(10-07-03) No FCC Action Vs. Bono Over Naughty Word -- Hollywood Reporter *

[dsmith2904]

No FCC Action Vs. Bono Over Naughty Word

Reuters Photo

By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - The Federal Communications Commission decided that U2 singer Bono's utterance of an obscenity during this year's broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards did not constitute a violation of the nation's broadcast indecency rules.

On Monday, the government agency's Enforcement Bureau rejected complaints by the Parents Television Council and others that Bono's use of the phrase "this is really, really f---ing brilliant" failed to meet the test for indecency. The bureau ruled that Bono's indiscretion was so "fleeting and isolated" that it did not run afoul of the rules.

The commission defines indecent speech as language that, in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards. As a threshold matter, the material aired during NBC's Golden Globes telecast doesn't fall into that category, the bureau ruled.

"The word 'f---ing' my be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities," the bureau wrote. "Rather, the performer used the word 'f---ing' as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activities or organs is not within the scope of the commission's prohibition of indecent program content."

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

 

[DaveC]

 

[Peter]

who on earth is worrying about that? I thought you Americans lived in a country of free speech.

I find the way news is treated on some American news networks much more obscene than Bono's expressions...
but that's another discussion

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Wow. You mean they were still discussing that incident? .

Meh. Anywho, I feel like saying, "Duh" here. Bono didn't use that word in some "derogatory" sense, that should've been pretty obvious from the beginning. I'm glad to see that the FCC realized that, and I think it's sad we have these groups sitting around getting all uptight about a harmless incident like this to begin with.

I wonder if the Parents Television Council would've objected to my sig?

Angela

 

[Keocmb]

It's a good thing we're not spending our time worrying about those smaller problems like world hunger and AIDS.

Bravo, FCC. Congratulations.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's a good thing we're not spending our time worrying about those smaller problems like world hunger and AIDS.

Heh, really, no kidding.

Originally posted by Peter
I thought you Americans lived in a country of free speech.

So did I.

Angela

 

[bonoriffic]

who on earth is worrying about that? I thought you Americans lived in a country of free speech.

Bono can say whatever he wants. The problem was it was broadcast to millions of homes. The issue was with the network, not Bono. Broadcast networks in America are free of charge. The only rule you have to follow is not say a few ever decreasing swear words during the hours children might be watching.

Don't confuse free speech with broadcast rules. Bono or any other citizen still has the right to stand on any public corner and say whatever he wants. He just doesn't have the right to have it broadcast to millions of homes before 9pm.

 

[U2andPolitix]

The Parents Television Council sounds like another one of those conservative think-tanks like "concerned women for america" or something like that. its just a bunch of nannying women with dark roots who complain about liberals and their stands on issues. (i have the feeling i'm gonna get yelled at for this one.)

 

[U2andPolitix]

PS-don't get me wrong i'm a woman myself but i'm a liberal who gets annoyed by the conservative think-tanks. most americans will know what i'm talking about.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Don't confuse free speech with broadcast rules.

Exactly right...indecency restrictions on public airwaves in America do limit what obscenities you can say on television.

Maybe Bono wasn't thinking about American Broadcast Standards at the time because he's used to European TV not having standards that are as strict, so I suppose it's understandable.

When Bono was interviewed by Charlie Rose and Rose asked him about the fact that he sometimes curses, Bono said with wide eyes and complete sincerity, "I can't help it!", so I wonder if maybe Bono isn't inflicted with a mild case of Tourette's Syndrome, as this is not the first time that his language has gotten him in trouble on American television.

 

[Catman]

"...so I wonder if maybe Bono isn't inflicted with a mild case of Tourette's Syndrome, as this is not the first time that his language has gotten him in trouble on American television."

Nah, I think it's just because he's Irish


But anyway, about this decision, does that mean popular cable network dramas and sitcoms can now drop a few f-bombs (within the appropriate context) without being penalized?

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

hell has anyone seen Nip/Tuck talk about use of offensive words.

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

That's fookin' brilliant, FCC!

 

[shaun vox]

FUCK!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The Parents Television Council sounds like another one of those conservative think-tanks like "concerned women for america" or something like that. its just a bunch of nannying women with dark roots who complain about liberals and their stands on issues. (i have the feeling i'm gonna get yelled at for this one.)

Yep. Those groups bug the crap out of me. They're in the same vein as Tipper Gore. . Sorry, but I think I'm mature enough to determine what I can and can't handle hearing on my own television, I don't need some group deciding that for me (not to mention, have they forgotten about things like remote controls?).

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Maybe Bono wasn't thinking about American Broadcast Standards at the time because he's used to European TV not having standards that are as strict, so I suppose it's understandable.

That's a good point.

I don't see what the big deal was...most really little kids wouldn't even really get the full gist of what was going on anyway, and it's not a word that nobody's ever heard before. And kids have swore long before Bono's utterance of the word, and they'll continue to regardless of who says it on T.V. (in fact, I'd say that kids who hear their parents swear are picking it up from them more than from T.V.).

It's just amazing how uptight people can get over that kind of thing.

Angela

 

[Keocmb]

Maybe Bono wasn't thinking about American Broadcast Standards at the time because he's used to European TV not having standards that are as strict, so I suppose it's understandable.

I wonder if maybe Bono isn't inflicted with a mild case of Tourette's Syndrome, as this is not the first time that his language has gotten him in trouble on American television.

Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck about censorship. He'd be a good man for it.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck about censorship.

That's what I've understood from what I've read and heard.

And for that, I admire him even more.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Maybe he just doesn't give a fuck about censorship.

I don't know...in his interview with Charlie Rose, Bono seemed to be somewhat apologetic and distressed about it, saying that he sometimes had a "salty tongue" and with wide-eyed sincerity saying that he "couldn't help it".

And I don't know if I'd call a public consensus to protect children from profanity during early evening viewing an example of censorship any more than I would call a law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater censorship. Freedom of speech also involves some level of responsibility.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not attacking Bono here, because I don't think that he did it on purpose to offend or hurt anyone. Maybe Bono would have to be an American to understand how America as a whole tends to view this issue somewhat differently than Europe.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

this was one of the lead stories on fox 5 news here in new york after the yankee-red sox game... i'll tell ya, it's quite funny to see a comercial previewing the news durring the 9th inning saying "is it ok to say the F word on TV now? thanks to bono, it just might be." they also caught up with bono who was apparently in new york last night and interviewed him over it... he had this whole look of "why the fuck is this a story?" on his face... quite funny

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

this was one of the lead stories on fox 5 news here in new york after the yankee-red sox game... i'll tell ya, it's quite funny to see a comercial previewing the news durring the 9th inning saying "is it ok to say the F word on TV now? thanks to bono, it just might be."

...

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
they also caught up with bono who was apparently in new york last night and interviewed him over it... he had this whole look of "why the fuck is this a story?" on his face... quite funny

Haha! I don't blame him! That's the exact same thing I'm wondering.

Like I said, it was pretty obvious he didn't mean any offense with the word. It just slipped out due to him being really happy, it didn't describe any bodily functions or sexual acts or whatnot, it's a word everyone's heard at least once before...what exactly was the problem? .

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Like I said, it was pretty obvious he didn't mean any offense with the word. It just slipped out due to him being really happy,

I think you're exactly right. Bono would be one of the last people to offend others on purpose.

...what exactly was the problem?

Well, this is a little more complicated...

Believe it or not, there are a significant number of people in America who are offended by either hearing profanity or having their children hear it. These objections are based upon a variety of concerns...some based upon religion, others based upon a desire to preserve a certain level of innocence during childhood, and perhaps yet others simply based upon an opposition to what they perceive to be vulgarity.

The American broadcasting standards which limit profanity on public airwaves during certain hours exist for the same reason that rated-G movies are not allowed to contain profanity: because it's likely that children will be watching.

Anyone who watched the Golden Globe Awards will remember that a somewhat surprised sounding murmur shot through the Hollywood crowd in attendance when Bono made that remark. This was not because the crowd was offended by what he said, but rather because they (as celebrities) are well-familiar with broadcast language restrictions and are not accustomed to hearing such words used on a primetime American network telecast.

American celebrities are simply used to having to watch their language on certain programs. For example, all stand-up comics know that they have to somewhat "clean up" their routines (removing profanity and sexual content) when they appear on something like The Tonight Show. For American celebrities, this is just an understood fact of life. Of course, cable television is something of a different story from public-owned airwaves, but even on cable TV such programs as MTV's Tom Green show will bleep out the word that Bono used.

Like I said, don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Bono, and while it's true that Bono made a mistake that may have inadvertantly offended some people, I think that mainly it can be chalked up to being a misunderstanding based upon cultural differences.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think you're exactly right. Bono would be one of the last people to offend others on purpose.

Exactly.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Well, this is a little more complicated...

Believe it or not, there are a significant number of people in America who are offended by either hearing profanity or having their children hear it. These objections are based upon a variety of concerns...some based upon religion, others based upon a desire to preserve a certain level of innocence during childhood, and perhaps yet others simply based upon an opposition to what they perceive to be vulgarity.

I know. I just fail to understand what offends them about it in the first place-everyone's heard swear words before. A lot of people who get offended by that sort of thing tend to take the words out of context a lot of the time, anyway...so they make a big deal out of something that, if you look at it in the context it was said in, turned out not to be all that offensive in the first place.

I also wish adults would realize that kids today barely bat an eye when hearing swear words anymore-if they don't hear them on T.V., they'll hear them at school...they'll probably even hear their parents utter them on occasion. And as for religious folks...um...are they forgetting that ministers swear sometimes during sermons? Parents pretending swear words (and other "offensive" things that are dealt with on television) don't exist aren't really preparing their kids for the real world-unfortunately, a lot of kids today grow up faster than necessary because of a lot of things. Might as well prepare them for this sort of thing instead of sweep it under the rug and act like it never existed.

Not to mention, what one adult deems "vulgar", another adult may not have a problem with. Everyone has their own ideas of what's vulgar...so why do we have these standards set? If someone watches a show and something they find offensive occurs, then why can't they just change the channel?

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
The American broadcasting standards which limit profanity on public airwaves during certain hours exist for the same reason that rated-G movies are not allowed to contain profanity: because it's likely that children will be watching.

Anyone who watched the Golden Globe Awards will remember that a somewhat surprised sounding murmur shot through the Hollywood crowd in attendance when Bono made that remark. This was not because the crowd was offended by what he said, but rather because they (as celebrities) are well-familiar with broadcast language restrictions and are not accustomed to hearing such words used on a primetime American network telecast.

American celebrities are simply used to having to watch their language on certain programs. For example, all stand-up comics know that they have to somewhat "clean up" their routines (removing profanity and sexual content) when they appear on something like The Tonight Show. For American celebrities, this is just an understood fact of life. Of course, cable television is something of a different story from public-owned airwaves, but even on cable TV such programs as MTV's Tom Green show will bleep out the word that Bono used.

I understand that celebrities have to be careful (course, MTV censoring someone is kinda ironic, considering at one time they claimed to be a channel that your parents wouldn't want you watching...now they bow to those kinds of censorship things...). I get what you're saying about everything here, and realize that this is the case in America.

I just don't agree with the fact that we even have standards and that we're making sure celebrities clean up their language and all that to begin with. I think it'd make things so much easier if each person decided for themselves what they could and couldn't handle seeing and hearing, and if something came on that did offend them, all they'd have to do is change the channel and that'd be the end of it for them. I shouldn't have to watch a show that was edited simply because Mr. and Mrs. John Doe in North Dakota found the unedited version of it offensive, you know?

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
Like I said, don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Bono, and while it's true that Bono made a mistake that may have inadvertantly offended some people, I think that mainly it can be chalked up to being a misunderstanding based upon cultural differences.

I know you're not attacking him, like I said, I totally get what you're saying. And yeah, the cultural differences thing certainly makes sense to me. Like stated already, I think that's true that Bono sometimes forgets America views swearing and things like that differently than Ireland might. And that's perfectly understandable.

Angela

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i didn't even hear him say it didn't realize he said fucking until reading the report after the show. there was no intent for him to say what he did, it was a spur of the moment thing, not the first time he's said fuck on an american awards ceremony (grammys), and i don't think he should be fined for an accident

 

[TheFirstBigW]

And as for religious folks...um...are they forgetting that ministers swear sometimes during sermons?.

Exactly what church are you referring to? Here in America, a Christian minister who would swear during a sermon would be run out of town with torches and pitchforks.

I think that sometimes people can overreact or be overly judgemental when it comes to profanity (as in the attack on Bono), but I also would defend someone's right to engage in a social battle against what they believe to be morally wrong.

Not to mention, what one adult deems "vulgar", another adult may not have a problem with.

You're right that people have different personal standards on this, much of which is based on personal opinion, but I also think that if any word used in the way that Bono used it could be defined as vulgar, then "f***ing" would be it.

After all, it is not simply an effusive adjective like "amazing" or "wonderful", but it is also a word that is linked to a very intimate and explicit physical act between two human beings. I can understand how someone would not consider his use of the word to be vulgar because no sexual inferences were intended, but I can also understand how someone would feel that any use of that word cannot help but at the very least indirectly evoke a sexual connotation that has no relation to the subject matter of the sentence.

 

[Keocmb]

I can't believe this is an issue.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly what church are you referring to? Here in America, a Christian minister who would swear during a sermon would be run out of town with torches and pitchforks.

I dunno...I thought some of the churches in this country did have ministers who swore-the "fire and brimstone" types of ministers, if you will...

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I think that sometimes people can overreact or be overly judgemental when it comes to profanity (as in the attack on Bono), but I also would defend someone's right to engage in a social battle against what they believe to be morally wrong.

Exactly. If someone does find a word offensive, then by all means they can say so-I'm more than willing to let them express their dissent (after all, they're entitled to say what they want, too).

I just think censoring it merely because they personally found it horrible isn't right.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
You're right that people have different personal standards on this, much of which is based on personal opinion, but I also think that if any word used in the way that Bono used it could be defined as vulgar, then "f***ing" would be it.

After all, it is not simply an effusive adjective like "amazing" or "wonderful", but it is also a word that is linked to a very intimate and explicit physical act between two human beings. I can understand how someone would not consider his use of the word to be vulgar because no sexual inferences were intended, but I can also understand how someone would feel that any use of that word cannot help but at the very least indirectly evoke a sexual connotation that has no relation to the subject matter of the sentence.

I guess that makes sense.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

I thought some of the churches in this country did have ministers who swore-the "fire and brimstone" types of ministers, if you will...

The only thing that I can think of that might have made you think that is that "fire and brimstone" preachers often refer to "Hell" and "damnation", but neither of those words are used as a swear word...Hell is referred to as a place, and damnation (which means being sent to Hell) is what they believe happens to a person if they reject God.

I just think censoring it merely because they personally found it horrible isn't right.[/B]

I agree with you to a certain extent.

I would equate these language broadcast restrictions with the laws in some American cities which say that people are not allowed to smoke on public property. That is also an instance of an activist group who is imposing their will upon the rest of the community (many of whom probably feel like they should have the freedom to smoke on a sidewalk if they want to). The smoking activists also make a similar argument that they are enforcing their rules for the overall good of everyone...in the case of smoking on public-owned property, the argument is for society's phyiscal health, in the case of profanity on public-owned airwaves, the argument is for society's moral health.

The good news is that anyone who doesn't like any of society's self-imposed rules of behavior can work within the system to change them. And we should also ask ourselves if some of these rules might actually have some value, because there is a very fine line between freedom and anarchy, and that line is drawn by the concept that our freedoms should be limited to the extent where they might do harm to someone else.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The only thing that I can think of that might have made you think that is that "fire and brimstone" preachers often refer to "Hell" and "damnation", but neither of those words are used as a swear word...Hell is referred to as a place, and damnation (which means being sent to Hell) is what they believe happens to a person if they reject God.

Yeah. In some contexts those words are looked down upon, so that's why they still seem like swear words to me.

But used in that context, I guess not.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I agree with you to a certain extent.

I would equate these language broadcast restrictions with the laws in some American cities which say that people are not allowed to smoke on public property. That is also an instance of an activist group who is imposing their will upon the rest of the community (many of whom probably feel like they should have the freedom to smoke on a sidewalk if they want to). The smoking activists also make a similar argument that they are enforcing their rules for the overall good of everyone...in the case of smoking on public-owned property, the argument is for society's phyiscal health, in the case of profanity on public-owned airwaves, the argument is for society's moral health.

*Nods*

Yeah, definitely similar, those restrictions (and personally, that's another type of law I don't agree with).

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
The good news is that anyone who doesn't like any of society's self-imposed rules of behavior can work within the system to change them.

Exactly. That's always a good thing. .

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
And we should also ask ourselves if some of these rules might actually have some value, because there is a very fine line between freedom and anarchy, and that line is drawn by the concept that our freedoms should be limited to the extent where they might do harm to someone else.

Yep.

Personally, I've always felt that as long as you aren't forcing anyone to participate in the activities that you're participating in, and as long as it's not something where people'd be forced into situations that could harm them, then you should be allowed to do or say anything that you want.

Angela

 

[TheFirstBigW]

Personally, I've always felt that as long as you aren't forcing anyone to participate in the activities that you're participating in, and as long as it's not something where people'd be forced into situations that could harm them, then you should be allowed to do or say anything that you want.

I couldn't agree more.

I guess that people who try to control language on TV believe that profanity can potentially harm children, which is why they think it shouldn't be a freedom in a situation where children might hear it. A situation like that can spark heated debates where each side feels like their rights are being infringed upon by the other.

I also think it's important that we try to respect the beliefs of others and engage in this kind of constructive dialogue rather than simply judging and/or ridiculing one another without making an attempt to understand the perspective of the other side.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I couldn't agree more.

.

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I guess that people who try to control language on TV believe that profanity can potentially harm children, which is why they think it shouldn't be a freedom in a situation where children might hear it. A situation like that can spark heated debates where each side feels like their rights are being infringed upon by the other.

Definitely true that this sparks debates.

Which is fine, because, as you've probably guessed by now, I'm very opinionated on this issue, and love debating it with people. .

Originally posted by TheFirstBigW
I also think it's important that we try to respect the beliefs of others and engage in this kind of constructive dialogue rather than simply judging and/or ridiculing one another without making an attempt to understand the perspective of the other side.

*Nods*

Angela