The F.C.C. Up On Its High Horse

[Transtic Nerve]

As of a few weeks ago, Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son), the chairman of the FCC decided he was going to sparatically kick the FCC and it's so called policies into gear.

As of now, several talk show hosts, including Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge have been fined thousands and millions of dollars for what they've done on the air the last 20 years.

Bubba the Love Sponge (who was a local radio personality here) was fined 3/4 of a million dollars and was essentially fired because of it. And just today, Howard Stern was taken of all the Clear Channel COmmunication channels he was played on because of the heafty fine (over a million) he was recieved.

The FCC is the biggest joke in the world. This is the only government institution that is used to dictate what is and isn't decent for us. Where do they get off by telling me, a grown man, what I can and cannot hear or watch?

While I agree that there should be some things we shouldn't do, but this incredibly long list of crap the FCC comes up with is nothing but junk.

I honestly can't stand the FCC or its motives. If a kid can choose to have sex and have a kid and either raise that kid or have it adopted, how come I can't simply choose what I want or not want to listen to without some jerkoffs standing in the way.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I just don't think the FCC serves any purpose but to please the family oriented and the religious oriented peoples.

[Brasil]

The FCC is why I love Comedy Central. Comedy Central censors their material, but when they broadcast an Uncut South Park The Movie at 2 am on a Friday night, they mean it.

It seems like the FCC is going after the "major" offenders, more than smaller networks.

Howard Stern, I can see why he's getting slapped. His show is...it revels in stupidity and never features any intelligent commentary anymore (that is, if there was any intelligent commentary to begin with). While I don't agree with [i]the majority[/i] of what the FCC is doing, I do agree with isolated cases, such as Howard Stern.

Granted, the blame should be wholly placed on the broadcasters, though they should take some measure of responsibility. I mean, is it demonstrating any respect for anyone in the world to have a "Jeopardy of the Supermodels," or mentally-handicapped dwarves squaring off in trivia?

The censorship issue is not an issue of who is right and who is wrong, really. I see it more of an issue of balance. There are some things that simply shouldn't be on the air; Stuff like Girls Gone Wild, anyone? I can't stand those infomercials. 3 AM or not, on whatever network, promos like that should not exist.

Like I said, the censorship is not a matter of black and white and it is unfortunate that both "sides" view it in black and white. While I myself do not agree with what SpikeTV recently did regarding their Terminator 1 broadcast, it only further illustrates the unbalance of media in our society.

If we wish to achieve some decency in the media, we cannot--absolutely cannot support people like Howard Stern. Of course, we cannot fully support what the FCC is doing, either.

There has to be a balance. I think that's all I can say right now.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']As of a few weeks ago, Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son), the chairman of the FCC decided he was going to sparatically kick the FCC and it's so called policies into gear.[/quote]

[color=green]It?s about time the agency too it?s responsibilities seriously. They?ve been a joke because their regulations have, until this point, been rarely enforced.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']As of now, several talk show hosts, including Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge have been fined thousands and millions of dollars for what they've done on the air the last 20 years.[/quote]

[color=green]They should be. From what I?ve read and heard, both of these hosts are breaking the law by using some of the language that they have. Therefore, they should be fined accordingly.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Bubba the Love Sponge (who was a local radio personality here) was fined 3/4 of a million dollars and was essentially fired because of it. And just today, Howard Stern was taken of all the Clear Channel COmmunication channels he was played on because of the heafty fine (over a million) he was recieved.[/quote]

[color=green]Until now, I?ve never even heard of ?Bubba the Love Sponge?. Mr. Stern, on the other hand, deserves a much larger fine than he?s received. As of late, the very premise of his show has been nothing but smut and garbage. Not only is it offensive, but it?s not even funny.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']The FCC is the biggest joke in the world. This is the only government institution that is used to dictate what is and isn't decent for us. Where do they get off by telling me, a grown man, what I can and cannot hear or watch?[/quote]

[color=green]I feel that the FCC is necessary to prevent all kinds of crap, like Janet Jackson, from being on TV. Its purpose is to make sure that people aren?t offended by what they see on TV.

They regulate shows that are supposed to be clean, like the Super Bowl and the nightly news, so that people who don?t wish to have their ears assaulted by profanity or their vision profaned by unwarranted nudity.

The FCC makes sure that shows with offensive content, like South Park, have blurbs before each show that let the viewer know what they?re getting into. That?s an acceptable way to protect free speech while also allowing people who don?t wish to hear these things to tune out.

The FCC is a very real and important purpose in our society, which has become increasingly crude in recent years. I applaud the FCC for finally taking its job seriously.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve'] While I agree that there should be some things we shouldn't do, but this incredibly long list of crap the FCC comes up with is nothing but junk. [/quote]

[color=green]Long list? I was unable to find anything of the FCC website ([url]www.fcc.gov[/url]) about this issue.

I was able to find the official Clear Channel Broadcasting Statement at

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022604_stern.pdf[/url]

In addition, I gleaned further information from the following reputable news agencies:

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112606,00.html[/url]

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html[/url]

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040226_1175.html[/url]

None of this was long or junky in nature. Could you elaborate on this comment further?[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I honestly can't stand the FCC or its motives. If a kid can choose to have sex and have a kid and either raise that kid or have it adopted, how come I can't simply choose what I want or not want to listen to without some jerkoffs standing in the way.[/quote]

[color=green]What?s wrong with the FCC and it?s motives? Is warning people about the content of Radio and TV shows they are about to listen to/watch wrong?[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I just don't think the FCC serves any purpose but to please the family oriented and the religious oriented peoples.[/quote]

[color=green]The FCC provides a service to the American people. Should law-breakers like Stern and ?Bubba the Love Sponge? continue to do what they do, the FCC should punish them accordingly.

The FCC ?pleases? people who don?t want to put up with what they deem inappropriate content. You should respect that.[/color]

[Manic Webb]

Oooh, this thread won't be pretty.

The thing you have to realize about mediums like radio and broadcast TV, is that they're free to the public. Any kid can turn on a radio at any time and it'll cost them absolutely nothing (not counting the purchase of the radio itself). The FCC exists to censor the content of broadcast radio for the protection of children from mature content. Adults may not agree with those policies, but that's what Internet Radio and Satellite Radio exist for.

Believe it or not, the FCC has very little control over cable TV, and no control over satellite-aired programs. Cable networks censor themselves based on sponsers, target audiences, and local policies. This is why Comcast Cable just doesn't offer my town Comedy Central at all. Local. The FCC does set out the regulations cable networks are supposed to follow, but cable networks can violate and bend those rules more often and with more potency than broadcast networks.

Howard Stern and whoever else had it coming. They were violating FCC rules and laws. If you want uncensored radio, go to satellite or internet. You already have internet access, and nearly all net radio stations are free. Some of the stuff the FCC does is over the top, but let's be honest. Howard Stern.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]The FCC regulates public airways. Emphasis on [b]public[/b]. They can control the level of vulgarity on public airways. People can have sex, but they can't do it in public; the FCC regulations work under a similar priciple.

As long as they aren't silencing a message, but rather dicating the terms under which a message can be conveyed, I don't see a problem. Bubba and Mr. Stern can harbor their wears via private means if they wish.

It's not as if they FCC is silencing their right to speech, although others would have me believe that. The FCC is simply asking that, as long as they're on public airways, they tone down the vulgar contents of their shows. I believe Boba Fett made an excellant explanation of the situation. I'll just nodd and say "ditto", because he expressed it better than i could have.

I have to say, I'm not that sad to see Bubba go; the vulgar and sexist tone of his radio show and the other DJ's on the network is the main reason I don't listen to 98 Rock. (I'm a 97X man, myself.)[/color][/size][/font]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]
All that stuff you said.....[/color][/QUOTE]

The biggest joke here is that people like you think other people like you should run my life, tell me what I can and cannot listen to. I wasn't and never have been offended by anything on Stern, or Janet Jackson, I personally didn't listen to Bubba because he was on the same time slot as Howard. I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency.

How dare you try and tell me how I should live my life. What I should and should not be able to listen to. How dare you. I'm absolutely ashamed to even be remotely associated with you. If you're too imcompatible to change the radio station when you hear something "you don't like" then maybe you should be in a special home with other special people.

[quote=Manic]
The thing you have to realize about mediums like radio and broadcast TV, is that they're free to the public. Any kid can turn on a radio at any time and it'll cost them absolutely nothing (not counting the purchase of the radio itself).[/quote]

And any responsible parent can TURN OFF the radio at any time. Maybe if we dealt with more serious problems like irresponsible parents, we wouldn't have an organization like the FCC to try and tell me what I can listen to and not listen to. But with being the incredibly STUPID country we are, no one thinks about that.

Stern was not fined because of his language, he was fined because of the way he's done radio for the LAST 20 YEARS. I don't want uncencored radio, I want the SAME radio I've had the last 20 years of my life. And now the FCC decides to jump in. Give me a break. The whole deal with Howard Stern is that he was controversial... he pushed the limits and often times went over them... how does the FCC decide right NOW to throw a hefty fine at him?

Oh and if anyone was offended by Janet Jackson's boob, you need to grow up babies.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]The biggest joke here is that people like you think other people like you should run my life, tell me what I can and cannot listen to. I wasn't and never have been offended by anything on Stern, or Janet Jackson, I personally didn't listen to Bubba because he was on the same time slot as Howard. I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency.

How dare you try and tell me how I should live my life. What I should and should not be able to listen to. How dare you. I'm absolutely ashamed to even be remotely associated with you. If you're too imcompatible to change the radio station when you hear something "you don't like" then maybe you should be in a special home with other special people.[/QUOTE]

[color=green]Excuse me?

I?m not telling you how to run anything TN, least of all your life. Neither am I telling you what you can or cannot listen to. Grow up, stop the name-calling and present some kind of a logical argument.

If you?re not offended by the kind of language and content that Howard Stern puts on his program, that?s your business. The fact is, there are rules and regulations governing what kind of content can be on these radio stations. Howard Stern has shattered these regulations time and time again. It?s about time someone stepped in and made sure he followed the law.

There?s still some shred of something people used to call decency in this country, TN. Obviously you?re not interested in preserving it.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve'].I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency.[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms] And I'm tired of people who can't hold a civilized argument. If you can't recognize that both sides of this argument have equally valid viewpoints, then you're the one up on a high horse, and you're doing a disservice to the others who might share your position.

Obviously, the right to freedom of speech is sacred and should be protected. We don't want the government controling the flow of ideas.

However, the other extreme is equally bad, with vulgarity and obscenities all over the airways.

A balance is necessary, and the fact that there is such debate over this issue is rather reassuring, because the thought of no one being concerned over the freedom of expression is almost as disgusting as Bubba's show.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]The biggest joke here is that people like you think other people like you should run my life, tell me what I can and cannot listen to. I wasn't and never have been offended by anything on Stern, or Janet Jackson, I personally didn't listen to Bubba because he was on the same time slot as Howard. I'm so tired of idiots like you telling me what is and isn't decent. Kiss my ***.... how about that decency.

How dare you try and tell me how I should live my life. What I should and should not be able to listen to. How dare you. I'm absolutely ashamed to even be remotely associated with you. If you're too imcompatible to change the radio station when you hear something "you don't like" then maybe you should be in a special home with other special people.


And any responsible parent can TURN OFF the radio at any time. Maybe if we dealt with more serious problems like irresponsible parents, we wouldn't have an organization like the FCC to try and tell me what I can listen to and not listen to. But with being the incredibly STUPID country we are, no one thinks about that.

Stern was not fined because of his language, he was fined because of the way he's done radio for the LAST 20 YEARS. I don't want uncencored radio, I want the SAME radio I've had the last 20 years of my life. And now the FCC decides to jump in. Give me a break. The whole deal with Howard Stern is that he was controversial... he pushed the limits and often times went over them... how does the FCC decide right NOW to throw a hefty fine at him?

Oh and if anyone was offended by Janet Jackson's boob, you need to grow up babies.[/QUOTE]
TN, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and go into Boba Fett's original reply, to see if I'm able to find the animosity you claim to have seen.

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]It?s about time the agency too it?s responsibilities seriously. They?ve been a joke because their regulations have, until this point, been rarely enforced.[/color]

I see no problem here. It is simply a declarative statement based on his own opinions. It's a view that I agree with for the most part.

[color=green]They should be. From what I?ve read and heard, both of these hosts are breaking the law by using some of the language that they have. Therefore, they should be fined accordingly.[/color]

Again, I see no attack against you, TN.

[color=green]Until now, I?ve never even heard of ?Bubba the Love Sponge?. Mr. Stern, on the other hand, deserves a much larger fine than he?s received. As of late, the very premise of his show has been nothing but smut and garbage. Not only is it offensive, but it?s not even funny.[/color]

If you wish to insult Boba based on his comment here, then you should have insulted me, as well. I said the exact same thing. If you are going to insult one person for saying something that others have echoed, your basis for argument is faulty.

[color=green]I feel that the FCC is necessary to prevent all kinds of crap, like Janet Jackson, from being on TV. Its purpose is to make sure that people aren?t offended by what they see on TV.

[color=black]Again, I see no malicious intent directed towards you, TN.[/color]

They regulate shows that are supposed to be clean, like the Super Bowl and the nightly news, so that people who don?t wish to have their ears assaulted by profanity or their vision profaned by unwarranted nudity.

[color=black]Boba makes perfect sense, regardless of whether one fights for ultimate freedom of speech (anarchy) or a society with a reasonable level of control. The Super Bowl was created with the Olympian Games in mind, I'm sure. If you wish to argue that the Super Bowl should be filled with filth, then do examine its origins. It had honor up until recent years.[/color]

The FCC makes sure that shows with offensive content, like South Park, have blurbs before each show that let the viewer know what they?re getting into. That?s an acceptable way to protect free speech while also allowing people who don?t wish to hear these things to tune out.

The FCC is a very real and important purpose in our society, which has become increasingly crude in recent years. I applaud the FCC for finally taking its job seriously.[/color]

I cannot find anything in this section that warrants your foul language and foul treatment here.

[color=green]Long list? I was unable to find anything of the FCC website ([url="http://www.fcc.gov/"]www.fcc.gov[/url]) about this issue.

I was able to find the official Clear Channel Broadcasting Statement at

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022604_stern.pdf"]http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022604_stern.pdf[/url]

In addition, I gleaned further information from the following reputable news agencies:

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112606,00.html"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112606,00.html[/url]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/News/02/25/stern.suspension/index.html[/url]

[url="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040226_1175.html"]http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Entertainment/ap20040226_1175.html[/url]

None of this was long or junky in nature. Could you elaborate on this comment further?[/color]

If anything, Boba was giving you the benefit of the doubt and looking into your statement. If he found material confirming it, I am sure he would have reported it just the same.

[color=green]What?s wrong with the FCC and it?s motives? Is warning people about the content of Radio and TV shows they are about to listen to/watch wrong?[/color]

I see no problem here, either.

[color=green]The FCC provides a service to the American people. Should law-breakers like Stern and ?Bubba the Love Sponge? continue to do what they do, the FCC should punish them accordingly.

The FCC ?pleases? people who don?t want to put up with what they deem inappropriate content. You should respect that.[/color][/QUOTE]
Indeed. TN, you should respect that.

Now, TN, we know you have problems. We know that you are unhappy with aspects of your life. We know that you feel very wronged and violated by current societal events. I think I speak for all of us here when I say that we hope you are able to grow to understand yourself and develop the necessary tools to deal with your emotions. I know that what you're experiencing now is extremely difficult, but that does not give you permission to explode whenever someone disagrees with you, no matter where it is, no matter what discussion you are participating in.

I understand where you're coming from. Really, I do. You have fought many forms of censorship your entire life. We all have. We have all been met with hardships and struggles have always presented themselves, and always will present themselves.

The key is to understand where those troubles are coming from, and TN, you have not demonstrated any understanding for as long as I've been following your posts. I say that not to insult you, either. I say that as a concerned human being.

Censorship is an ugly thing when used inappropriately, but in the case of mass media, it is not being utilized incorrectly. I am going to suggest that other facets of your life are clouding your judgment here. I am going to suggest that you are using the FCC as a scapegoat. TN, don't deny what the true problem is here.

You are upset about being ostracized for being gay.

That is what this entire thread boils down to, isn't it? I don't mean to psychoanalyze you, but TN, it's okay. You're among friends here. As much as you don't care to admit it, we all care about you. Even Boba and DeathBug do.

I don't mean to preach here, and I don't want to sound like a father, but TN, it's okay. Just let all that anger, fear, and self-loathing go. Just let it go.



Now that we're talking about censorship now, I was recently watching This Is Spinal Tap.

Spinal Tap is a parody of the pretentious hair/heavy metal bands of the early 80s, right down to making fun of the suggestive lyrics (Spinal Tap is described as "retarded sexuality") and chauvinistic behavior. The band in the film is...well, for a lack of a better term, morons. Anybody who has seen the film will agree. Spinal Tap are teenagers trapped in an adult's body. They do not understand why their albums are banned, and they do not understand why their record company refuses to sell their Sniff The Glove album; the cover features a naked woman on all fours, with a dog collar around her neck, and a black glove shoved up into her face so she can sniff it.

Why is Spinal Tap so hilarious though? Because it's parody. Because it's fantasy. [i]But[/i], we mustn't forget at how many rockstars were shocked at Spinal Tap, because it hit so close to home. Alice Cooper has said that he saw himself in Spinal Tap.

Now, considering this, Spinal Tap's subject matter doesn't seem so outrageous. In fact, it seems a reasonable reference point for the need for censorship. We cannot have bands like Spinal Tap running around, saying whatever they please, because what they want to say degrades society.

To end this post on a high note, I leave us with a very special Spinal Tap quote that warms our hearts,

[quote]Nigel: This is a top to a, you know, what we use on stage, but it's
very...very special because if you can see...
Marty: Yeah...
Nigel: ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look...right across the board.
Marty: Ahh...oh, I see....
Nigel: Eleven...eleven...eleven....
Marty: ...and most of these amps go up to ten....
Nigel: Exactly.
Marty: Does that mean it's...louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see,
most...most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten
here...all the way up...all the way up....
Marty: Yeah....
Nigel: ...all the way up. You're on ten on your guitar...where can you go
from there? Where?
Marty: I don't know....
Nigel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is if we need that extra...push over
the cliff...you know what we do?
Marty: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top...
number...and make that a little louder?
Nigel: ...these go to eleven.[/quote]
[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17706&stc=1[/img]

[Charles]

All right, nonsense has gotten out of hand. Transtic Nerve, I'm terribly disappointed by this outburst. It's perfectly acceptable to feel passionately about an issue, and to argue with equal zeal, but it's an entirely different story when you verbally [b]attack[/b] others like some deranged verbal pugilist.

If you're going to introduce a topic, you've got to be prepared to discuss it on a mature platform. Just because someone[i] disagrees[/i] with you, doesn't mean they've got some devious ulterior motives hidden up their sleeves. Boba Fett was giving your ideas copious amounts of attention by responding to them point-by-point in a respectful way. What more could you ask for? He gave you sources! Any time someone feels your ideas warrant enough time to produce such a response deserves positive recognition.

I know you're intelligent and capable of defending your stance maturely. That's why it pains me to see these meandering replies that serve up more self righteous rhetoric than logical thought process. I've seen this sort of overreaction from you [b]numerous[/b] times where you needlessly lash out at others and it's so beneath you it's not even funny. The worst part is, that you know better. The disregard for common deceny is ineffable here. You've got to find the dignity to keep your composure in these situations.

I don't want to see this bullsh-- again.

I'm going to allow this thread to remain open, with the understanding that I want it to get back on track--and fast. Psychoanalyzations are unnecessary here.

And I don't think we need to see cheap shots aimed at baiting Transtic Nerve. These underhanded tactics aren't fair. Furthermore, name calling shouldn't be answered with more name calling (I'm looking at you DeathBug).

[James]

[color=#707875]Charles is correct. Just as TN should attempt to be a little more civilized with his responses, I also expect others not to assume that they can get away with baiting and name calling.

In terms of the topic, I thought I'd talk about government censorship in general, since Australia has a similar organization to the FCC (actually, we have a few bodies that perform similar functions).

We do have various guidelines in terms of what type of programs can be shown at certain times on television here. As far as I know, an MA15+ rated movie can't be shown before 9:30pm for example.

By and large, I support these policies. On the one hand, I do feel that parents whine [i]far [/i]too much about content on television -- if you are the parent, you are the person who has control over what your children watch. I don't accept this idea that TV is invading our living rooms without our permission.

On the other hand, a lot of this relates to expectation. If you are watching a PG13 TV show, and you end up seeing content that belongs on an R rated show (an extreme case, but just an example), you are obviously going to have cause for concern.

So I would say that it has to do with ratings and whether or not the content creators are sticking to those ratings appropriately.

In terms of the whole "decency" thing...I'm not sure how I feel. Decency is obviously quite subjective. And so, I think that it shouldn't be a question of "enforcing decency", but instead, it should be a question of ensuring that broadcasting guidelines (vis-a-vis program ratings) are held to by broadcasters and content developers.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with someone saying "You showed nudity on what was supposed to be a PG-13 program, so we are going to sue you". That's obviously reasonable. I do have a problem with someone saying "this movie is going to be banned because it's too violent -- even for an R rating". I have a big problem with that.

So as long as the ratings systems exist...I don't really see the problem. People who breach their industry's code of conduct are obviously going to have to pay some sort of price.[/color]

[Manic Webb]

Pardon any rude undertones in my writing, but what is it with you and attacking other people for absolutely no reason? When you wrote that reply, did it ever occur to you that, perhaps, it was over the top?

With that said...

There's a distinct difference between a parent controlling what a kid watches on TV and what a kid listens to on the radio. If a kid is watching TV, there's a good chance they'll watch it indoors where a supervising adult can see them. Radios, on the other hand, are more portable. You can tell a kid to only tune their walkman in to Radio Disney, but they can easily change stations and walk away. A kid can listen to the radio during recess at school, if they want to.

Like James said-- what's considered "decent" is subjective. Half a century ago, it was indecent for a man to shake his hips on national television. Today, a hip-shaking man would be lucky to turn a head in his direction. See Also: Ricky Martin's dieing career.

[Guest lavalamp]

Like TN mentioned, I feel it should be the parent's responsibility to guard their children from offensive programming. Despite the fact that there are such huge variations in upbringings and lifestyles, no one really has to be inconvenienced if everyone plays their part. I think organizations like the FCC are trying to preserve this bizarre ultra-conservative society and by sheltering, the morals that make up such a society are transparent, if that makes sense. Instead of hiding things perhaps they should do more to expose so people can form their own opinions about what is decent and what is indecent. Yes, children are the exception, but like I said earlier, that's the parent's job; it's not the job of some overly-anal organization.

If you really want to get down to it, if Howard Stern "should be" censored than so should the majority of popular music riding the airwaves. Yes, there is censorship for certain words, but what's more important? The meaning or the word usage which hints to this? Heck, you don't even need the words being censored most of the time to get to the meaning, which if I may answer my own question, is the more important matter. I digress.

I think children and adults alike need to get off of their conservative ***** and realize these things are only "offensive" because we're told they're supposed to be. I think true decency is the ability to decide what [b]is[/b] decent. Plain and simple. This isn't a completely international problem on all levels, and I'll continue to find it to be completely and utterly amusing how a country which embraces freedom makes such stupid regulations. You're not forced to listen to the radio or to public broadcasts on different platforms. If you "accidently" do so, that's your problem or the problem of your guardian if you are under the age of 18. If you're offended, remove yourself and get on with your life. Don't try to conquer the world with [b]your[/b] morals. Chances are millions don't agree with them.

Oh, and for the comment about psychoanalysis regarding TN's sexuality: you are blind. Being gay, I can say that what you said is exactly what no one with this label wants to hear. Don't stomp on our opinions with your stupid misconceptions. Citing a sexuality is so completely shallow and weak when it comes to facing an opinion which differs from your own: look to destroying the label, not enforcing it.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Charles'] Furthermore, name calling shouldn't be answered with more name calling (I'm looking at you DeathBug).[/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Understood, and I apologiz; one should not post while angry.

I'm going to fall back on my earlier analogy and say that content may be screened under a certain set of standards when this content is in the eye of the general public. Like I said earlier, it's like sex: you can have all the sex you want, but you can't have sex in plain view of the public.

There are a few exceptions to free speech, as well; five, I believe. They are:
[list][*]Fighting words-Speech that is very likely to provoke retaliation, such as vicious insults or racial slurs

[*]Incitement-speech likely to incite "immediate lawless action", or presenting a "Clear and present danger" to the public; yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example

[*]defamation-libel or slander; must be untrue and malicious[/list]

The other two are what I believe to be relevant to this case:

[b]Obscenity[/b]: Speech that depicts or describes specfic sexual conduct in an offensive matter, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political and social value.

and [b]Time and place manner[/b]: regulation of the time, place and manner of speech is permissible as long as the regulation is content-nuetral and does not interefere with the message. If DJ's can express themselves without vulgarity or obscenity, then they can be forced to do so, if doing so does not alter their original message.

The FCC is within their rights, as stated by the Supreme Court, to place restrictions on Clear Channel's use of a public airway.[/color][/font][/size]

[Semjaza]

Parents should take a more active role in their children's lives. Fine enough. As people who grew up rather recently, can you honestly tell me that your parents are around you 24/7 and understand what you listen to, read and watch on a constant basis? Of course not. To expect parents to pry that much into their kids' lives is unfeasible and impossible and everyone knows it.

As has been stated, popular music already is censored on radio stations. Curses are edited out, some songs are rewritten, some are ignored entirely. However, innuendo often remains. I fail to see how innuendo and implications are worse than the straight foward manner that Stern and his ilk take, however. No small child is going to get most of the innuendo in a song until they reach a certain level of knowledge and at that point they're probably ready to deal with it. Yet everyone can understand the basic, crude nonsense that Stern spits out freely on a very constant basis. Asking to see some girls boobs every few minutes during a few hour show is not really adding to anything.

There's no song I've heard that is as straightforward as what Howard Stern or Mancow talk about. It's not really comparable and, in my opinion, the argument doesn't work considering that the music is already censored before it can even hit the air waves. It's already gone through what the FCC expects. Live shows are another story and have to be held on their own accord.

It's not as if there are different standards in place for either of them. It's not as if a song can say one thing and Stern cannot get away with saying the same. The fines were for very specific actions Stern had taken; actions that wouldn't have even been in place in a song the FCC allowed on the radio in the first place.

People have to remember something imporant here. These rules were already in place. Stern and others chose to break them on a regular basis and now that the FCC is finally cracking down, they have absolutely nothing to ***** about. It doesn't matter what you think of the FCC and their practices at this point -- this is a law matter and that's the law. Stern and others knew this getting into it. In fact, it seems like him and the other DJs that could be at risk are complaining about it less than random people. I think they knew what the consequences are and I can't really feel bad about Stern being fined for things he knows he shouldn't be doing in the first place. A tear for Stern, who makes gobs of money per year doing things he knows he shouldn't technically be getting away with. Anyone in his position is, at the very least, familiar with what goes beyond the line... regardless of how clear the line is in the first place. I'm sure Stern has obliterated it on numerous ocassions.

Now, in the aftermath, you can say that these ideas are unfair in the first place. However, when someone willingly and knowingly does this, they can't just ignore the consequences. How someone can attack the FCC for finally doing something [i]that it's supposed to do[/i] makes little sense to me... I think it's a different matter entirely to challenge their very existence, but they were in the right in this case.

People might as well just get satellite radio... it's free from all this nonsense.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=lava lamp]Like TN mentioned, I feel it should be the parent's responsibility to guard their children from offensive programming. Despite the fact that there are such huge variations in upbringings and lifestyles, no one really has to be inconvenienced if everyone plays their part. I think organizations like the FCC are trying to preserve this bizarre ultra-conservative society and by sheltering, the morals that make up such a society are transparent, if that makes sense. Instead of hiding things perhaps they should do more to expose so people can form their own opinions about what is decent and what is indecent. Yes, children are the exception, but like I said earlier, that's the parent's job; it's not the job of some overly-anal organization.

If you really want to get down to it, if Howard Stern "should be" censored than so should the majority of popular music riding the airwaves. Yes, there is censorship for certain words, but what's more important? The meaning or the word usage which hints to this? Heck, you don't even need the words being censored most of the time to get to the meaning, which if I may answer my own question, is the more important matter. I digress.
[/quote]
I agree with you that the parents play a major role in their child's development. The parents being instrumental here is blatantly obvious. However, when parents fail, someone must take action. The main focus of this thread seems to be on Howard Stern. It would do you well to remember that. Howard Stern's show holds no decency whatsoever. None. To argue that he be allowed to continue broadcasting such garbage is ill-advised and uninformed. I don't see how one can argue against the FCC going after him.

"I think organizations like the FCC are trying to preserve this bizarre ultra-conservative society and by sheltering, the morals that make up such a society are transparent, if that makes sense."

I begin to wonder who is living with skewed and bizarre ideals. If anything, the FCC is taking a step in the [i]right[/i] direction by instituting these regulations. You are making the FCC seem like something out of a George Orwell novel.

[quote]I think children and adults alike need to get off of their conservative ***** and realize these things are only "offensive" because we're told they're supposed to be. I think true decency is the ability to decide what [b]is[/b] decent. Plain and simple. This isn't a completely international problem on all levels, and I'll continue to find it to be completely and utterly amusing how a country which embraces freedom makes such stupid regulations. You're not forced to listen to the radio or to public broadcasts on different platforms. If you "accidently" do so, that's your problem or the problem of your guardian if you are under the age of 18. If you're offended, remove yourself and get on with your life. Don't try to conquer the world with [b]your[/b] morals. Chances are millions don't agree with them.[/quote]
"I think children and adults alike need to get off of their conservative ***** and realize these things are only "offensive" because we're told they're supposed to be."

Firstly, your argument died with that opening sentence. I really do not need to go into your post further, but lets do so anyway.

You accuse the Conservatives of being influenced by societal opinion. Do you think that you, playing the Liberal here, are somehow immune to such societal influences? I should hope not.

So, lava lamp, I think you should take a few days off and think about that. You will find that you are more removed from reality than the Conservatives.

Also, I would advise that you drop the "us vs them" mentality. It does not suit for any discussion, and the "us vs them" mentality only serves to fuel flamewars. I have seen it happen.

[quote]Oh, and for the comment about psychoanalysis regarding TN's sexuality: you are blind. Being gay, I can say that what you said is exactly what no one with this label wants to hear. Don't stomp on our opinions with your stupid misconceptions. Citing a sexuality is so completely shallow and weak when it comes to facing an opinion which differs from your own: look to destroying the label, not enforcing it.[/QUOTE]
I am blind? Lava lamp, before you accuse me of not knowing anything, and accuse me of being "completely shallow," accusing me of holding "stupid misconceptions," I would suggest that you research post histories before insulting me like that.

If you believe that your argument is strengthened through flames, then you are mistaken.

If you were to research post histories, you would find that my psychonanalysis was quite solid. I had a very reasonable basis for my interpretationr, and I supported it with logic and fact. You are doing nothing more than ignoring what I said and resorting to outright flaming me.

I advise you to evaluate your attitude here. Your tone is becoming increasingly indignant.

If you wish to continue to flame me in this manner, at least have the decency to do so in a PM or email. I have no problem with your replying in this thread to my FCC points, however.

[Transtic Nerve]

The bottom line between my feelings in this thread are simply the fact I'm tired of having other people tell me what is right or wrong. First it's gay marriage, now I can't even listen to the damn radio. And quite frankly people who tell me either or both of those things are wrong piss me off and I will not stand by idlely and let that crap get heard without my opinion about these things and the people who say them be heard as well. If they can slap me in the face with their views on what they think is "right" then I can slap them back with how I think about them. To you (the outside viewer) it may not nearly seem on the same level, but to me, it most certainly is.

On a further note I'd like to say that I maybe should have not said some things, but I do not take them back. If I can take what you say to me, I expect you to take what you can dish out, no matter the subject. I also like to say that I'm glad someone, whom I've had my differences in the past, could understand what I was saying despite what I wrote before it. I am also a civilized person... but I'm also a controversial person. You gonna get the FCC to fine me too?

The FCC is a joke... I said it before. There should be nothing stopping me from watching or listening to what I want to. Nothing. If I want to watch it or listen to it, I should be able to. My choice, not yours, not anyone elses.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']The FCC is a joke... I said it before.[/quote]

[color=green]The FCC is most certainly not a joke. The Federal Communications Commission is a government branch that performs an important service to the people of the United States. They provide a standard that prevents all kinds of offensive garbage from being broadcast on normal TV and Radio.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']There should be nothing stopping me from watching or listening to what I want to. Nothing.[/quote]

[color=green]You can watch cable TV or listen to satellite radio if you feel this way. The FCC is able to effectively regulate either medium.

However, I think that there should be some barrier between people who would put pornography on local TV, spew obscenities or profane the airwaves with smut. This is unnecessary garbage that doesn?t need to be on public TV. If you?re interested in this stuff, there are other ways of obtaining it. By keeping TV and radio clean, we preserve what little decency that our country has left.

Nothing can stop you from expressing your right of free speech TN; you simply will have to look elsewhere for offensive material.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']If I want to watch it or listen to it, I should be able to. My choice, not yours, not anyone elses.[/quote]

[color=green]You listen to the same radio and watch the same TV that I do. What doesn?t offend or upset you may strike me as disgusting and vulgar. Therefore, I also have a say in how these media sources are regulated.

I?ll advocate continuing to enforce a basic standard of decency for TV and radio. It?s my first amendment right. Until you take that away, this choice is as much mine as yours.[/color]

[Manic Webb]

Ah, hell no. First of all, TN, nobody is upset because you voiced your opinions on the FCC. We got upset because in the process, you called somebody an idiot, told them to kiss your ***, and accused them of intentions they didn't have. The fact that you don't take that back makes me [i]sick[/i]. Your issues with political views on gay marriage has [i]nothing[/i] to do with the radio. Don't you dare bring your frustrations here. I would say you know better, but you obviously don't.

The FCC does more than just tell stations what they can and can't play. Believe it or not, they try to improve the quality of some programs. Look at kids programming. The FCC ruled that all kids programs have to educate as well as entertain. That's why even the dumbest cartoon characters (ie. Spongebob) learn a lesson at the end of each episode. Maybe you're not offended at the idea of kids watching [i]completely[/i] meaningless programs, but a majority of Americans want kids to at least get some kind of vague message at the end of their shows-- even if it means Spongebob learns not to curse, or the Teen Titans learn not to pull mindless pranks on others.

[The Vampire: Ed]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']On a further note I'd like to say that I maybe should have not said some things, but I do not take them back. If I can take what you say to me, I expect you to take what you can dish out, no matter the subject.[/quote]

You can't take anything anyone says to you obviously, no matter how little animosity there is towards you. Boba Fett said nothing to you that was offensive, he did not tell you what to do or how you should live. You came to those own conclusions in your own warped mind. I've seen this sort of thing from you time and time again since I first joined up. You just have random, and sudden outbursts when someone attempts to talk to you and whether or not they deserved it makes no difference, because you should definitely know better, especially since you were a mod. No one has insulted you, at least not until you first did, so you [b]should[/b] have the decency to apologize for your behavior because whether want to believe it or not, you are in the wrong here. You got a chip on your shoulder my friend, and it must be a mighty big one for you to always be in the mood you are.

Okay, now that I got that out of the way, I'll now talk about the whole F.C.C. thing and throw in my 2 cents. Basically, the F.C.C. as many have all ready said are a necessary thing to have. They help clean up the filth that many viewers do not want to see or hear, also to protect young children from seeing or hearing something they are not supposed to. Children can gain access to these sorts of media without the presence of parents, not because the parents are irresponsible but because they can't always keep track of what their children are doing because they have a lot on their minds usually with work, bills, etc. This is why the F.C.C. is also here, to help the parents since they cannot always be around to keep their children from seeing or hearing these negative things. So I believe they are right in what they do, for the most part anyway.

I don't agree with them fining Stern or this Love Sponge guy after all of this time. I mean that's not exactly fair is it? They didn't do anything for so long, and left them go for years. So how can they just suddenly slap a million dollar fine on them for their past work? Was there no notice? They should have informed Stern, and this Love Sponge guy that they would be cracking down on their shows if they didn't tone it down before suddenly fining them.

So they are right in what they are doing, but they went about it in the wrong way thus far with Stern and Love Sponge. Still though it's for the best in the end.