Whoops!

[Pogo]

Well no. You lost that battle at post #1.
Somebody said "goddamn" on TV. I mean, big fuckin' deal.

This one's still my favorite (at 0:41):

World ******* Champions!(Chase Utley) - YouTube

That is a good one. My favorite for a while has been Joe Biden's "This is a big fuckin' deal" to Obama when he didn't know the mic was hot.

Sure. It's just simple everyday normal speech. The hypocrisy comes when we start pretending that's not the case just because it's coming through a box with a video screen on it. That's kind of delusional.

I mean I don't hear anyone booing in that live TV video I put up, although I do see a lot of cheering at how it was put.

 

[Zona]

Tiger just blurted out "GodDAMN!!" following a disappointing shot at The Open. Maybe they should turn off the shotgun mics as he swings.

Surely the end of civilisation as we know it.
Maybe we should just turn off the fake Puritanism and stop pretending this fairy world must exist on TV when it doesn't in reality.

But but but, think of the children.

 

[asaratis]

Well no. You lost that battle at post #1.
Somebody said "goddamn" on TV. I mean, big fuckin' deal.

This one's still my favorite (at 0:41):

World ******* Champions!(Chase Utley) - YouTube

That is a good one. My favorite for a while has been Joe Biden's "This is a big fuckin' deal" to Obama when he didn't know the mic was hot.

Sure. It's just simple everyday normal speech. The hypocrisy comes when we start pretending that's not the case just because it's coming through a box with a video screen on it. That's kind of delusional.

I mean I don't hear anyone booing in that live TV video I put up, although I do see a lot of cheering at how it was put.

Yo, Pogo! Read the OP again.

I was pointing out that the network did not have time to bleep it out, not that he shouldn't have said it.

More power to him for getting out a bit of frustration. As I said, he is my most favored golfer when he plays.


BTW, I suspect the second baseman was not booed because he was addressing the jubilant home team crowd in a packed home stadium. Had I been a fan(atic), I'd have been cheering along with them.

 

[Pogo]

That is a good one. My favorite for a while has been Joe Biden's "This is a big fuckin' deal" to Obama when he didn't know the mic was hot.

Sure. It's just simple everyday normal speech. The hypocrisy comes when we start pretending that's not the case just because it's coming through a box with a video screen on it. That's kind of delusional.

I mean I don't hear anyone booing in that live TV video I put up, although I do see a lot of cheering at how it was put.

Yo, Pogo! Read the OP again.

I was pointing out that the network did not have time to bleep it out, not that he shouldn't have said it.

More power to him for getting out a bit of frustration. As I said, he is my most favored golfer when he plays.


BTW, I suspect the second baseman was not booed because he was addressing the jubilant home team crowd in a packed home stadium. Had I been a fan(atic), I'd have been cheering along with them.

Yes I know what you're pointing out, and I agree with you there's no problem in him saying it. What I don't agree with is that there's any reason for the network to bleep it out.

On the second video, Utley had already said the words "world champions" and already got a cheer of assent for the idea. The second, much larger cheer was clearly for the addition of the word "fuckin'".

Just FYI, we spell it "phan". We're phunny that way

 

[asaratis]

Sure. It's just simple everyday normal speech. The hypocrisy comes when we start pretending that's not the case just because it's coming through a box with a video screen on it. That's kind of delusional.

I mean I don't hear anyone booing in that live TV video I put up, although I do see a lot of cheering at how it was put.

Yo, Pogo! Read the OP again.

I was pointing out that the network did not have time to bleep it out, not that he shouldn't have said it.

More power to him for getting out a bit of frustration. As I said, he is my most favored golfer when he plays.


BTW, I suspect the second baseman was not booed because he was addressing the jubilant home team crowd in a packed home stadium. Had I been a fan(atic), I'd have been cheering along with them.

Yes I know what you're pointing out, and I agree with you there's no problem in him saying it. What I don't agree with is that there's any reason for the network to bleep it out.

On the second video, Utley had already said the words "world champions" and already got a cheer of assent for the idea. The second, much larger cheer was clearly for the addition of the word "fuckin'".

Just FYI, we spell it "phan". We're phunny that way

It was the Philadelphia Phillies wasn't it? Or was it the Filadelfia Fillies?

In the context of what he was saying and where he was saying it, Utley ,might even be expected to come out with something like that, despite the fact that there might have been tender ears in the crowd.

The networks have there own reasons for bleeping out selected words. One is FCC rules. Another is their own sense of courtesy toward viewers that might be offended, thus causing them loss of viewership and their sponsors possible diminished sales revenue.

 

[Pogo]

Yo, Pogo! Read the OP again.

I was pointing out that the network did not have time to bleep it out, not that he shouldn't have said it.

More power to him for getting out a bit of frustration. As I said, he is my most favored golfer when he plays.


BTW, I suspect the second baseman was not booed because he was addressing the jubilant home team crowd in a packed home stadium. Had I been a fan(atic), I'd have been cheering along with them.

Yes I know what you're pointing out, and I agree with you there's no problem in him saying it. What I don't agree with is that there's any reason for the network to bleep it out.

On the second video, Utley had already said the words "world champions" and already got a cheer of assent for the idea. The second, much larger cheer was clearly for the addition of the word "fuckin'".

Just FYI, we spell it "phan". We're phunny that way

It was the Philadelphia Phillies wasn't it? Or was it the Filadelfia Fillies?

In the context of what he was saying and where he was saying it, Utley ,might even be expected to come out with something like that, despite the fact that there might have been tender ears in the crowd.

The networks have there own reasons for bleeping out selected words. One is FCC rules. Another is their own sense of courtesy toward viewers that might be offended, thus causing them loss of viewership and their sponsors possible diminished sales revenue.

And you know what, baseball has been known to have very young fans, but Utley's still playing every day, never got chastised at all.

The FCC has no specific rules on what can be said or not said. That's kind of impossible to enforce. All that remains is your point about loss of viewership and diminished sales, but ALL of that is predicated on that hypocritical standard that somehow people on TV talk differently than people in reality. And as long as any of us plays along with that nonsense, we continue to feed it. If we don't feed it --- it starves to death. As it should.

 

[asaratis]

Yes I know what you're pointing out, and I agree with you there's no problem in him saying it. What I don't agree with is that there's any reason for the network to bleep it out.

On the second video, Utley had already said the words "world champions" and already got a cheer of assent for the idea. The second, much larger cheer was clearly for the addition of the word "fuckin'".

Just FYI, we spell it "phan". We're phunny that way

It was the Philadelphia Phillies wasn't it? Or was it the Filadelfia Fillies?

In the context of what he was saying and where he was saying it, Utley ,might even be expected to come out with something like that, despite the fact that there might have been tender ears in the crowd.

The networks have there own reasons for bleeping out selected words. One is FCC rules. Another is their own sense of courtesy toward viewers that might be offended, thus causing them loss of viewership and their sponsors possible diminished sales revenue.

And you know what, baseball has been known to have very young fans, but Utley's still playing every day, never got chastised at all.

The FCC has no specific rules on what can be said or not said. That's kind of impossible to enforce. All that remains is your point about loss of viewership and diminished sales, but ALL of that is predicated on that hypocritical standard that somehow people on TV talk differently than people in reality. And as long as any of us plays along with that nonsense, we continue to feed it. If we don't feed it --- it starves to death. As it should.

Utley shouldn't have been chastised. I commend him for rallying the crowd of fanatics.

The FCC does limit the use of vulgarities on broadcast channels...and on radio broadband.


**********************************************
http://censorship.laws.com/censorship/censorship-laws


Easy Guide to Censorship Laws
Censorship Laws

The common censorship laws passed in the U.S. should be understood in the context of the generally wide latitude allowed for freedom of expression in the country through the avenue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As such, censorship is not as widely applied in the U.S. as it is in other countries, but the country’s legal system still allows for more concerted censorship laws to be applied in instances where other considerations are deemed more important than the rights to self-expression of the individuals involved. As such, some censorship laws are administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent “indecent” content from being broadcast on “free” airwaves.
************************************************************

Radio and television broadcasts into people's homes and cars on programs likely to be heard by impressionable children should be (and are) subject to reasonable censorship.

What you seem to espouse is freedom to scream "**** you!" back at the preacher in the pulpit when he calls for the congregation to bow their heads in prayer during the Sunday morning worship hour....that, rather than having a double standard depending on where you are. After all, we do say that in the course of daily conversations.

Actually, we have that freedom to do it in church, but courteous adults know better than to exercise it. The same can be applied to where you are...as in "in front of a public broadcast microphone" or "off the record".

 

[Pogo]

It was the Philadelphia Phillies wasn't it? Or was it the Filadelfia Fillies?

In the context of what he was saying and where he was saying it, Utley ,might even be expected to come out with something like that, despite the fact that there might have been tender ears in the crowd.

The networks have there own reasons for bleeping out selected words. One is FCC rules. Another is their own sense of courtesy toward viewers that might be offended, thus causing them loss of viewership and their sponsors possible diminished sales revenue.

And you know what, baseball has been known to have very young fans, but Utley's still playing every day, never got chastised at all.

The FCC has no specific rules on what can be said or not said. That's kind of impossible to enforce. All that remains is your point about loss of viewership and diminished sales, but ALL of that is predicated on that hypocritical standard that somehow people on TV talk differently than people in reality. And as long as any of us plays along with that nonsense, we continue to feed it. If we don't feed it --- it starves to death. As it should.

Utley shouldn't have been chastised. I commend him for rallying the crowd of fanatics.

The FCC does limit the use of vulgarities on broadcast channels...and on radio broadband.


**********************************************
Censorship Laws


Easy Guide to Censorship Laws
Censorship Laws

The common censorship laws passed in the U.S. should be understood in the context of the generally wide latitude allowed for freedom of expression in the country through the avenue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As such, censorship is not as widely applied in the U.S. as it is in other countries, but the country’s legal system still allows for more concerted censorship laws to be applied in instances where other considerations are deemed more important than the rights to self-expression of the individuals involved. As such, some censorship laws are administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent “indecent” content from being broadcast on “free” airwaves.
************************************************************

Radio and television broadcasts into people's homes and cars on programs likely to be heard by impressionable children should be (and are) subject to reasonable censorship.

Actually they're not. There's vague language about community standards, but that's it. There are no real "seven words you can't say on television".

Those things are self-policed, because the way it works is that FCC responds to audience complaints in terms of, if serious enough, questioning the licensee's fitness to continue to hold a license. But absent significant complaints, nothing happens. There is no FCC censor board or review board or anything of the kind.

It comes down to mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. What we need is for people to stop pretending that they mind.

Btw I'm not a lawyer but I am a broadcast professional, and what your site says about FCC censorship laws is just poppycock. There's no such thing.

What you seem to espouse is freedom to scream "**** you!" back at the preacher in the pulpit when he calls for the congregation to bow their heads in prayer during the Sunday morning worship hour....that, rather than having a double standard depending on where you are. After all, we do say that in the course of daily conversations.

Actually, we have that freedom to do it in church, but courteous adults know better than to exercise it. The same can be applied where you are...as in "in front of a public broadcast microphone" or "off the record".

I haven't brought up anything about preachers in pulpits or the like. I'm talking about the double standard of speech used in broadcast versus what exists in real life.

 

[asaratis]

And you know what, baseball has been known to have very young fans, but Utley's still playing every day, never got chastised at all.

The FCC has no specific rules on what can be said or not said. That's kind of impossible to enforce. All that remains is your point about loss of viewership and diminished sales, but ALL of that is predicated on that hypocritical standard that somehow people on TV talk differently than people in reality. And as long as any of us plays along with that nonsense, we continue to feed it. If we don't feed it --- it starves to death. As it should.

Utley shouldn't have been chastised. I commend him for rallying the crowd of fanatics.

The FCC does limit the use of vulgarities on broadcast channels...and on radio broadband.


**********************************************
Censorship Laws


Easy Guide to Censorship Laws
Censorship Laws

The common censorship laws passed in the U.S. should be understood in the context of the generally wide latitude allowed for freedom of expression in the country through the avenue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As such, censorship is not as widely applied in the U.S. as it is in other countries, but the country’s legal system still allows for more concerted censorship laws to be applied in instances where other considerations are deemed more important than the rights to self-expression of the individuals involved. As such, some censorship laws are administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent “indecent” content from being broadcast on “free” airwaves.
************************************************************

Radio and television broadcasts into people's homes and cars on programs likely to be heard by impressionable children should be (and are) subject to reasonable censorship.

Actually they're not. There's vague language about community standards, but that's it. There are no real "seven words you can't say on television".

Those things are self-policed, because the way it works is that FCC responds to audience complaints in terms of, if serious enough, questioning the licensee's fitness to continue to hold a license. But absent significant complaints, nothing happens. There is no FCC censor board or review board or anything of the kind.

It comes down to mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. What we need is for people to stop pretending that they mind.

Btw I'm not a lawyer but I am a broadcast professional, and what your site says about FCC censorship laws is just poppycock. There's no such thing.

What you seem to espouse is freedom to scream "**** you!" back at the preacher in the pulpit when he calls for the congregation to bow their heads in prayer during the Sunday morning worship hour....that, rather than having a double standard depending on where you are. After all, we do say that in the course of daily conversations.

Actually, we have that freedom to do it in church, but courteous adults know better than to exercise it. The same can be applied where you are...as in "in front of a public broadcast microphone" or "off the record".

I haven't brought up anything about preachers in pulpits or the like. I'm talking about the double standard of speech used in broadcast versus what exists in real life.

You don't believe my site?...check this one...from the horse's mouth.

***************************************
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.
***************************************
If you don't believe me now, you are simply in a state of denial.

My extension of your argument regarding double standards while "in church" or "out" is based on your argument of regarding double standard while "on air" or "not".

It's not really a double standard that applies to either. It's a higher standard for "in church" and "on air".

 

[Pogo]

Utley shouldn't have been chastised. I commend him for rallying the crowd of fanatics.

The FCC does limit the use of vulgarities on broadcast channels...and on radio broadband.


**********************************************
Censorship Laws


Easy Guide to Censorship Laws
Censorship Laws

The common censorship laws passed in the U.S. should be understood in the context of the generally wide latitude allowed for freedom of expression in the country through the avenue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As such, censorship is not as widely applied in the U.S. as it is in other countries, but the country’s legal system still allows for more concerted censorship laws to be applied in instances where other considerations are deemed more important than the rights to self-expression of the individuals involved. As such, some censorship laws are administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prevent “indecent” content from being broadcast on “free” airwaves.
************************************************************

Radio and television broadcasts into people's homes and cars on programs likely to be heard by impressionable children should be (and are) subject to reasonable censorship.

Actually they're not. There's vague language about community standards, but that's it. There are no real "seven words you can't say on television".

Those things are self-policed, because the way it works is that FCC responds to audience complaints in terms of, if serious enough, questioning the licensee's fitness to continue to hold a license. But absent significant complaints, nothing happens. There is no FCC censor board or review board or anything of the kind.

It comes down to mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. What we need is for people to stop pretending that they mind.

Btw I'm not a lawyer but I am a broadcast professional, and what your site says about FCC censorship laws is just poppycock. There's no such thing.

What you seem to espouse is freedom to scream "**** you!" back at the preacher in the pulpit when he calls for the congregation to bow their heads in prayer during the Sunday morning worship hour....that, rather than having a double standard depending on where you are. After all, we do say that in the course of daily conversations.

Actually, we have that freedom to do it in church, but courteous adults know better than to exercise it. The same can be applied where you are...as in "in front of a public broadcast microphone" or "off the record".

I haven't brought up anything about preachers in pulpits or the like. I'm talking about the double standard of speech used in broadcast versus what exists in real life.

You don't believe my site?...check this one...from the horse's mouth.

***************************************
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.
***************************************
If you don't believe me now, you are simply in a state of denial.

My extension of your argument regarding double standards while "in church" or "out" is based on your argument of regarding double standard while "on air" or "not".

It's not really a double standard that applies to either. It's higher standard for "in church" and "on air".

I know all about that. I tried to save you the ink noting it was "vague". You can proscribe "obscene" and require "decency", but that's meaningless when you can't define either one. I've been far deeper into this shit than you realize, including broadcast law and actual cases. Trust me -- the process works as I described. You can't have a federal law when you're unable to quantify specifically what the law is.

And anyway, nothing about the ejaculation "goddam" can be reasonably construed as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities”, so as I said at the beginning in sarcasm, I don't think this is the end of civilization as we know it.

And again, nobody but you brought up pulpits. They are of no interest here.

 

[asaratis]

Actually they're not. There's vague language about community standards, but that's it. There are no real "seven words you can't say on television".

Those things are self-policed, because the way it works is that FCC responds to audience complaints in terms of, if serious enough, questioning the licensee's fitness to continue to hold a license. But absent significant complaints, nothing happens. There is no FCC censor board or review board or anything of the kind.

It comes down to mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter. What we need is for people to stop pretending that they mind.

Btw I'm not a lawyer but I am a broadcast professional, and what your site says about FCC censorship laws is just poppycock. There's no such thing.




I haven't brought up anything about preachers in pulpits or the like. I'm talking about the double standard of speech used in broadcast versus what exists in real life.

You don't believe my site?...check this one...from the horse's mouth.

***************************************
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.
***************************************
If you don't believe me now, you are simply in a state of denial.

My extension of your argument regarding double standards while "in church" or "out" is based on your argument of regarding double standard while "on air" or "not".

It's not really a double standard that applies to either. It's higher standard for "in church" and "on air".

I know all about that. I tried to save you the ink noting it was "vague". You can proscribe "obscene" and require "decency", but that's meaningless when you can't define either one. I've been far deeper into this shit than you realize, including broadcast law and actual cases. Trust me -- the process works as I described. You can't have a federal law when you're unable to quantify specifically what the law is.

And anyway, nothing about the ejaculation "goddam" can be reasonably construed as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities”, so as I said at the beginning in sarcasm, I don't think this is the end of civilization as we know it.

And again, nobody but you brought up pulpits. They are of no interest here.

My pulpit comparison was an analogy to your argument, the similarity being related to the question of double standards based upon where one is at the time.


I also am aware of the vagueness of the law described on the FCC site and that it is usually applied only after complaints. Still, the laws exist...notwithstanding what you said.

 

[Pogo]

You don't believe my site?...check this one...from the horse's mouth.

***************************************
Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.
***************************************
If you don't believe me now, you are simply in a state of denial.

My extension of your argument regarding double standards while "in church" or "out" is based on your argument of regarding double standard while "on air" or "not".

It's not really a double standard that applies to either. It's higher standard for "in church" and "on air".

I know all about that. I tried to save you the ink noting it was "vague". You can proscribe "obscene" and require "decency", but that's meaningless when you can't define either one. I've been far deeper into this shit than you realize, including broadcast law and actual cases. Trust me -- the process works as I described. You can't have a federal law when you're unable to quantify specifically what the law is.

And anyway, nothing about the ejaculation "goddam" can be reasonably construed as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities”, so as I said at the beginning in sarcasm, I don't think this is the end of civilization as we know it.

And again, nobody but you brought up pulpits. They are of no interest here.

My pulpit comparison was an analogy to your argument, the similarity being related to the question of double standards based upon where one is at the time.

I understand that, but the analogy doesn't work because it's not a question of "where one is at the time". It's a question of pretending the world is one way on TV when it's a different way in the world.

I also am aware of the vagueness of the law described on the FCC site and that it is usually applied only after complaints. Still, the laws exist...notwithstanding what you said.

The fact remains, you can't seriously say "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time" when you can't define your qualifier. Is "goddam" obscene? To who?

See what I mean?

Actually "god damn", given an object, would be a curse, not a profanity. There is nothing in all that legal drivel about cursing. Case goddam closed.

 

[asaratis]

I know all about that. I tried to save you the ink noting it was "vague". You can proscribe "obscene" and require "decency", but that's meaningless when you can't define either one. I've been far deeper into this shit than you realize, including broadcast law and actual cases. Trust me -- the process works as I described. You can't have a federal law when you're unable to quantify specifically what the law is.

And anyway, nothing about the ejaculation "goddam" can be reasonably construed as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities”, so as I said at the beginning in sarcasm, I don't think this is the end of civilization as we know it.

And again, nobody but you brought up pulpits. They are of no interest here.

My pulpit comparison was an analogy to your argument, the similarity being related to the question of double standards based upon where one is at the time.

I understand that, but the analogy doesn't work because it's not a question of "where one is at the time". It's a question of pretending the world is one way on TV when it's a different way in the world.

I also am aware of the vagueness of the law described on the FCC site and that it is usually applied only after complaints. Still, the laws exist...notwithstanding what you said.

The fact remains, you can't seriously say "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time" when you can't define your qualifier. Is "goddam" obscene? To who?

See what I mean?

Actually "god damn", given an object, would be a curse, not a profanity. There is nothing in all that legal drivel about cursing. Case goddam closed.

Those words came from the FCC site.

No, I do not think "goddamn" is obscene. It is profanity.

Profanity (also called bad language, swearing or cursing) is a subset of a language's lexicon that is considered by some to be strongly impolite or offensive.

The FCC site includes a taboo on mentioning genitalia on the air. Obscenity laws are vague because the opinions of the people and the justices run the gamut of possible opinions.

The laws still exist....and...

My analogy is valid.

 

[Pogo]

My pulpit comparison was an analogy to your argument, the similarity being related to the question of double standards based upon where one is at the time.

I understand that, but the analogy doesn't work because it's not a question of "where one is at the time". It's a question of pretending the world is one way on TV when it's a different way in the world.

I also am aware of the vagueness of the law described on the FCC site and that it is usually applied only after complaints. Still, the laws exist...notwithstanding what you said.

The fact remains, you can't seriously say "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time" when you can't define your qualifier. Is "goddam" obscene? To who?

See what I mean?

Actually "god damn", given an object, would be a curse, not a profanity. There is nothing in all that legal drivel about cursing. Case goddam closed.

Those words came from the FCC site.

No, I do not think "goddamn" is obscene. It is profanity.

Profanity (also called bad language, swearing or cursing) is a subset of a language's lexicon that is considered by some to be strongly impolite or offensive.

The FCC mentions a taboo on mentioning genitalia on the air. Obscenity laws are vague because the opinions of the people and the justices run the gamut of possible opinions.

The laws still exist....and...

My analogy is valid.

No, it's not "profanity". Profanity would be Chase Utley using "fuckin'". God damn is a curse. That's what damn actually means. You could look it up. Profanity is not the same as swearing or cursing, and there's no such definable thing as "bad language".

 

[asaratis]

I understand that, but the analogy doesn't work because it's not a question of "where one is at the time". It's a question of pretending the world is one way on TV when it's a different way in the world.




The fact remains, you can't seriously say "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time" when you can't define your qualifier. Is "goddam" obscene? To who?

See what I mean?

Actually "god damn", given an object, would be a curse, not a profanity. There is nothing in all that legal drivel about cursing. Case goddam closed.

Those words came from the FCC site.

No, I do not think "goddamn" is obscene. It is profanity.

Profanity (also called bad language, swearing or cursing) is a subset of a language's lexicon that is considered by some to be strongly impolite or offensive.

The FCC mentions a taboo on mentioning genitalia on the air. Obscenity laws are vague because the opinions of the people and the justices run the gamut of possible opinions.

The laws still exist....and...

My analogy is valid.

No, it's not "profanity". Profanity would be Chase Utley using "fuckin'". God damn is a curse. That's what damn actually means. You could look it up. Profanity is not the same as swearing or cursing, and there's no such definable thing as "bad language".

Okay. I'll give you that "goddamn" is a curse. Still it is offensive to some...not to me, but to some. Because it is offensive to some, networks tend to bleep it out when they can. Hence, we are back to square one.

You have not and are likely never to convince me that fear of promoting a "double standard" should preclude any criticism or conversation regarding what is broadcast on public airways. Just because "shit, ****, piss, *****, **********, ************, ****" and a few other vulgarisms may be commonly used in daily conversations does not mean that they should be permitted or excused on the public airways. They are sometimes just as offensive as racial and ethnic slurs.

Goodnight.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dat's why Phil Mickelson came from behind an' beat him...

... `cause Phil don't cuss like dat...

... an' the Good Lord put the jinx on Tiger.

So let dat be a lesson to all ye Bible-hatin' lefty lib'rals...

... repent and believe onna Jesus...

... or ya gonna get left behind an' end up...

... in dat hot place o' fire an' brimstone.