Major TV Networks Sue to Use the 'F-Word' - Act Now

[-Cp]

Last week, as millions of Americans were attending Good Friday services and contemplating the highest ideals of self-sacrifice and love, the four major TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) were busy filing federal lawsuits aimed at abolishing existing FCC decency standards. Specifically, these out-of-touch media elites are claiming that the First Amendment should allow them to use the "F-word" and the "S-word" during primetime or "family hour" programming.

These are public airwaves! They are to be used for the public good. How can vulgar and offensive language during "family hour" programming serve in the public's best interests?

Sign our petition to the FCC.
http://www.crmail.org/public/lib.aspx?lid=3112

As we demand stricter enforcement of existing FCC policies, the media elites are working hard to tear down the few remaining standards of decency. We are not giving up! The Center is dedicated to gathering tens of thousands of petitions to send to the FCC to show our support for a more consistent and forceful application of existing obscenity and indecency standards.

We must take a stand now! Sign our petition to the FCC.

http://www.crmail.org/public/lib.aspx?lid=3112

After you sign the petition, please call Senator Ted Stevens, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Representative Joe Barton, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Urge them to hold hearings looking into the networks' coordinated legal campaign to legitimize profanity during TV's family hours.

Senator Ted Stevens: (202) 224-3004

Representative Joe Barton: (202) 225-2002

This is not the first time that major media networks have fought for the "F-word." In fact, in 2003, the FCC's enforcement bureau chief approved its use, explaining, "The use of specific words, including expletives or other 'four-letter words,' does not render material obscene."

Thankfully, the principled commissioners of the FCC voted to overrule this decision, but the networks will remain persistent - and so must we!

Media elites in North Hollywood and Manhattan may think that a more coarse and vulgar culture is enlightened, but this only proves how out of touch with America they have become!

May God bless you and yours,

Dr. Gary Cass
Executive Director
The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ

PS - Sign our FCC petition and please forward this e-mail to your friends so they can protect our airwaves.

http://www.crmail.org/public/lib.aspx?lid=3112

PPS - The Center, in cooperation with the FCC, has made it easy to register complaints online. If you witness indecent or obscene behavior in the media, come to our website www.reclaimamerica.org and click on the "media indecency" button.

 

[GotZoom]

That is some fucked up shit.

-------

(Couldn't resist)

There is no need for anything to change any restrictions they already have on programming before 10:00 P.M. I am a strong believer in making parents responsible for turning the T.V. off when there is something inappropriate for children. Yes, they don't do it..but...they should.

I'm not worried about kids being exposed to the language as I am seeing this as opening the floodgates of gratuitous language and worse on TV.

I think most networks will use this as a way to make more shocking and provocitive programming to get the ratings. I doubt they are going to care about creative content.

 

[insein]

Have you ever heard a 6 year old speak with kids at school? Worse then any late night show ive ever heard.

Sure allow the F' and the S' word but make appropriate "Viewer Discretion" advisoraries before you just spew it out there. Make it TV-MA for language so that it can be removed with a V-chip.

I have no problem with this. It seemed kind of assinine to hear every little kid use language more vulgar then most sailors and yet TV cant say Ass without getting a reprimand.

 

[Darwins Friend]

If you say the word "Fuck" does that automatically make people want to?

If so - we’re some truly stupid SOB’s.

 

[theHawk]

These are public airwaves! They are to be used for the public good. How can vulgar and offensive language during "family hour" programming serve in the public's best interests?

What exactly about them is "public"? Aren't these networks private companies?

I find it hard to argue for the government to censor anything. If TV Networks want to use vulgarities in their shows, so be it....they have every right to. Just as we have a right to tune them out. As for the kiddies, parents need to step up and be parents and not fall victim to this new child-worshiping parental mentality of late.

 

[Mr. P]

OFF SWITCH!​

It works 100% of the time.​

 

[dilloduck]

If you say the word "Fuck" does that automatically make people want to?

If so - we’re some truly stupid SOB’s.

I may be wrong but my guess is that some feel those words to inapproriate and disrespectful for young children. Some even feel as though they are disrespectful to adults. I guess those days are over. (no--I don't think people are dumb enough to think that it encourages sex)

 

[Darwins Friend]

Yep - can’t expect parents to actually supervise their own seed. Government’s got to do it - controlling every aspect of American life, and, of course - taxing all of us for the privilege.

(no--I don't think people are dumb enough to think that it encourages sex)

The same people that actually believed Saddam was a threat to U.S. real estate?

 

[-Cp]

The same people that actually believed Saddam was a threat to U.S. real estate?

Yup - THE SAME PEOPLE:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[dilloduck]

Yep - can’t expect parents to actually supervise their own seed. Government’s got to do it - controlling every aspect of American life, and, of course - taxing all of us for the privilege.



The same people that actually believed Saddam was a threat to U.S. real estate?

well heck---lets go straight to anarchy and skip all the middle stuff where government "gets in the way". Everyone should be expected to protect and support themselves in any fashion possible.

 

[GotZoom]

The same people that actually believed Saddam was a threat to U.S. real estate?

Geez.

Do YOU have an "off" switch?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Is anyone really surprised by this? Standards in this country will continue to spiral downwards, until we reach rock bottom, and then show signs of digging.

 

[Darwins Friend]

I'll try to slow down the baud rate:

threat to U.S. real estate

(watch how long it takes the nickel to find the slot)

 

[jillian]

Who cares? I'm perfectly capable of turning off the television or changing channels if something on is inappropiate for my son or it rankles me.

I just love how all the "small government" folk seem to want the FCC to be surrogate parents.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[-Cp]

What I'm surprised by is the acceptance of some USMB members who say "I don't care if they do this" sort of acceptance attitude.

It's the bit by bit acceptance of things that are wrong in society that ultimately lead to its demise - the same thing happened in the days of Noah and it's happening now..

We feel better about saying things like "Why should the Government control what's on TV" rather than say "We won't tolerate this sort of trash"..

If you want things to continue on the downward spiral of morality - I guess just keep thinking this way and accepting whatever the mainstream TV Land Execs want to dish out..

This goes beyond what you feel you can regulate in your own household with the remote - it speaks to the very heart of a nation that has lost grips on its firm roots in decency, morality and a belief that there are absolute right and wrongs.

*sigh*

 

[jillian]

What I'm surprised by is the acceptance of some USMB members who say "I don't care if they do this" sort of acceptance attitude.

It's the bit by bit acceptance of things that are wrong in society that ultimately lead to its demise - the same thing happened in the days of Noah and it's happening now..

We feel better about saying things like "Why should the Government control what's on TV" rather than say "We won't tolerate this sort of trash"..

If you want things to continue on the downward spiral of morality - I guess just keep thinking this way and accepting whatever the mainstream TV Land Execs want to dish out..

This goes beyond what you feel you can regulate in your own household with the remote - it speaks to the very heart of a nation that has lost grips on its firm roots in decency, morality and a belief that there are absolute right and wrongs.

*sigh*

Oh pooh! Not wanting government to decide what is appropriate or not does not mean one "accepts" anything. It just means we're grown ups who don't need a big daddy telling us what we should and shouldn't listen to.

 

[5stringJeff]

Oh pooh! Not wanting government to decide what is appropriate or not does not mean one "accepts" anything. It just means we're grown ups who don't need a big daddy telling us what we should and shouldn't listen to.

Then I suppose you'd be OK if people walked around your children, swearing up and down.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Who cares? I'm perfectly capable of turning off the television or changing channels if something on is inappropiate for my son or it rankles me.

I just love how all the "small government" folk seem to want the FCC to be surrogate parents.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Well that's nice that you are capable of turning off the TV in your home, and I am glad that you are there 24/7 to monitor all TV watching. Are you going to follow your son when he goes to play at a friend's house, and monitor what he watches there also? Or are you going to ask the parents to give you a run down of their TV-watching standards, show-by-show?

What if you are lucky enough that their TV watching standards are the same as yours, and they are actually telling you the truth about it, but they let the kids kids go off to a bedroom to watch it privately?

Or will you just not let him go play with his friends? Perhaps you believe you are an expert on picking the right friends for him? Do you think that parents ever really know what all those friends are like, let alone their parents? Believe me, they are all putting on their best behavior in front of you.

Or are you of the typical lib persuasion that says "They are going to do (sex, drugs, violence, insert any risky behavior here) anyway, so it doesn't matter what they are exposed to?

 

[jillian]

Well that's nice that you are capable of turning off the TV in your home, and I am glad that you are there 24/7 to monitor all TV watching. Are you going to follow your son when he goes to play at a friend's house, and monitor what he watches there also? Or are you going to ask the parents to give you a run down of their TV-watching standards, show-by-show?

What if you are lucky enough that their TV watching standards are the same as yours, and they are actually telling you the truth about it, but they let the kids kids go off to a bedroom to watch it privately?

Or will you just not let him go play with his friends? Perhaps you believe you are an expert on picking the right friends for him? Do you think that parents ever really know what all those friends are like, let alone their parents? Believe me, they are all putting on their best behavior in front of you.

Or are you of the typical lib persuasion that says "They are going to do (sex, drugs, violence, insert any risky behavior here) anyway, so it doesn't matter what they are exposed to?

That's an awful lot of surmise for one post..... how about I teach my son what's appropriate. I teach him right from wrong. I have things that I find offensive on TV which might have nothing to do with the use of one particular word. And I turn off the TV when something is valueless. I don't want any jerk in government making those decisions for me.

So you can surmise all you want. It's up to you to teach your kids right from wrong.

 

[dilloduck]

That's an awful lot of surmise for one post..... how about I teach my son what's appropriate. I teach him right from wrong. I have things that I find offensive on TV which might have nothing to do with the use of one particular word. And I turn off the TV when something is valueless. I don't want any jerk in government making those decisions for me.

So you can surmise all you want. It's up to you to teach your kids right from wrong.

How about "fuck"------do you allow your kid to say "fuck"?