Announcement

**Ezor** · 01-04-2005, 04:15 PM

Welcome to America.

**CrvenBan** · 01-04-2005, 04:25 PM

Historian Philippe Ariès notes a change in Europe around the end of the 16th century, when "certain pedagogues ... refused to allow children to be given indecent books any longer."2 By the middle of the 18th century, this notion of childhood sexual innocence led to anti-masturbation hysteria in Europe and America, and fueled early attempts to censor sexually arousing art and literature.

In America, the leading enforcer of this "deprave and corrupt" standard was Anthony Comstock, a grocery clerk-turned social activist who persuaded Congress in 1873 to expand the federal obscenity law. The new "Comstock Law" barred sending through the mails not only "any obscene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, print, or other publication of vulgar and indecent character," but "any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of contraception or procuring of abortion."

The Supreme Court finally confronted the obscenity issue in 1957. In Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan wrote for the Court that even though sex is "a great and mysterious motive force in human life," and "a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages," sexual materials that have a predominantly "prurient" appeal to the average adult, and that utterly lack "redeeming social importance," are not protected by the First Amendment.

http://www.fepproject.org/factsheets...sorship.html#2

**SpiderMage** · 01-04-2005, 06:14 PM

God Bless America... Land of the Fre-- wait...

Freedom of Speech is dead, right to choose is dead, freedom of expression... yeah that's dead too.

I swear, the FCC is messed up, banning words like fuck, shit, cock, etc. There's far more worse things you could say with "clean" words... case in point...

"I'd like to slice open your baby's stomach and feed it it's own intestines while it hangs from a rusted meathook on the ceiling... then stuff it right back in the mother's vagina and sew her right back up."

A bit more offensive than a simple four letter word isn't it? But look, look, not one swear word, so I guess that statement would be ok to play on public radio or on PBS.

**kites** · 01-04-2005, 06:55 PM

I'm surprised Howard Stern hasn't been assassinated yet.

It's a miracle I'm sure.

**pv=nrt** · 01-04-2005, 08:33 PM

yawn, the pedulum will swing back the other way. It's an age old process. You guys look so short term

**bloodzombie** · 01-05-2005, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by pv=nrt

yawn, the pedulum will swing back the other way. It's an age old process. You guys look so short term

Yeah, it's better to just ignore problems and assume they'll turn out alright. We have an FCC that doesn't define what's indecent, they just fine you when somebody complains. Howard Stern got fined because of hundreds of supposed letters received by the FCC, upon closer inspection, almost all of the letters were exactly the same. I think there were only 3 actual different letters. You think it's fair to fine someone because 3 people complain?

Not only that, the FCC assumes the right to go back and fine him for shows from 3 years ago with the stricter guidelines (that aren't defined anywhere) that they use now.

Say what you want about a pendulum, basically what it means is that they can silence anyone that they want to for any reason that they want. That's scary shit.

**CrvenBan** · 01-05-2005, 01:10 PM

For the moment, the policy change will basically increase fines. In doing so, the FCC aims at broadcast giants, like Infinity. But the target hit is likely to be quite a different one.

Jesse Walker, managing editor of Reason magazine and author of “Rebels on the Air,” explains, “What might be the cost of doing business for Infinity Broadcasting could spell death for a college station that plays records with edgy lyrics, or a low-power community station that airs serious discussions about sex and health.”

Radio is particularly vulnerable. There are more independent radio stations than television ones; a high percentage of radio programming is live; the FCC-targeted shock jocks are a radio phenomenon; and, there are few television equivalents to freewheeling college radio stations. But both radio and television are equally vulnerable to the vagueness of the FCC’s definition of indecency.

[...]

With the threat of the BDEA, even large broadcasters are chilling free speech and self-censoring. The most publicized instance is NBC’s decision to cut the image of an elderly woman’s breast from its popular medical drama “ER.” John Wells, “ER’s” executive producer, argued that the audience was aware of the show’s adult themes and could adjust their viewing habits accordingly.

[...]

Today, the first response to any controversy is, “there ought to be a law.” But in matters of morality and freedom of speech, it is best for law to be the very last recourse society considers. The first resort is to let freedom and the free market function.

Those concerned with the moral content of radio and television are being provided with more control every day: rating systems, live-feed delays, constant polls that serve as feedback to broadcasters, organized boycotts, and tools of parental control such as cable locks or decoders. Passing a law has the same appeal as drawing a gun: on the surface, it quickly stops an activity that annoys you. But drawing a gun does not solve cultural issues: it only introduces force into them.

We cannot allow the self-serving coarseness of some performers to damage freedom of speech and independent broadcasting.

Article: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1264
-----------------------

This also gives problems as FCC can get the right to issue speech-control based on just a few acts such as Janet, or some lyrics in a song. It's rediculous that there even is such thing as explicit or strong language, as you can always choose what to listen or not to listen. That one part of human body (which we all have been sucking on for good year or two) can cause such controversy is beyond me, or saying one of those 7 words, especially in modern day when there is a lot of sex-related adds floating around and access to internet is almost in every home.
Shouldn't they be more worried about gun problems and crimes and drugs rather than about who said fuck and shit on national tv

PH · 01-05-2005, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by CrvenBan

Shouldn't they be more worried about gun problems and crimes and drugs rather than about who said fuck and shit on national tv

No, because blaming the media for society's ineptitude is the way of the Bush administration.

**bloodzombie** · 01-05-2005, 01:52 PM

I understand the explicit lyrics tags on cds, and the tv ratings on shows, those make a lot of sense and inform people what they are getting into if they purchase or view those programs. If you don't like sexual content or course language, you have every right to choose not to watch/listen to them.

I think Stern goes a little overboard when he says that the government is out to get him, though you must admit that the timing of his fining, and subsequent firing from clear channel (huge bush supporter) coming right when he decides to actively support Kerry, is a bit suspect. But even if he's nuts, and they're not out to get him, the current system would allow the governmen to silence somebody simply because they don't like their message, and that's not right.

**pv=nrt** · 01-05-2005, 08:43 PM

you are right, I bet radio gets shut down from complaints. I am a fool for even pondering that mr. powell won't be in charge of the fcc forever and that if taken to court some of these fines probably will be overturned. I guess i should enjoy my last few moments of free speech.

on a side note- you can't be shut down for having a dissenting opinion as you are impying. You can if you are sexual and obscene about it.

one the other side- I too disagree with the crackdown of the FCC, but I just don't see this as the end of the world. The rules will loosen again, it's a cycle.

**Facetious** · 01-06-2005, 06:52 AM

do you have any reason to think its a cycle? it seemed like for the last hundred years we were gaining more and more freedom of speech, and we just started losing ground in the past four years.

then again, they arent cracking down on everything - its perfectly okay to talk about 4-hour erections on tv during primetime, even if its a horrible tragedy to show a breast by accident.

**bloodzombie** · 01-06-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by pv=nrt

you are right, I bet radio gets shut down from complaints. I am a fool for even pondering that mr. powell won't be in charge of the fcc forever and that if taken to court some of these fines probably will be overturned. I guess i should enjoy my last few moments of free speech.

on a side note- you can't be shut down for having a dissenting opinion as you are impying. You can if you are sexual and obscene about it.

one the other side- I too disagree with the crackdown of the FCC, but I just don't see this as the end of the world. The rules will loosen again, it's a cycle.

It very well might be a cycle. It also might be a cycle that lasts through our entire life times. Injustice is happening right now, we should just assume that the next generation will have it better?

You can, in fact, be shut down for having a dissenting opinion when the rules are as foggy as they are. Why is it that it's ok for Oprah to talk about oral sex and tossing salad, but Stern can't even play an unededited clip from Oprah's show?

Stern can't get a day in court to try to overturn those fines, Infinity broadcasting (his employer) owns a few hundred radio stations. Last time stern tried to take the FCC to court, Infinity was all of a sudden unable to buy or sell stations, or renew licenses. Their ability to get paperwork through the FCC came to a complete stop. They couldn't hold out until the court date, they had to just pay the fines.

It's easy to just say that he shouldn't be "obscene" (with no clear definition to the word), and maybe you don't think that Stern is a real issue, maybe he deserves it, but even if he does, there's clearly too much power in our government to control our media. Maybe you should read more about it before you just assume that "obscene and sexual" things shouldn't be on the air. And what's so wrong with talking about sex anyway? it's natural, everyone does it. Even Oprah.

**pv=nrt** · 01-06-2005, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by bloodzombie

It's easy to just say that he shouldn't be "obscene" (with no clear definition to the word), and maybe you don't think that Stern is a real issue, maybe he deserves it, but even if he does, there's clearly too much power in our government to control our media. Maybe you should read more about it before you just assume that "obscene and sexual" things shouldn't be on the air. And what's so wrong with talking about sex anyway? it's natural, everyone does it. Even Oprah.

who is the audience for this paragraph?

**bloodzombie** · 01-07-2005, 11:48 AM

you

Announcement

Stern + radio + freedom + speach + control

Stern + radio + freedom + speach + control

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Channels