The FCC

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by NateDogg2, Mar 10, 2004.

  1. NateDogg2

    NateDogg2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA. USA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I dont know about anyone else, but I listen to Howard Stern. I think that it is terrible that the first amendment is being thrown out the window by the FCC. Censorship is crap. Taking Howard Stern off the air is the beginning of censorship across the board. It must stop. :devilspin
     
  2. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    While I agree with you in the sense that censorship is crap, but the FCC also has a mandate to protect the public.

    I have listened to Howard Stern in the past, and while I found a lot of the material funny, I also found some of it "too over the top". As his material gets tired and old, he needs to get more and more outrageous to maintain the same level of "shock value". (Which is his shtick).

    How would you feel about hardcore porn on PBS at 9AM? Or spewing obscenities on Sesame Street? Or a primetime "Lets Stone the Christian" show? I'm hoping that you can see that these things would be wrong. There would be no redeeming qualities to these shows. And there is no way of restricting access to Howard Stern's show, radio is a public media.

    Freedom of speech is a funny thing, and an often misunderstood thing. The "flavour" of the law is that if you have a message, you cannot be denied of expressing your opinion, and one cannot be persecuted for your belief. But nobody "has to" give you a forum to express these beliefs.

    The FCC has a set of guidelines that all public media (TV and radio) has to adhere to, which is in the public's best interest. And they have to investigate public complaints. As Howard Stern offends more and more people, the case builds against him. It is really nobody's fault but his, you can't expect to excuse offensive behaviour under the banner of "Free Speech".
     
  3. Elvenblademaster

    Elvenblademaster New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Cencorship is as American as apple pie, so shut up!!!
     
  4. NateDogg2

    NateDogg2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA. USA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Ha Ha EBM. The FCC is being controlled by right wing conservatives. They are making a push to censor more and more here in America. Allow me to point out the faults in what you said Sky.

    I don't think that swearing on Sesame Street is good. Nor do I think that Big Bird bending Oscar the Grouch over for some hardcore is good in any way. But what do you expect to find when you tune into Sesame Street? None of that right?

    If you want to find out your daily news do you go out and buy a Hustler or a Playboy? Of Course not. Does anyone tune into Howard Stern for an educational childrens broadcast? No.

    That is the beauty of America. No one is telling you that you have to do anything. YOU have the choice. We are not facists or socialists. We have the choice to listen to and watch whatever we please. I don't know how things are in Canada, but that are the values here. If you don't like Howard Stern, then don't listen to him. If you don't like Sesame Street then don't watch it.

    I don't understand why some people want to take away things that others enjoy. Howard Stern in the largest syndicated radio program in America. They have a huge following. Why take all of those peoples entertainment away. In the name of decency? Bull Shit!
     
  5. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    The point is Nate, just like there are rules here at TFF for conduct of the membership (for the common good), the FCC has rules and regulations governing the limits of decency and content that can be broadcast on public radio channels.

    These rules have been in effect for a long time, this isn't some sudden Anti-Stern ruling.

    As a pilot, I have a Restricted Radio Operator's License. I had to test for knowledge and competency, to allow me to broadcast and receive radio signals in the Aviation Communication (118-137 MHz) range. (And use the 108-117.95 MHz etc. ranges for radio navigation).

    If I was to get on my radio, tune it to 125.0MHz, the frequency of the local airport tower, and start chatting with someone in another plane, I'd lose my license. And without the Radio Operator's license, I couldn't fly out of my airport any more. Those are the rules.

    If you don't like the rules, lobby to change them. But don't fault the FCC for enforcing rules that everyone has to follow. I think that in some ways HS has gotten away with plenty, mainly BECAUSE of his popularity. If it was just any upstart they would have squashed them long ago.

    Lol, if you think the FCC is restrictive, you should see the Gustapo called the CRTC that we have here in Canada....:rolleyes:
     
  6. Arijah

    Arijah The Firstborn

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I definitely agree with Sky...this makes five things, Sky...about the whole free speech misinterpretation. I think one of the keypoints he mentioned concerning the censorship of Stern is that it is public radio. If Stern was to have a subscription-based program than I don't think the FCC would come down as hard on him because he wouldn't be in a sense a "public" broadcaster. This is why you'll find boobies on HBO, Skinemax, etc...but never on your local stations, or even on your basic cable subscription because these channels can be viewed by anybody from 5-100 and there has be some line to keep it decent for EVERYBODY, and not just the fans of a particular show.

    Free speech didn't include a "everybody must hear it" clause in it.

    If I remember correctly...wasn't it ClearChannel that decided to censor Stern in the beginning because he was violating FCC rules, and it was the next day that their chairman/CEO appeared before an FCC panel explaining to them why Stern had been removed from six markets?
     
  7. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    And just one further point I want to make, is that I am not Anti-Stern. But I definitely would not want my 4 or 5 year old listening to the show, nor my 11 year old daughter, and probably not my 13 year old son neither. As funny as some of his stuff is, he doesn't exactly convey the values (ie. respect for women, etc.) that I'd like my kids to learn.

    Yes, I try to monitor what my kids do, but I can't be with them 24/7.
     
  8. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    protect us from what exactly. am i being harmed? who gets to decide what's in MY best interest, and why.

    granted i dont exactly think lil ones should be watching hardcore porn, but its up to their parentals to keep them from that, which is why they have ratings, which i support. personally i dont find HS entertaining, but someone does, and they should be able to listen to him if they want, and if i don't, i can change the channel.

    the problem with the janet jackson thing was not the exposed boob, but the exposed boob on a channel, during a program, at a time, specifically billed as family oriented entertainment. that was why that was wrong. mtv2 once did an uncensored segment of the top 10 most controversial videos, at 1am. 3yr olds probably shouldn't be watching mtv and shouldn't be up at 1am, and their parents shouldn't expect programing for them at that place and time. instead of addressing the issue in this way, the FCC launches a crusade to ban anything "indecent" from being on radio or tv, anywhere, anytime. discovery health runs a show about birth and delivery. They show live births as they occur. They now have to censor shots of the mother's genital area right before the baby comes out, but they are allowed to show it as soon as the baby's head is partially out. F-ed up, no? A year ago, Bono gave an acceptance speech in which he said, "wow, this is really, f-ing great!" Being from ireland, where that is quite normal speech, not at all out of the ordinary or offensive, and in a situation of intense excitement, im sure it wasn't meant to be obscene, which the FCC originally ruled, but the current head of the FCC is trying to reverse the decision and penalize the singer. Speaking of European speech, ever notice how "bloody," "bloody hell," "sod off" and the like, plus the european equivalent of flipping the bird never get censored. Nevermind that its perfectly acceptable to call someone the derogatory "bitch" but not to refer to your own "ass" on tv. And now most radio censors the words "gun," "drugs," "sex," "pill," "weed," etc. on songs, making them big bleep fests and completely ruining them. I understand bleeping some stuff, but have you ever tried listening to Everlast's "What it's like" on a ClearChannel station. Who gets to decide what's offensive, what's indecent. The individual should, or the individual's guardian. Unless i tie you down and force you to listen to me, it shouldn't be a crime to express whatever nonsense i wish.

    the taliban had decency police too, they just stoned people instead of fining them or shutting them down.

    censorship sucks.

    "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
     
  9. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    But nobody is "crusading" anything, the FCC is enforcing rules that are in place. Probably based on complaints.

    Say you live in a neighbourhood where the posted speed limit is 50 kmh and people go through it at 70 kmh. Nobody gets hurt, but people in the neighbourhood worry about maybe someone will get hurt and complain to the police. So the police set up a radar trap and ticket 100 people for speeding. Is the police at fault for being a fanatical regime? Or the neighbours for being alarmists? I think we all would agree that the people at fault are the speeders.
    Voltaire didn't have radio, but in his day there were certain things that would not have been acceptable to be printed in his local newspaper. This is the same as the "Freedom of Speech" argument -- HS can hold any opinion he wants, just that the public radio forum doesn't have to be provided to him.
     
  10. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    The FCC operates on discretionary guidelines. By law they are supposed to keep obscene, indecent, harmful material off of public forums. The law does not say specifically whether or not janet's boob during a superbowl fits this description. That is up to the FCC, thus when you have a super-conservative right winger in charge, it becomes the extreme in the direction of censorship. Likewise were you to have say your average college kid in charge, they might let alot slide that they shouldn't.

    They do investigate complaints though a complaint is not necessary in all cases to investigate, but here again, there is too much room for personal bias. My grandma might complain that she was flipping the channels at 10pm and saw two girls and a guy jump in a hot tub together on mtv and that this is indecent and immoral, but what about the rather large number of people who not only aren't offended but enjoy, should it be taken away from them?

    Which brings me to... its not just about the free speech of the person putting on the show, if its a public format, the large number of people who listen to HS and are not offended, don't they have just as much right to that as do the teenyboppers to their incesant top40 drivle? (which by the way i find highly offensive, to my ears, my mind, and the value of artistic expression)

    no, voltaire didn't have radio, and there was stuff people couldn't print, but does that mean he necessarily agreed with that?
     
  11. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    Perhaps I find racial jokes funny. Perhaps hysterical. And jokes about Christians funny too.

    Racial jokes about Christians would probably be best. Racial Christian jokes about women would probably be REALLY funny. Now, if I could get some about Racial Female Christian Pedophiles, that would be a riot.

    Now, if I could somehow get a Racial Female Christian Pedophile Joke Network off the ground, now THAT would be hysterical. Since the US has 300 million people, I could probably get a few thousand people interested. They probably would love it. So what if everyone else is offended, I NEED my RFCP-TV!! How dare they take it away. Stupid censors!!

    Of course, I don't really feel that way, but you see where I'm going. Nobody is denying HS his freedom of expression. I don't hate HS, but I find very little of his show artistically redeeming, no more than a sweat-soaked fart is artistically redeeming. Would I call in to complain? No, I'd just change the station. If nobody tunes in, the station would dump him.

    But obviously, he has offended people. Enough that they lodge complaints. Have you lodged yours about Top 40 music? You may want to get started on that....;)
     
  12. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    im too lazy to lodge a complaint when i could just not listen to those stations. i understand the purpose of your analogy, but it doesn't change my opinion. you may have some terrible things to say. i may hate them. they may offend countless others but if you can get funding and keep your little hate station alive, you have a right to it.
     
  13. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    What is wrong with a bit o' nudity on the tv anyway? or the use of words as [Censored]? (America... I have to censor my words even here!) I don't get it. The only thing that goes too far to my opinon is hardporn in broad daylight. Personally I think censorship doesn't any good to society. Just as any other forbidden fruit, the temptation becomes greater to pick. I think Fred Durst would sing about very different things, not benign, but less of the [Censored]-words without an institute as the FCC.

    And if thing do get out of hand, there still is the self-censorship of any broadcaster. Think about it. People who cross the line, ar fired. Sounds logically. And with that, immediately there is some unwritten rule not to repeat the action. Besides, imagin how hard it would be if someone gets fired for that reason, to be taken seriously by other broadcasters, how hard it would be to find another job. I think censorship, a remnant from the past, shood be thrown overbord.
     
  14. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    Why?
     
  15. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    There is a certain age in which it is probably best to keep children out of sex. Since they cannot understand ("experience") the true meaning of sex until puberty, wrong images about sex can kindle in the age under 10, 11 years. I think it is best to introduce kids to the subject in its full perspective when they are biologically ready for it. furthermore, it is a parental task to introduce the matter, not the media's or at least leave the parents with the choice.
     
  16. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    That's all fine and dandy, but you really didn't answer the question. You said,
    but if parental controls, etc. are in place, airing hardcore porn in broad daylight on a public channel during the day shouldn't be a problem.

    If I wanted to see porn at noon, why shouldn't I be able to?
     
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Hire a tape, Sky!

    Do you mean: the digital Parental control or just good old fashioned watching what your kids are? I guess the first?
    Wow... evreybody with kids: buy a new TV, or else they will see porn! How do you mean, we've got no choice to spend our cash. Yes, commercaillism strikes again! Until that system has been introduced for at least a decade and is a standard for all new tv's that could be concidered.
     
  18. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    and thus the birth of that enterprising little venture we call pay-per-view
     
  19. NateDogg2

    NateDogg2 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boston, MA. USA
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I think that I might be the only one who knows the charges that have been put against HS show. No one filled a complaint. The FCC has gone on a rampage since Janet Jacksons' titty. The complaint against the HW show came from one that aired over 2 years ago. In it a caller to the station used the word "nigger". This was not something from the mouth of HS or any of the people who produce the show, but from a flipant caller. To bring something that old to the table seems like they are digging for something to charge him with.

    The FCC has strong ties to the republican party and George Bush. This is the begining of a terrible regime of censorship.

    I understand your point on rules Sky, but the point is that HS has not broken the rules. The rules are not very clear. The FCC gets to make up what it thinks is indecent. They tryed to charge him before for using the word "vagina" on his show. Fortunatley he won that battle because it shouldn't matter. It is said on a host of shows. He is targeted just for the content of his show.

    I just wish more people understood all of the rights that are slowly being taken away from them in this country.
     
  20. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    You're missing the point. See below...
    No, I mean the latter.

    Turambar & CB, the point I was trying to make with the porn reference was that we are talking about censorship and that what is the fundamental difference between being against swearing, nudity or softcore porn or hardcore porn? It's YOUR personal limit!!! I may not find hardcore porn offensive, as YOU may not find nudity offensive. The solution is, YES, keep the public airwaves relatively clean, and restrict the "offensive" by making it a "pay per" or private system.

    Nate, you're right in that I'm not well versed in this "specific" charge against HS, but he was on air here in Canada for a while, and yes, I have seen "Private Parts". So I am familiar with his material. I am by no means "virginal" or easily offended, but by the same token I'm not necessarily impressed by his crassness. I personally find that I have to be "in the mood" to listen to his stuff.

    I'm not pro-censorship, but I believe that there is a proper time and place for everything. I think in a lot of ways there is very little censorship -- piblic media has liberties only dreamt of when I was a teen.

    So, perhaps you can elaborate, how is this charge from two years ago affecting his show today?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2004