<BEEP>ing hell, did you hear about this <BEEP>?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Court Strikes Down FCC TV Indecency Rules

Court Strikes Down FCC TV Indecency Rules
Thursday July 15, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has ruled that the regulations applied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to control indecency on broadcast (non-cable) television violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech doctrine.

In its decision, the 3-judge panel found the FCC's six-year old broadcast television indecency policy to be "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."

The court's ruling questioned the FCC's policy of strictly applying its decency policy to broadcast television while "almost 87 percent of households subscribe to a cable or satellite service - and most viewers can alternate between broadcast and non-broadcast channels with a click of their remote control."

"The past thirty years has seen an explosion of media sources, and broadcast television has become only one voice in the chorus," stated the court, adding that, "The internet, too, has become omnipresent, offering access to everything from viral videos to feature films and, yes, even broadcast television programs."

The court further criticized the FCC for not consistently applying the indecency regulations. The court cited an example in which the use of a slang term for bull excrement in an episode of "NYPD Blue" was ruled patently offensive by the FCC, but multiple slang references to the human penis were found to be acceptable.

"The English language is rife with creative ways of depicting sexual or excretory organs or activities, and even if the FCC were able to provide a complete list of all such expressions, new offensive and indecent words are invented every day," wrote the court.

The FCC Responds: While the government had not yet decided if it would appeal the court's ruling, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps expressed shock at what he called the court's "anti-family decision."

"Sadly, the court focused its energies on the purported chilling effect our indecency policy has on broadcasters of indecent programming, and no time focusing on the chilling effect today's decision will have on the ability of American parents to safeguard the interests of their children," said Copps in a press statement.

Coupled to this, I'd like to present Stephen Fry.

Warning, this clip may contain the word "<BEEP>ing", beware of the chilling effect on your ability to safeguard the interest of your children.

Spoiler Stephen Fry on the Joys of Swearing :

Link to video.

I'd be happy if those silly censor beeps where removed. Swearing aint no big thing, and censoring it only serves to make it one.

 

[Grisu]

about <insert swear word> time though I'm not sure how much it matteres anymore these days since next to nobody watches tv through broadcast (I assume it's the same way in the US?)

anti-family decision

 

[Leifmk]

I'd just like to note that Stephen Fry's voice is one of the most pleasant I've heard.

 

[Reiser]

Possibly the only reason for censoring is because of, yet again, apparently the problem for many things, religion. The second commandment of Christianity (or at least my denomination) says that "You will not misuse the name of the Lord." This references to swearing, as I was taught.
In fact, as some of the swearing people do they do as insulting, so this also breaks the fifth commandment, "You should not murder." Of course, it's not murdering, but the commandment also references to hurting both physically and mentally, which is what some people use swearing for, as I'm sure you've seen over the Internet.
This is the most likely reason that swearing is censored, but it is quickly dissolving.

And yes, I have to turn everything religiously as it is a factor some people have to represent.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The f and s words, or the mf word or the cs word aren't the names of the Lord are they?

I think "God Damned" would be aired uncensored.

 

[Reiser]

Well, yes, of course, but like I said with the fifth commandment, it doesn't have to be exactly what the commandment refers to.
I'll try to find the commandments tonight in my Bible and see if it references to the swear words.

Probably now, but 30-40 years ago it would mark the end of a show.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"Shalt not use the Lords name in vain" innit?

But you're right it might well be where this monkey business started. In 50 years the f and s words will be as offensive as the G' D'-ed word is now and there will be new and improved words to chill the ability of parents to safeguard the interests of their children

 

[Turner]

I swear quite a bit in RL, but hardly ever on a computer. I do find it amazing though what some of the censored words are....

I dunno...I'm kinda two minds about this. On the one hand, I'd like to be able to watch a show without having to worry about what language my kids are exposed too. OTOH, my 5 y/o daughter swears more (and usually more appropriately) than I do.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Interestingly, I was wondering if the censorship had been relaxed lately; I've noticed increasing amounts of the b word and d(not the condemned to hell one) word in television lately. Of course, since there are three censors over all media to my knowledge - the government, the station, and the show itself - I had no idea what was relaxed: the FCC, Cartoon Network or Family Guy/another cartoon.

This just makes me happy though; I think the FCC's censorship should be struck down entirely. You don't like it, don't watch/listen. What kind of person attempts to censor things they don't like, rather than being a mature, intelligent individual who tunes out?

Now, other than the invalid "morality" response, a response to this would be that it would allow the takeover of the media by the obscene. Not necessarily; so long as there's a demand for non-obscene things, logically there will be a supply. Similar to how private insurance would probably never die with the introduction of a public option provided enough people were too conspicuous of government insurance they'd instead buy into a private plan.

That and it's rather umm... condescending towards many, as it assumes most people want sex, drugs, blood and gore, and the f word to dominate each and every second of TV. ...I'm not sure if any of these genii noticed, but most people seem to think too many of these things make it tasteless.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..) You don't like it, don't watch/listen. (..)

Compare this to: I don't like advertising on TV, but I do like to watch TV. There's nowhere advertising-free I can go ?
Does that mean I can't watch TV ?

Same might happen with swearing - should people who do not appreciate swearing be forced away from visual media ?

 

[Turner]

What kind of person attempts to censor things they don't like, rather than being a mature, intelligent individual who tunes out?

.
People, I think, inherently are incapable of leaving other people alone. Although I think we're getting better about it now than we were, oh, I don't know, fifty years ago.

But outsiders usually think that way. They just want to exist in peace and do what pleases them. Especially those who aren't blatant about their otherness. But society likes conformity, and I think that's where the desire to make other people like them come from.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Compare this to: I don't like advertising on TV, but I do like to watch TV. There's nowhere advertising-free I can go ?
Does that mean I can't watch TV ?

Poor analogy. You don't pay for TV; the advertisers do.

If you were paying for the TV, then you certainly have a right to watch it free of advertising.

Same might happen with swearing - should people who do not appreciate swearing be forced away from visual media ?

Pretty much; they're not paying for it and so have no real right to what goes on it. Granted the show can lose viewers... but shows will naturally adjust to suit this powerful demographic.

The market will adjust itself to meet the needs of the viewers, as people don't tune in to what they do not like. There is no need for government regulation, when I think the market regulates itself just fine in this aspect. Simply because any sane businessmen who knows swearing or sexual content won't sell good, will simply avoid putting it in, as their first concern is money.

People, I think, inherently are incapable of leaving other people alone. Although I think we're getting better about it now than we were, oh, I don't know, fifty years ago.

Oh yes, definitely. We've come a long way, but the journey has only just begun.

I'm looking forward to the day when gay couplings are shown on children's shows. It will be a sign of a great social change.

That and I just want to see people overreact to children being educated about a simple fact. How is gayness any more explicit than heterosexuality if no sexual material is shown? Is kissing really any different if you change the sexes? Sure, one might be "icky," but beyond that, it's still kissing.

But outsiders usually think that way. They just want to exist in peace and do what pleases them. Especially those who aren't blatant about their otherness. But society likes conformity, and I think that's where the desire to make other people like them come from.

Now we just need laws that keep these people from forcing their way upon others. And also, somebody just needs to slap them and remind them that if they dislike the content so much, they should just get together and start their own programming. Bam. Everyone's happy; I get my violence and non-PG material, and they get their morally wholesome, safe for their kids shows.

...now of course, not all are happy with that. But I believe there's a word for people unwilling to not have everything their way... wasn't it "childish"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Compare this to: I don't like advertising on TV, but I do like to watch TV. There's nowhere advertising-free I can go ?
Does that mean I can't watch TV ?

Same might happen with swearing - should people who do not appreciate swearing be forced away from visual media ?

Holland doesn't have these swear restrictions, but it wouldn't be too hard for me to pick and choose the programs I know are not going to have swear words in them.

Movies are a different matter. But hey, when you have freedom of speech there's going to lots of stuff aired which makes you uncomfortable or which go against your ideas of decency. You just deal with them, or change the channel.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I wonder how the court got around indecency laws..

 

[Turner]

Poor analogy. You don't pay for TV; the advertisers do.

If you were paying for the TV, then you certainly have a right to watch it free of advertising.

But I pay for cable television (satellite, actually, but same thing) and I have to watch commercials too!

Now we just need laws that keep these people from forcing their way upon others. And also, somebody just needs to slap them and remind them that if they dislike the content so much, they should just get together and start their own programming. Bam. Everyone's happy; I get my violence and non-PG material, and they get their morally wholesome, safe for their kids shows.

You completely missed my point.

 

[Tani Coyote]

But I pay for cable television (satellite, actually, but same thing) and I have to watch commercials too!

That is an excellent scenario that I thought of after posting. I think I know where the businesses make the catch... you pay for the cable broadcasting alone.

The stations, however, have to make money themselves, and so they still have to place ads in order to generate this.

Now, a better situation to use might be the theater... how the heck does that work? I'm pretty sure the theater and the movie makers get their cut from the ticket price... so why the ads?

Well, apart from the fact that being self-interested businessmen, they feel the need to shove the next few movies to come out in your face, so that you will return when it is released. ...beats me why they couldn't just mass-advertise on TV, however. I guess they believe advertising to moviegoers is more profitable, as they go to the theater to begin with?

You completely missed my point.

That society is very conformist, yes. And that one could pinpoint the irony in striking down censorship in its entirety, as that in itself forces others to conform to the uncensored society.

Of course, if that was the argument, my response would be that conformity here is "everyone should be able to see what they want" versus the traditional conformity of "everyone should have to see what you want."

 

[Turner]

Movie theaters don't make their money from ticket sales. As I recall, ticket sales barely cover the rental of the film. Movie theaters make their money from concession sales, which is part of the reason why the prices are so high. Adding commercials to the previews is the next logical step for them to increase income.

It's a cut throat business, and every little bit helps.

 

[Zelig]

I swear quite a bit in RL, but hardly ever on a computer. I do find it amazing though what some of the censored words are....

I dunno...I'm kinda two minds about this. On the one hand, I'd like to be able to watch a show without having to worry about what language my kids are exposed too. OTOH, my 5 y/o daughter swears more (and usually more appropriately) than I do.

I have an easy solution for my kids: they don't watch TV.

 

[Turner]

Must be nice.....

 

[Tani Coyote]

Movie theaters don't make their money from ticket sales. As I recall, ticket sales barely cover the rental of the film. Movie theaters make their money from concession sales, which is part of the reason why the prices are so high.

Now it makes sense why they're such Nazis about taking food in.

Adding commercials to the previews is the next logical step for them to increase income.

It also could be the fact that these ads allow them to get the message out to more people and convince them to return to the theater; it is logical to assume people who come once will come more than once.

Everyone but the consumer profits - the theater gets ticket/concession sales, and the people behind the movie gets their fat checks.

Of course, movie theaters have diversified as of late, and some now include non-movies(mainly television shows) in their list of ads.

It's a cut throat business, and every little bit helps.

I suppose we're kind of all screwed no matter where we go then... ads are everywhere for whichever reason; overall though, they serve us by costing us time rather than money...

The alternative. as I understand, would be paying inflated ticket prices at theaters, paying money directly to TV producers, etc. Which is far more inconvenient and cumbersome than the current advertising-oriented system. For example: would one rather watch the various internet videos and have to sit through a 15(or 30+ in some cases, dear lord...) advertisement, or pay a membership fee? Advertising also is proportionate to your viewership; membership may not be.

Thanks for the clarifications on the movie industry, though, Turner.

---

Just to make this post a little more on-topic, I think we've reached the various reasons why we must put up with ads for one reason or another; for TVs and radios, it lets you watch/listen for free, whereas for theaters it helps them stay in business, which is the better alternative to them not being able to provide a service those who complain about the ads desire to keep using.

Censorship can be vaguely related to advertisement, but I'd say it's not the best analogy. Ads exist to let things be free(costing time rather than money) and so aren't really comparable to various things being screened out for being objectionable, since that's just a matter of taste and preference. A show doesn't cost any more or less as you change the content; all that matters is the viewership. In accordance with this, the market will regulate itself: only things that will attract a profitable audience will be aired.

Unless the people running the programs do it for non-profit reasons, of course. But in general, profit is what they're after. If the public demands no pornography, then, by God, there will be no pornography. The government banning it would be entirely unnecessary.

There's also the personal taste of those behind the show and those who actually can choose to air it or not.

Overall, government censorship is blatantly unnecessary in this case. I don't believe the market is entirely foolproof, but neither do I believe the government must regulate every tiniest section of it. Let those who produce the shows choose what to put on, and let those who watch the shows choose what to watch and not watch. Everyone's happy this way!