and that means that everybody gets a chance to influence what society's rules of behavior are by working through the system.

And that's the one thing that I don't see much of in your otherwise fair-minded assessment of this issue: an acknowledgement that those who object to profanity have every bit as much of a right to try to influence public policy as you do.

Of course, it's frustrating when you don't like the current rules and you feel that your side isn't winning the public policy debate, but that's what a democracy is all about: if you don't like something, you can work to change it. It just means that your side needs to work harder through the system to make society reflect your beliefs.

The thing is, though, in a country of 280 some million people, you will never get an agreement on what is and isn't proper to see on TV. It's even harder when you're confused about when, why, and what things are being censored. For instance, one day, I was watching a movie, and the "f" word was bleeped out, and yet the scenes with people smoking were kept in. Now I know some people have raised a ruckus in the past about smoking on TV and everything. But yet that's not censored, and the "f" word is (and ironically, this was on a cable channel, one that you didn't have to subscribe to if you didn't want to).

Both sides can talk about what they do and don't find offensive, yes. But again, just as the offended side wouldn't like it if those who aren't offended forced them to watch programs they didn't like, the non-offended side doesn't like the offended side trying to stop them from watching the programs they do like.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I think you're a sweetheart (no sexism/romance intended), and I really don't mean to argue with you just for the sake of arguing, and I don't think that you do, either.
Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
I really like Bono and I greatly admire his passion, his thirst for love and joy, and his tendency to explore and defend the core of Christianity apart from the church hierarchy of man-made religion.

I also think that Bono has gotten a bad rap for his slip of the tongue during the Golden Globes. We all know that Bono is one of the last people in the world who would intentionally try to offend anyone.

But perhaps because I know a lot of conservative Christian types, I can also understand and appreciate the viewpoint of those who believe they have an obligation to speak up in an effort to save this country from the type of moral decay which has been linked to the downfall of past human civilizations.

Maybe it's a realistic concern, maybe it isn't, but I'll defend to the end their right to fight for what they believe in as long as they do it within the bounds of the law.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think you're a sweetheart (no sexism/romance intended), and I really don't mean to argue with you just for the sake of arguing, and I don't think that you do, either.

Thanks for the compliment, first off. . Second, you're right, I don't. This is just an issue I have very strong opinions on. As I said earlier, I meant no offense to anyone who did disagree with me. It's just me being all opinionated and everything. .

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Deal.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I really like Bono and I greatly admire his passion, his thirst for love and joy, and his tendency to explore and defend the core of Christianity apart from the church hierarchy of man-made religion.

I also think that Bono has gotten a bad rap for his slip of the tongue during the Golden Globes. We all know that Bono is one of the last people in the world who would intentionally try to offend anyone.

Can't disagree with any of that. .

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
But perhaps because I know a lot of conservative Christian types, I can also understand and appreciate the viewpoint of those who believe they have an obligation to speak up in an effort to save this country from the type of moral decay which has been linked to the downfall of past human civilizations.

That makes sense. And I have no problem with them having those beliefs. They have their reasons for thinking the way they do, and that's fine. I just don't like it being pushed on me, but then again, they may not see it that way, so...

It'd really be nice if both sides could actually come together and try and do some compromising instead of one side trying to force things on the other. But, as I said before, in a country with as many people as this one has...that could be a bit on the difficult side. Eh. We'll see. Maybe someday something will be settled that'll make everyone happy.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Maybe it's a realistic concern, maybe it isn't, but I'll defend to the end their right to fight for what they believe in as long as they do it within the bounds of the law.

And that's cool. Even if I don't agree with what a person says, I applaud them for having the courage to stand up and say what they want, even if they know they may be in the minority if they do so. And if a good discussion comes out of the deal and both sides walk away happy, it's all worth it.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

It's just me being all opinionated and everything.

I guess I've done a fair amount of that, myself.

I just don't like it being pushed on me,

You're right, it's unfortunate that it works out that way. It's a real shame that the beliefs of each side intrudes upon the comfort zone of the other.

It'd really be nice if both sides could actually come together and try and do some compromising instead of one side trying to force things on the other.

Exactly. And that's the main reason that I get drawn into these debates, is when I perceive that people are not making an effort to understand the other side's point of view and come together for some type of mutual respect and understanding. To be honest, if the majority of people on this board were dissing Bono and calling him a foul-mouthed jerk, I would be on your side of the argument. So I guess maybe what I'm trying to do is restore some kind of balance.

And that's cool. Even if I don't agree with what a person says, I applaud them for having the courage to stand up and say what they want, even if they know they may be in the minority if they do so. And if a good discussion comes out of the deal and both sides walk away happy, it's all worth it.

Beautifully said. You're a breath of fresh air in a sea of angry voices.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

"the f-word is the most graphic description of a sexual act? i guess the members of the FCC have never had a rusty trombone... or a cleveland steamer... or never come home to the enjoyment that is a blumpie. those words aren't a more graphic description of a sexual act than the f-word? if they aren't, why do they cost twice as much?"
-lewis black