View Full Version : putting the "F" in FCC
KB9YCO
03-09-2004, 04:34 PM
As someone involved in radio on a number of levels I am disgusted with the FCC's current hang up with their version of "obscenity". I don't personally use words that I think would offend as I am sensitive to differing values and beliefs, but that doesn't give the government the right to tell me what I can hear or say.
The FCC and some members of Congress, on their morality witchhunt, have continued to blatantly ignore The Bill Of Rights and define what is or isn't "indecent" in a free press and that is somehow acceptable?
Or Congressional hearings deciding what shouldn't be seen, heard, or printed? ( CONGRESS shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...) No room for exceptions there, nor should there be. A list of what, in their opinion, is or isn't moral, is purely one-sided, narrow minded, and purely un-American. Beyond that it is illegal, according to The First Amendment, for Congress to have any say one way or the other in what content is permissable in the press; again Congress shall make no law... The public makes that choice by lack of support in a commercial industry, isolation and persecution on an individual level, and it is not the job or right of the government to draw that line for us.
Before all of the posts come streaming in about yelling fire in a crowded theater (not the same since that would cause a panic and/or physical harm), or moral responsibility (definded in vastly different ways by different groups and therefore not definable for everyone), there is no direct correlation between a "dirty" word or image and lawlessness, deviance, sex crime, or all of the other paranoid theories that seem to abound when someone mentions unfettered free speech as it was in intended in America and clearly stated in The Bill Of Rights. No normally adjusted person, or child, will suddenly become a raving lunatic as a result of Janet Jackson's breast or a "dirty" word. It's an insult to the public to make the declaration (legally or otherwise) that we as the general public aren't smart or strong enough to handle potentially "objectionable" material.
Shouldn't we be very worried that this precedence is being set in the law time and time again, in complete opposition to The First Amendment which is the basis of our system of government? The same document that gives the government it's power is being ignored. What's next and who gets to draw the line?
Shouldn't we be offended as a population that our government (and the MINORITY complainers that start most of it) think we will lose all control because Howard Stern made a penis joke or there was a half a second breast flash on TV? Have we gotten to the point that we are a non-thinking society that needs to be told what to think?
Am I the only one outraged by the government's callous disregard for The Bill Of Rights? The only one disgusted by these morality crusaders defining what is or isn't moral and going on a witchhunt that has no clear definitions and never really has?
The FCC, or Congress, has yet to exactly define what is obscene, or set any guidlines for broadcasting anyway, they only say that a percentage was offended or that the material in question was not socially redeeming. Again, that is defined in many different ways by different groups and there is no place in a free society for one group's definition. It isn't their right to make that decision for us and I hope that everyone of these moral crusaders is voted out of office for their liberal interpretation of The Bill Of Rights. Isn't it time for the extremist religious right to stop legislating what their version of morality is and return The Bill Of Rights to America? I think we can handle life without their misguided wisdom and I am sickened by their continuing rampage and wondering when and where it will end, hopefully it will be soon, like November 5th.
W5HTW
03-09-2004, 04:43 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Mar. 09 2004,09:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same document that gives the government it's power is being ignored. What's next and who gets to draw the line?
//We The People - the majority. //
Am I the only one outraged by the government's callous disregard for The Bill Of Rights? The only one disgusted by these morality crusaders defining what is or isn't moral and going on a witchhunt that has no clear definitions and never really has?
//No, you are simply in a small minority.//[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No you are not the only one. But according to most polls (all I've seen) you are in a very definite minority. Last poll I saw a couple of days or so ago shows 82 percent of Americans are disgusted with the vulgarity of broadcasting. Seems to me the majority is speaking.
Ed
KB9YCO
03-09-2004, 04:49 PM
I'd like to know where you found that poll. Howard Stern being pulled off of Clear Channel was a result of ONE complaint, the Stupor Bowl thing got about 200,000 complaints in a country of many millions. Sounds like a minority to me. But it is a vocal minority that has the time to waste while everyone else is working.
Throw Stern in jail for life, bring back the "7 prohibited dirty words list", ban Jackson from broadcasting altogether and the world will be happy again....
In this world, there are people who "get it," and people who "don't get it." The "don't get it" people have been looking for a way to get Howard off the air for years. Now they have an excuse, and some momentum from the uptight fools who got all bent out of shape about Janet Jackson.
As for Janet, I just HAPPENED to be watching when she let it all hang out. If I had BLINKED, or took another swig on my beer, I would have missed it. Even looking right at it, I was not 100% sure I saw what I THOUGHT I saw. Yet, from all the hoo-ha, and the resulting overblown post-mortem fallout, you'd have thought Jackson did a 30 minute, full-nude, closeup, slow motion OBGYN examination!
How many of you heard the comments of the buffoonish Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM)? Was she grandstanding, or is she really as uptight and deranged as she sounds? God, I hope she was just showboating. She sounded like a women's softball coach who had just crawled out of bed after 3 fitful hours of interrupted sleep, and stepped on a pile of thumbtacks on her way to the bathroom, only to find that there wasn't any water pressure.
I don't understand people who work feverishly to take the Howard Sterns of the world off the air. Don't these people know how to turn the dial?? And if they are worried about their kids hearing HORRIBLE, UNSPEAKABLE FILTH from Howard, how about monitoring their activities now and then? Or better yet, restrict access to the radio!
I'm proud to say I LOVE the Howard Stern show. Sure, it can get boring when he's doing something "visual" for his own amusement while I'm only listening on a radio. But most of the time I dig it. When I wake up in the morning, I usually wish I was still back in bed. Then I have an hour commute among some of the biggest dumbass drivers on the planet. Listening to Howard makes me laugh and keeps me entertained. If you don't like him, TURN THE DIAL AND LISTEN TO ONE OF THOSE LAME "BILL AND SALLY IN THE MORNING" SHOWS!! Or if you are in Baltimore, listen to that stuttering, stammering idiot, Dave DORKian on WBAL! But don't try to take away the show *I* like, ferchrissake!
Needless to say, when the kiddies are in the car, I don't tune in Howard Stern or Don 'n' Mike. Howard is for MY entertainment.
Because I'm WORTH it.
Haw...
Out.
Oh it's perfectly ok if you love HamHock Stern.... But put him on pay radio and take him off of free radio....
KG4CGC
03-09-2004, 05:46 PM
I agree with KB9YCO and W3SY.
I'm sure this topic will set off a flamefest. There are factions that will say the Constitution is based on Gods law and there are others that will say read it as self explanitory. Whatever, not everyone can agree but KB9YCO hit the nail right square on the head.
KG4CGC, Charles Chackal
KC2HJN
03-09-2004, 06:00 PM
KB9YCO...
I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately it's not just the first ammendment under attack. The whole constitution is largely ignored (or "interpreted" wrongly, and differently, depending on their needs) by every branch of our government. As long as politicians keep getting "contributions" (bribes?) from special interest groups, it will not change.
What are we to do? A small group of protestors is either ignored or arrested, and a large group bring out the riot police and then things really get ugly. The next step? Not a pretty picture.
73
I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this issue, but this is one of the funniest titles for a thread that I have seen in a while.
KB2DQE
03-09-2004, 06:37 PM
W3SY, Thats good>>>Uhh, Is it still ok for me to smoke while Im on the air? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Guess this is what happens when the family and community stops teaching people right from wrong and leaves it up to the state and federal government.
As for the garbage the FCC is currently targeting I believe they are 100% on the money.
Want to know what I personally find offensive?
Having someone sensor the word "bastard" out of an old Patton movie, yet watch (or listen) to bozo's like Bono, Stern or others rave on saying things that are completely not appropriate.
Standards? We don't need to stinking standards!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
Folks like Stern and others have all the right they want to speak almost anythnig they like. They DON'T have the right to force others to listen to it.
(But I can turn the knob, you say!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Yes, I can.. BUT with the widespread proliferation of all that crud the ability to remove ONESELF from the exposure is IMPOSSIBLE. #It is in print, TV, Radio, Film, and on public view.
So, unless you seek to ask us to be 'unreasonable' and lock ourselves away and eliminate our contact with other human beings, the comment 'you don't like it, change the station' doesn't wash anymore.
NOW.. those who think it's a 'witchhunt' better go back to the 1950's and look at some kind of records about the McCarthy hearings. THEN come talk about a witchhunt.. :-)
The cry and moan and gnashing of teeth by Stern and the minortiy loudmouths about the 'censorship' of their right to free speech is a red herring.
He is like all the others who cry, moan, bitch, and complain loudly 'UNFAIR! MEAN! BAD! NASTY!' etc when they find themselves FINALLY being restrained, controlled, and put in check by the adults who FINALLY woke up and realized that 'kiddies are running around being unruly, disruptive, and getting into things they shouldn't be getting into'.
These types (and their syncophantic supporters) don't get it!
They pushed the envelope. They pushed the boundaries. They pushed the limits to see 'just how far they could go'
Well, they went far enough that the ADULTS FINALLY started paying attention and said 'WHOA, KIDDIES!! THAT'S ENOUGH! TIME TO COME IN AND TAKE A TIME-OUT AND LEARN SOME MANNERS AND RESPECT!"
Kiddies don't like that! They don't like having to FINALLY obey some rules and restrictions. Like kiddies everywhere, who finally cause the adults to act, they whine
"YOU DON'T LOVE ME!" "YOU ARE MEAN!" "YOU'RE NOT PLAYING FAIR!" "YOU *NEVER* LET ME HAVE ANY FUN!"
"I'M NOT HURTING ANYONE!"
blah..blah. blah...
IF you are a parent.. you KNOW exactly what this is like. It's called a TEMPER TANTRUM. #Leave Howard and his group to cry, moan, and whimper.
Eventually they will find that the adults are paying them no mind aside from watching them to make sure they don't misbehave again.
Eventually they'll cease their acts OR they'll continue and be restrained and put in the room for a nice long 'TIME OUT'.
IT'S ABOUT TIME!
GOOD!
K3FT
Free speech is one thing.. but there are reasonable limits when dealing with society.
ka8jhm
03-09-2004, 07:27 PM
YCO:
I somewhat agree with your views, but not entirely. The following;
"I think we can handle life without their misguided wisdom and I am sickened by their continuing rampage and wondering when and where it will end, hopefully it will be soon, like November 5th. "
In this statement you make it sound like it's just the present administration that is the cause of government intervention, not so, as this crap has been going on for many years, and yes, under the Democrats too.
Now, just an opinion, but for all of those that believe there should be no control over abusive or filthy language over the air, I would suggest you keep a CB radio in whatever vehicle you use to transport you're family around in, and no matter where you go, make sure this CB is tuned to only channel 19 and play it loud enough for all to hear. I'm sure at this point you might have a change of heart after listening to the constant barrage of filth from the nations truckers.
Bob tbtm
Howard Stern is a total low life, and I wonder about the people who listen to him on a regular basis. #As we often see when the government deals with issues, the failure of government to act when they should have (Stern is long over due) can, and often does, result in government over reacting.
You have a total right to free speech, You have no right to have any person listen to your speech.
Regulation of the public airwaves, by the government, for the benefit of the majority, is not a violation of free speech rights. Howard Stern can continue with his low life speech, he does not need to do it on the public airwaves, part of which I own.
DAN, K3XR
KC2HJN
03-09-2004, 09:48 PM
We seem to have gotten a little off topic here. The point is not whether you like Howard Stern or not. The point is when do we say enough when the government starts to decide what is "for our own good".
As far as Stern is concerned, the FCC didn't pull him off the air. Clear Channel did. They have every right to decide who they want on their stations BUT they had a legal contract with Stern. They knew who he was and what kind of stuff he did on the air and STILL signed a contract with him. The only way the government should get involved now is when he takes them to court for breach of contract.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Free speech is one thing.. but there are reasonable limits when dealing with society[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Who gets to decide those limits?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">with the widespread proliferation of all that crud the ability to remove ONESELF from the exposure is IMPOSSIBLE. It is in print, TV, Radio, Film, and on public view.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe society has decided that they like this kind of stuff, otherwise their would be no market for it.
Maybe those who are offended are the minority.
Sex and violence sells, it always has. The difference is that in the past people didn't openly admit it.
Howard Stern is number one, or at least one of the top three, in every market he is in. That has to tell you something.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Folks like Stern and others have all the right they want to speak almost anythnig they like. They DON'T have the right to force others to listen to it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Very true, but you must remember...you do NOT have the right to never be offended. The first ammendment guarantees free speech, nowhere does is imply that the speech must be non offensive, or only political in nature. Anybody can say the popular things and fear nothing, but it is the one who says unpopular things who would face persecution without the 1st.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regulation of the public airwaves, by the government, for the benefit of the majority, is not a violation of free speech rights. Howard Stern can continue with his low life speech, he does not need to do it on the public airwaves, part of which I own.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
What majority is that? Clear Channels stations have millions of listeners, how many complained? It IS a violation when THEY decide what is offensive and what is not, and, nobody 'owns' the electromagnetic radiation whizzing around us. You may hold a variety of licenses, that is not ownership.
Sorry to quote so much.
73
n5tjd
03-09-2004, 10:39 PM
Is it really too much to ask not to hear certain obscenities on broadcast tv and radio? I say you can have your right to free speech without resorting to such... unintelligent filth.
I don't think we have a right NOT to be offended... but where does it say that others have the right to purposely offend us? Why should we have to change the channel, only to find the same thing or worse on another channel?
I am probably the minority in my age bracket (19), but constant cursewords and nudity on TV sickens me. Whenever there is a "love" scene on TV, I change the channel, if it is my tv... or just look away if someone else is watching it, I call stuff like that "plot holes"... that is, they couldn't think of anything more intelligent or interesting to do so they are just killing an easy 5 minutes.
If I had satellite, or cable, I'd probably keep it on one of the more informational channels. I always love learning things, rather than listening to my brain rot as I'm assaulted by an endless barage of "reality" tv shows... as a result, I usually only watch the local news, home improvemnt shows and NOVA... There are a few shows I'll watch... but not that many.
Newton Minnow called tv a vast wasteland in 1961.... it still is in my humble opinion.. and it probably won't get better. I guess I'll just have to get used to that.
KC8UGM
03-09-2004, 10:47 PM
There wouldn't be a problem if Howard Stern was on late at night after primetime and younger kids wouldn't be exposed to this kinda stuff.The same with Janet Jackson.If she would have had this "exposure" on a heavily watched prime time event it wouldn't have had much impact on the general public.I don't like this kind of things going in front of small kids.They have a hard enough time trying to grow up and learn whats right and wrong without.As someone mentioned in an earlier post the envelope keeps getting pushed.JMHO
73
ai4ep
03-09-2004, 10:49 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif ...something like the old saying " do as I say, do not do as I do " .... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
W5HTW
03-09-2004, 11:22 PM
The poll I saw was a graphic on the screen, and may have been on Fox News, or on CNN. I tend to change channels often!
Clear Channel took Stern off the air because they thought he no longer represented the face they want to present to the people.
I'm no prude. I enjoy The Sopranos, though I do think they go a little bit overboard with the profanity. I recall a few months ago watching a war movie in which every phrase, it seemed, included the phrase "God damn." Well, GI's curse. But not that much. I looked at the release date and it dawned on me, the movie had been released a few years back, when the "new rules" on profanity had come into play. They were doing this not for artistic content, or for realism, but because "they could." That is not a valid reason.
Many of the shock jocks do exactly the same thing. They have no goal, except to do it because "they can."
Where is it written that entertainment equates to profanity? Can people no longer communicate without the "F" word? Is that a failure of our education system? I know, sometimes you can argue with someone about an issue, like "The sun rises in the east" and he says "No, it rises in the west." So after you try to explain and demonstrate, he says "F___you" and walks away. No ability to communicate, to reason, to listen, or to learn.
Profanity is a reality of life. I accept that, and I am not immune. So when I see a movie, for example, if the characters curse a bit, or even a little more than a bit, I accept that just the way I accept it on the street. Means nothing to me.
But when a radio show relies on sex only as its call to fame, and has no ability to communicate beyond sex, it seems there is a bit of low mentality there. I mean anyone of us can unzip and whip out junior. But are we communicating? Is that a message? Does it explain anything?
I don't dislike Stern. And in another part of my life I was a radio DJ for a while, and I admit I tended to lean toward the risque. But this is not "toward the risque." This is idiotic, and to me shows a lack of ability to keep a show in the ratings without resorting to low-IQ approaches.
Again, Clear Channel was not forced by the FCC to pull Stern. They simply saw the trend (maybe they saw the same poll results I did!) and discovered the way to please the majority, where the bucks are, is to clean up the act a bit. You can appeal to a narrow audience, or you can broaden your base. If you choose to broaden the base, you have to adapt, and that is what Clear Channel did.
The bottom line to all this is once upon a time even "Hell" or "Damn" was an extreme no-no on ham radio. We could tune the bands for days and rarely hear someone slip and let go with a curse word. People cursed back then, too, but not on ham radio. It was the one place many of us thought of as exempt from the vulgarities of life.
No more. Ham radio has turned into another medium that now, for much of the time, makes me turn the radio off when my wife walks into the room. Why? I don't want her to lose the respect for this hobby, as I have. I want her to continue to think of it as something good, even though I know it is deteriorating rapidly. She hears cursing. From The Sopranos and from me! But ham radio has, for nearly 48 years for me, been a place of sanctity, a place of respect. And that is gone.
Sure, it is my choice to watch The Sopranos. It is also my choice to listen to the shock jocks or not. Or read Hustler, or Jugs. (I'm sure there is such a magazine??) But I know what to expect when and if I do. What I expect from ham radio is different; I expect respect. And like Youngman, there ain't none!
If I can find what news entity published that poll I'll come back and post it here but it has been a couple of weeks so it may be hard to locate on a web site. I'll take a look!
Meanwhile, thanks to the minority for screwing up the majority's ham radio.
73
Ed
KC2HJN
03-09-2004, 11:54 PM
KD5WZB,
I agree with you that people shouldn't purposely try to offend others. That's not what is happening. Some keep saying that society wants this from the gov't or thr FCC because they 'had enough', or something similar. But I don't see that society wants this. Only a small vocal minority.
(we'll keep using Stern since he seems the hot topic)
His radio show is syndicated all around the country, he had 2 best selling books, a succesful movie and a tv show. I don't see this as society rejecting him.
As far as Janet Jacksons breast, c'mon now. Does anybody really think seeing a breast for half a second is going to scar a child?
Granted, there are things a child maybe shouldn't be exposed to, but don't you think it's the parents who should teach kids right from wrong, not the government?
I'll admit, I listen to Howard, but that's not what this is about. I also listen to Sean Hannity and Rush on occasion. Some of the things they say I agree with and other things p*ss me off, maybe to the point of offence, but I don't want anyone going on a crusade to kick them off the air. If enough people don't like what they have to say, the ratings will go down...advertisers will leave and the show will fail on it's own. The same for DJ's like Stern. That's how it is in a free society.
ae4fa
03-10-2004, 12:08 AM
Alrighty, then. Let’s talk about ‘Freedom of Expression.’
Suppose I show up for a dinner party at your home wearing a mini-skirt, fishnet stockings, 6-inch heels, and a blouse open to the waist. Bear in mind that I am a rather large male. And suppose I fancied the latest ‘hardware look,’ and just insisted on displaying my latest addition, which is in a place most folks aren’t accustomed to seeing at a dinner party.
How long would I be welcome in your home?
Or, suppose I showed up wearing a sport jacket, oxford shirt, slacks, and nicely shined loafers. But that I had recently developed a penchant for speaking with a vocabulary that would make sailors blush with embarrassment?
How long would I be welcome in your home?
Or, suppose I arrived as depicted in scenario 2, and developed an instant fascination for your 15-year-old daughter – and began telling her how I would like to . . .
How long would I be welcome in your home?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KD5WZB @ Mar. 08 2004,16:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am probably the minority in my age bracket (19), but constant cursewords and nudity on TV sickens me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I'm having a hard time believing any of that crap. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
wd5kca
03-10-2004, 01:16 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC8UGM @ Mar. 09 2004,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There wouldn't be a problem if Howard Stern was on late at night after primetime and younger kids wouldn't be exposed to this kinda stuff.The same with Janet Jackson.If she would have had this "exposure" on a heavily watched prime time event it wouldn't have had much impact on the general public.I don't like this kind of things going in front of small kids.They have a hard enough time trying to grow up and learn whats right and wrong without.As someone mentioned in an earlier post the envelope keeps getting pushed.JMHO
73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree with UGM.
There is come confusion here on terms used. The original post referred to "obscenity". Obscenity is totally banned from the air waves at all times. But, obscenity is pretty hard to nail down, it has to be super raunchy.
On the other hand, "indecent" programming is allowed between 10PM and 6AM. This is where Howard Stern or the costume malfunction would fit in. Move Howard to those hours and the rules are satisfied.
KC2HJN
03-10-2004, 01:52 AM
If you walked in my house dressed in drag, well you probably wouldn't be welcome for long. But that's my house. If I just happened to be a transvestite throwing that party, not only would you be welcome, you might be expected to dress like that. Otherwise, if you prefer frilly clothes and high heels, you can walk in the public dressed like that if you like.
As for the cursing, yes we could do without it, but I do it enough that I shouldn't complain.
The 15 year old, well that's a whole new set of laws. Can't compare the two.
Heres a story:
When I got married about 10 years ago, me and my wife took a carribean cruise which stopped at a few islands. On one of the islands we got off the ship and grabbed a cab. "Take us to a nice beach", we told the driver. We had never been there, and trusted that since he lived there, he would know the best spots. Well anyway, he drives for a while, we pay and get out, and he drives away. As we walk onto the beach, we realize something..... He didn't take us to a "nice" beach, he took us to a "nude" beach. Now we are walking and saying to each other, "should we?". I really didn't want to take all my clothes off. Not everyone was nude, probably 80-90% were. So, we found a nice palm tree and hung out (not literaly) there for a while. At first, having never been to a nude beach before, we were a little uncomfotable. After a little while I came to realize it really was no big deal.
Why am I rambling you may ask and what the h*ll does it have to do with the topic.
Here's my thinking:
Of the various body parts witnessed that day I realized that half the population of the world has one set, and the other half uses them on occasion, and vice versa.
There were no roving bands of rapists perveted by the sight of nude people running around. Nor were there wide eyed kids with hairy palms lurking in the shadows.
There weren't any people with picket signs protesting the "obscenity" or news crews covering the "outrage".
My point?
People need to lighten up.
Why is it perfectly legal for the local news to show us bombing the crap out of some poor slobs, over and over again(we're not supposed to think about the women and children invariably caught in the middle, they're just "collateral damage"), but a half second breast flash causes an uproar?
Why can Enron executives con people out of their jobs and pensions and it takes years for any action to take place, but a quick peek at Janet's boob is cause for immediate action and calls for new legislation?
As a child I watched cartoons which were as violent as any action movie today (ever watch bugs bunny?) and had sexual innuendos in them. As a teen I saw the occasional "nudie" magazine, and even (gasp) saw a porn movie or two.
I didn't turn out deranged, haven't killed or raped anyone, and generally lead a rather normal life.
No nudity on TV? Ok, no problem with that.
No use of the seven dirty words? No problem there either.
Keep unnecessary violence to a minimum? That's ok.
No racial remarks that may in any way be construed as offensive? (unless directed at whites, that seems to be ok now. remember Jesse Jacksons "devil" remark? Was he fined, or sued by anyone? But he DOES have the right to say it if he feels that way.) OK, no racially questionable material.
When do we stop? Who gets to decide?
One day, those wishing for more government involvement in our lives may find themselves on the other side of the fence. THEN who do they blame? They asked for it.
Sorry for rambling agan
73
KB9YCO
03-10-2004, 04:55 AM
Join the campaign for free speech, cast your vote for The First Amendment and help get 1 million signatures.
Every little bit helps (http://www.stopfcc.com)
KG4CGC
03-10-2004, 05:26 AM
KC2HJN,
Fantastic points http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Wish I could have made them myself. But you've done a far better job of it.
KG6TTN
03-10-2004, 09:18 AM
Well here it goes. I for one believe that what is coll is not always right and what is right is not always cool.
This stands pat for this issue, if there was one channel or a series of channels devoted to "pushing the envalope" then that would be just fine and those channels (tv or radio) could be as "zany" and shocking as they pleased because only those who wished could watch them and responsable parents could if they choose keep thier vile little "gimme gimme machines" from viewing or hearing them.
But we are in the real world, and every so often filth slimes into every channel. I as an adult either tune it out (ignore it) or change the channel. But kids when watching thier "Super Cereal and Toy Related Cartoons" are bombarded with the not so suttle message that it is cool to do, say and act either in any way they feel is good (because the little monsters are empowered these days dont ya know) or that if they do not buy a certain product they will be lesser people than those who did buy it. We as adults get the same messages but we know BS when we hear it and so it gets the mute button.
My point is this, NO we do not need our elected dunder-heads to define what is moral or immoral or what is permitted or not. What we do need is Govt. to regulate when the free for all can be broadcasted. Adult only hours for adult ony programming is not so much to ask.
The hammer must be wielded more and the "please follw the rules" attitude must be stopped. Pull a few broadcasting licenses from a mega-conglomerate or two see how fast things change. Untill then nothing will change except the day that we are still mulling over this same point.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am probably the minority in my age bracket (19), but constant cursewords and nudity on TV sickens me.
I'm having a hard time believing any of that crap[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Believe it.
I'm only 28 and I'm a little tired of the constant 'pushing of the envelope' as well.
If I want rough or hardcore, I'll turn on HBO and watch the Sopranos. (One of my favourite shows btw.) When it comes to OTA stuff that ANYONE can intercept, it needs to be regulated a bit more.
There HAS to be a bit of a buffer between the two. (Broadcast & Pay Broadcast) If for no other reason than to make it easier for people to discern what they want, or what they want their family to watch.
Look at it this way. Growing up, one of my favourite things was an old SW receiver I got from my stepfather. If I could have heard some of the things that are airing on Sirius Satellite Radio, he wouldn't have let me near the thing, and likely, I wouldn't be an Amateur Operator now.
Make sense that way?
ki4bgo
03-10-2004, 01:15 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4dya @ Mar. 10 2004,05:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#
I'm only 28 and I'm a little tired of the constant 'pushing of the envelope' as well.
If I want rough or hardcore, I'll turn on HBO and watch the Sopranos. #(One of my favourite shows btw.) #When it comes to OTA stuff that ANYONE can intercept, it needs to be regulated a bit more.
There HAS to be a bit of a buffer between the two. #(Broadcast & Pay Broadcast) #If for no other reason than to make it easier for people to discern what they want, or what they want their family to watch.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HBO? No thanks! We get enough "Basic Filth" on our satellite TV without PAYING an extra 12 bucks a month for "Premium Filth!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HBO? No thanks! We get enough "Basic Filth" on our satellite TV without PAYING an extra 12 bucks a month for "Premium Filth!"[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I don't watch much TV at all really.
Can't live without my 'Sopranos' fix tho'. I only subscribe during the initial season runs. (About 3 months.) Once the season's over, I unsubscribe. If I want to watch movies I've an extensive DVD collection.
Too much to do to waste time in front of the TV tho'.
KC2HJN
03-10-2004, 02:37 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There HAS to be a bit of a buffer between the two. (Broadcast & Pay Broadcast) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There already is. HBO (or almost any pay service) can air cursing, explicit sex, blood & gore, or pretty much anything they want. Broadcast TV can not.
I don't think anyone is condoning exposing children to inappropriate material, even strong 1st ammendment suporters. We just feel that it's not the gov'ts place to teach our kids right from wrong. That should be left up to the parents.
My parents taught me right from wrong, which enabled me to deal with what I saw on TV, and in life.
I may not have been clear in my meaning.
I'm not advocating that the government teaches the children morality.
What I'm advocating is basically what you said.
Keep the harshness on HBO and such, let broadcast and OTA (basically because this can be picked up with a cheap TV that ANYONE can buy) be a bit cleaner.
I'm not advocating censorship. Look at it from a moviegoing standpoint. If you want to let your kids (by the way, I have none) watch an 'R' rated movie, YOU as a parent has to buy them the ticket and escort them to the theatre. On the other hand, they can buy 'PG' and 'G' rated movie tickets without supervision.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, let HBO be the 'R' rated movie, and OTA should be the 'PG' rated movie.
I think we're speaking the same language, just a different dialect.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Mar. 08 2004,22:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Join the campaign for free speech, cast your vote for The First Amendment and help get 1 million signatures.
Every little bit helps (http://www.stopfcc.com)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow - a short post.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ab3ax
03-10-2004, 03:53 PM
I knew that things were really getting out of hand when I watched the wrestling this week. Son of a Beeeeep ? ? ?
If you want to censor anyone, how about Bush?
73 - Gordon AB3AX
KB9YCO
03-10-2004, 04:23 PM
"Wow - a short post." KC0LNU
My point has been made, and besides it looks like KC2HJN and others have kept up with the topic quite well.
I can only make the point that government has no place intervening on content in a free press so many times; those that don't understand "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." obviously will never get it, sadly enough.
Jesus Christ some of you want to argue for the sheer sake of arguing.
You've converted me! Harcore porn on Public Television! Uncensored Howard Stern over breakfast! Kids watching Jenna Jameson bang Barney!
All for the sake of 'free speech'.
You guys are ridiculous. Why don't you try being honest and admit you all just want a state of anarchy?
Repeat after me:
I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood. I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood. I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood.
Rinse and repeat.
KB9YCO
03-10-2004, 09:27 PM
"You guys are ridiculous. #Why don't you try being honest and admit you all just want a state of anarchy?"
Another one that missed the point, oye. It has nothing to do with my opinion or anyone's moral guidlines. It's called The Bill Of Rights and it has clear and obvious wording. If you don't like or appreciate the original purpose of America as a free country there are plenty of other countries to move to that will do all your thinking and censoring for you.
Anarchy results when the law is ignored, in this case it is the government ignoring it's own laws; the same laws that give them their authority.
Responsible broadcasters will do what is appropriate and will respond to the public's support or lack of, we don't need the government, or anyone else's definition to make that decision for us. That is the price of free speech, some you might like and some you might not.
These days there are more ways to block programming than ever before, if you are so worried about this awful threat to your life then turn it off or throw it away. That does not give the government, or a minority of whiners, the right to make that decision for the entire population while in turn completely disregarding the basic fundamentals of American society.
This is a much older issue than Hollywood, it is the issue of the government overstepping it's authority, suppressing unpopular speech and opinion, while prospering a minority, religious influenced guidline for a majority of the population.
Repeat after me: I will stop telling everyone else what they should see, hear, or think in my narrow definition of decency just to feel safer or morally righteous.
That's a lot to repeat, so just trying practicing that philosophy instead and stop allowing the government to do it for you.
DYA #
Bravo!
YCO
Would be real interested in hearing your views on the Red Witch Hunts after WW2
KC2HJN
03-10-2004, 10:09 PM
Sorry, just have to add one more...
"Repeat after me:
I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood. I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood. I will stop taking my political cues from Hollywood.
"
It's not from Hollywood. It's from a nation of brave men who challenged the most powerful nation of their time because they were being denied their rights.
A lot of people miss the point. This isn't about Howard Stern or Jenna Jameson. It's about what's next.
Think about this for a minute. What CAN you do today without some sort of government intervention. Very little when you think about it for a while.
Can't work without a gov't issued social security number.
(If you can't work, you can't eat or support your family)
Can't travel without a gov't issued passport or drivers license (sometimes a birth cert. will suffice).
(Show me your papers?)
Can't start a business without a gov't issued license. Well yes you can, but only in very restrictive curcumstances defined by the gov't.
(see #1)
Can't buy a house without going through some legal processes. Then you must pay taxes to live on land you supposedly just bought and paid for or have the gov't come and take that house away, and possibly put you in jail. (we hear the term property rights used a lot, but you really don't have any)
Can't protect your home and family with a firearm unless you get a gov't issued permit.
(remember the second ammendment, which is ignored today)
Want to fish in the lake? Not without a permit.
Want to hire who you want after you get that gov't issue business license? You MUST hire the right proportion of races, even if no applicants of a particular race are qualified for the job. Don't and you will pay the price.
I can go on, you get the point. The government is involved in nearly everything you may want to do.
You may say, 'so, it's easy enough to get those things'. Yes it is, but if they must be given by the gov't, they can also be taken away just as easily.
With the passing of the patriot act, we've lost all or most of the 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 ammendments.
The 9th & 10th are just about gone.
The 2nd is constantly under attack.
Parts of the 1st are already on shaky ground, and now it's under attack again.
Persecution doesn't happen all at once. It happens exactly the way things are going in America today. One step at a time, until you wake up on day and think, "damn, what's going on around here?"
You may call me extreme, but I'm not. I just tend to think about the end result of things. Are there benefits to some of the things being contemplated now? Sure, but after they (whoever 'they' happen to be) deem Howard Stern innapropriate, who will they complain about next? It might just be us on this discussion board, who knows?
Unfortunately, bottom line, you have to take the good with the bad. Every citizen of this country has the right to say what he or she wants to, within certain accepted limits, such as yelling fire in a theatre, or, any building if there isn't one. Just because you dont happen to agree with that persons opinion, or, like what they have to say, doesn't make what they say "Bad", or, "Wrong". That's your individual choice and, in most cases, you have the ability to not listen by simply walking away or turning off the Radio or TV.
Everyone wants to "Enforce" their wishes against everyone else. They will say it's their
"right" to do so, for one reason or another, while never thinking (or caring) about the rights of the person they are infringing on, who, as a citizen, just like YOU, has the very same rights as you do. And, instead of compromising when needed, they will run to the Government, or, a court because they just HAVE TO WIN, no matter what, BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT, dammit.
What I'd like to ask is who made the government our nanny? And who gave the Government, or YOU, the right to tell me what I can and cant say, do, think or, look at? Certainly not ME.
The indecency "Standards" are based on the legal construct idea that the radio airwaves are a resource that is owned by all of us and that a Broadcaster has a responsibility to us (enforced by the government and thereby lies the rationalle for the Radio control laws) and, of course, to "Protect the children". Now, I have 2 kids, both teens, and, I can assure you that they were not clueless, virgin eared little darlings by the time they were 7 or 8. And they weren't blind to the world around them and their parents hypocracies either. And they both knew and were able to distinguish between real and not real, as well as "good" and "Bad" at a young age.
I dont know about you, but, if I am an owner of the airwaves that these broadcasters use and make massive profits from, where is my cut? Why do I need to buy stock in a corporation? If I own the airwaves, why do I need a license, which amounts to permission from the government, to use them? Doesn't the government work for US? "By, for and of the people"?
As long as we let these so called "Representatives" think for us and impose laws on us (when was the last time YOU were asked about what you thought of that fee raise, etc?), we deserve what we get.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
ae4fa
03-11-2004, 01:36 AM
Okay, so Janet's boob is OK. #What's next? #Jason's penis?
And, if that's okay because we certainly don't want any government limiting the right of free speech, how 'bout a meeting of the two?
And, if that's okay, maybe we could be treated to one of the Hollywood types expressing himself with a sheep . . .
Maybe as a feature attraction on one of the childrens' shows . . .
Hey, man free speech is free speech, right?
Do remember, folks, it ain't TV's fault. They're just trying to sell cars, soap, etc. Parents should be at the child's side 24/7/365 to monitor and "explain" all this.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ki4dya @ Mar. 09 2004,04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am probably the minority in my age bracket (19), but constant cursewords and nudity on TV sickens me.
I'm having a hard time believing any of that crap[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Believe it.
I'm only 28 and I'm a little tired of the constant 'pushing of the envelope' as well.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
19yrs old, nudity, and hormones. 28 is different than 19. It just looked funny when he said that. Do you remember 19.
Dave
KC2HJN
03-11-2004, 02:28 AM
Well ok, if we want to talk extremes we can go the other way.
First fine Jackson. Don't ever let her appear on tv again and she will forever wear a big red B over the offending breast.
Throw Howard, as well as Hannity, Rush, O'Rielly, and anyone else who is not always 100% politically correct off the air. Maybe even throw them in jail for good.
Close all public zoos because you and your children might just catch a glimps of some animal reproductive organs, or even catch them doin' it. (in public no less)
Throw the likes of Barney the dinosour off the air. You know, he says we should all love each other. A child may construe that to mean homosexuality is acceptable.
When an author writes a book it must first be screened by 4 committees and a panel before being released to the public.
Every cable box must be installed with a 'reject' button. Any TV program that gets more than 5 reject votes must immediately be pulled off the air.
You get the idea.
I would much rather have the option of turnig off something offensive than to not have any options at all.
THE ONE POINT BEING TOTALLY MISSED HERE IS..
When the adults (parents) allow things to become 'the normal accepted' thing, KIDS see this and learn that it is OK and they become used to it.
As the KIDS grow up and become adults, what they saw their PARENTS accept, they accept. What was abnormal and inappropriate 2 generations ago is NOW considered 'OK', 'ACCEPTABLE' and 'What's the big deal?'
Fine.. NOW the adults that were kids who became desensitized t owhatever it was allow the level to LOWERED even more. THEY don't get upset and THEIR kids see that the adults are OK so the kids grow up thinking 'ThAT"S OK!"
And the cycle continues.
NOW.. when somethin ghappens (a la SuperBowl and Janet Jackson) where the adults suddenly decide " WHOA! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! BACK IT DOWN A LOT!" The kids cry "Whassup with that? You never complained before! Why are you getting all bent out of shape? IT's nothing more than you've had for years! LIGHTEN UP!"
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW. (Dare I say.. "What we have sown, now so we are reaping!")
OUR PARENTS allowed t hings and we got used to them and accepted them as kids. When WE got older we allowed things to go 'just a bit farther' (See the 1960's as a good example). OUR kids learn and accept the lowered standards.
Our kids will become the adults and push the bar lower and lower.
THAT IS WHY YOU MUST STOP IT AND DEAL WITH IT NOW! If you don't. the next generation coming up will assume that what we now call bad is OK and not a problem. Then THEY will further push the standards downand eventually they will be removed.
Take Ham Radio. In the 50's and early 60's. if you said 'DAMN' or 'HELL' on the ham bands you were liable to receive a rather overt respnse from other hams AND possibly the FCC!
Then those standards got relaxed in the 60's. It became NORMAL to hear those two words, QRMing, jamming, and worse on the ham bands. Newbies coming along heard it and did not hear MUCH anger, public outcry, or action by the FCC. SO they assumed 'Well, no one is making a big deal out of it, so it must be OK!"
and the cycle continues as it does to day. All you need do is read the various threads and you clearly see the lines of demarcation. Fits the above pattern to a T.
73
Chuck K3FT
Sorry. Gotta say it.
HOWARD STERN RULES!
And, uh, BABA BOOEY to y'all!
AB8RU
03-11-2004, 04:41 AM
Let me see If I can answer this...
HR Bill has some backing mainly from the American Family Association, they are a very strong group about 1.5 Million Emails overloaded the FCC email box, and how many USPO letters was not even mentioned, but I imagine they were quarritined under the Federal Terrorist guidelines, and the politicians of course had their email boxes jammed as well.
what now exist is a tighter policy to spell out Profanity, and other words, Well Howard Stern had his show dumped, and no matter how you dice it up people like AFA will be there since congress knows the score.
Cong. Fred Upton, MI mailed me a letter and suppourts the Bill and the policy I agree with like it or Not I am a Registered Voter and I suppourt AFA and thats my 2 cents worth.
Govenor I voted US Taxpayer last time I am a split ticket or what ever If the Politician is not convinced me enought then I'll vote on whom I please . Maybe Alfred E. Neuman for President hah hah !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KB9YCO
03-11-2004, 05:01 AM
^^ ^^ What? Can anyone interpret this for me? No offense but, WHAT?!
Moving on...
"Our kids will become the adults and push the bar lower and lower." K3FT
Now there's an optimistic outlook.
"THAT IS WHY YOU MUST STOP IT AND DEAL WITH IT #NOW! #If you don't. the next generation coming up will assume that what we now call bad is OK and not a problem. Then THEY will further push the standards downand eventually they will be removed." K3FT
Stop what? Stop paying attention to the point of The First Amendment for one group's version of what moral, indecent, or bad is? We're not talking about graphic sex on screen or indiscriminate use of "bad" words, we're talking about politically or philosophically controversial material being suppressed through government sanctioned racketeering. Fines levied without the due process of court or even a clear definition of what is indecent. Broadcasters trying to survive in a commercial business (and supposedly a free press) being denied licenses based on a minority definition of what the greater good to society is or what is artistically redeeming. That is why there never should be a one-sided list ,enforcable by law, of what is or isn't decent.
Besides, do you really believe the downfall of society will come from a half a second breast flash or some fart jokes or sex talk? Please, time to grow up. If those are the worst things you will have to shelter your kids from in life consider yourselves lucky. Even as far back as the writings of Socrates there are complaints the the next generation is disregarding moral boundaries and will be the decline of society on earth, etc. etc. An ancient argument that has yet to proven.
KC2HJN
03-11-2004, 05:14 AM
Little known Stern Fact
Baba Booey originated back in 1989 or so. Gary Dell'Abate(aka Baba Booey) is a collector of cartoon art cells. Back then he was telling Howard that he was going to be picking up a new cell that he bought featuring ''..Quick Draw McGraw and a Baba Booey...''. What he didn't know was that the actual name that he meant to say was 'Baba Louie'. Howard and Robin picked up on this immediately and started goofing on him soon after. Over the years the Baba Booey phrase morphed in to other things such as Fafa Fooey and Fla Fla Flolie as Billy West played with the name. Billy would just take something like the name Bob and make it in to Baba Bob. The name still sticks to Gary to this day.
Fa Fa Foe-hi back at ya
KG4CGC
03-11-2004, 05:20 AM
Slippery slope arguments on both sides here.
# Guy expressing himself with a sheep was funny and if it ever happened #the way described, people would be getting locked up.
# Simple question (not that the topic is simple):
What do you want? More government? We certainly have enough and don't need any NEW LAWS. Just enforce the ones already on the books.
# Next question: Is it not THE job of our government to PROTECT our freedoms? Seems this has been misconstrued as protect us from ourselves. Laws made under the guise of "for the children" have gotten way out of hand. When I was a child, including all my friends I grew up with, we never wore seat belts. We never worn bicycle helmets or pads. We played in the street. We did it all including staying out after dark. The only thing that has changed is that there are more people on the planet which increases the chances of s**t happening. Then you have the news media making a big deal out of anything just for the ratings. As a result, more people are living in fear, and, is this not what it all boils down to? Everyone is afraid of something and instead of dealing with and facing that fear, we beg the Guvment to fix it.
# Think about how things are in other countries. Should we cut off a thiefs hand for stealing? Saudi Arabia does. Unfourtuanaty that person now has to pay for a petty crime for the rest of their life. In this country, that person, when caught, will pay for their crimes with the hopes of becoming a better person in the end with a skill and a job maybe even an education. If you say there is no crime in Saudi Arabia then you're missing the point.
# Anyway, the reason that the First Amendment is under attack is because of fear. The government can't do everything but if you let them they will try. Their only job is to protect our freedoms and to protect us from the goverment itself. With our cooperation, they are also in charge of protecting our borders.
# We have nothing to blame here but fear. Which also means that perhaps we should all take a closer look at human nature.
# By the way, if you really want to see censorship in action, come visit South Carolina. Here in the Upstate, all of our radio talk shows are of the conservative right wing variety except for one NPR station per area, most of which only play classical music with a two hour window for "Echos".
# #Didn't mean to go on so,
# # # # # # # # # # 73 de KG4CGC, Charles Chackal
KG4CGC
03-11-2004, 05:29 AM
We are living in the best country on Earth. Let's not screw it up.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Mar. 10 2004,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Repeat after me: I will stop telling everyone else what they should see, hear, or think in my narrow definition of decency just to feel safer or morally righteous.
That's a lot to repeat, so just trying practicing that philosophy instead and stop allowing the government to do it for you.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Repeat after me: I will stop telling everyone else what they should see, hear, or think in my narrow definition of decency just to feel safer or morally righteous.
That's a lot to repeat, so just trying practicing that philosophy instead and stop allowing the government to do it for you.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hey, check this out folks.
No one's trying to tell you that you CAN'T listen to Howard Stern!
We're just trying to keep it off OTA programming!!! #Again: #NO ONE'S TELLING YOU WHAT YOU CAN OR CAN NOT WATCH!!!
Put the crap on paid programming where it belongs! #THAT'S what we're trying to say, but in typical knee-jerk liberal reactions, you're NOT LISTENING!!!
Use this analogy: #Would you let your kids carry around a small portable TV if it could receive hard-core porn? #If it could receive the Sopranos? #What about if a transitor radio could receive some of the digital radio programs? #
In order to receive most of the more risque' programming out there, one more or less has to be an adult. #THAT'S what we're pushing for, a stronger move for less-than-family oriented programming to be moved to those venues, leaving the free-broadcast spectrum open to programming you don't really have to worry about (much).
It's typical that you people refuse to accept a compromise. #Instead it's got to #be entirely your way, otherwise 'my rights are being trampled on!'
No one's saying they want the government to regulate their morality...but Jesus Christ people! #What's so wrong with wanting a certain type of programming moved to a certain type of broadcast spectrum?
Personally, I wish there was more programming like the Sci-Fi Channel's Seeing Ear Theatre on OTA radio...I've accepted the fact I have to subscribe to satellite radio in order to receive such. #HOWEVER, if I was like some of YOU people, I guess I should be whining about how my rights are being trampled.
Sheesh!
kc0ebm
03-12-2004, 09:39 AM
HEY!
Did anybody watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
On one hand I wish that man would run for a Congressional seat.
But, on the other hand, I believe he could do so much more good right where he's at http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
On the current issue of "Limitless Freedom of Speech Without Responsibility", O'Reilly's got it pegged!
Fox ROCKS!
EBM
ab3ax
03-14-2004, 04:49 PM
I was unfortunate enough to watch part of a movie on tv last night, in which giant killer snakehead fish attacked a guy and bit off his head, which then fell in a bloody mess on his car seat. Can anyone of you do-gooders out there tell me why this is acceptable family viewing, and yet Dr. Evil is overdubbed on TV versions of Austin Powers to exclaim "this is re-gosh-darn-diculous" and the wonderful flatulence scene from Mal Brooke's epic, Blazing Saddles, is cut completely.
No doubt cussing killing snakehead fish would have been censored.
Am I alone in detecting a rank bad smell of double standards here?
73 - Gordon AB3AX
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ab3ax @ Mar. 13 2004,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was unfortunate enough to watch part of a movie on tv last night, in which giant killer snakehead fish attacked a guy and bit off his head, which then fell in a bloody mess on his car seat. Can anyone of you do-gooders out there tell me why this is acceptable family viewing, and yet Dr. Evil is overdubbed on TV versions of Austin Powers to exclaim "this is re-gosh-darn-diculous" and the wonderful flatulence scene from Mal Brooke's epic, Blazing Saddles, is cut completely.
No doubt cussing killing snakehead fish would have been censored.
Am I alone in detecting a rank bad smell of double standards here?
73 - Gordon AB3AX[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Bingo!
Watched a movie last night that had subsituted the word F*%$ for hell.
Hell made the point just as effectively. Only question is why is Hell and Damn edited from the Patton movies.
Yep -- double standard.
--------------------
Blazing Saddles -- an American Classic!!!
'MONDO LIKE SHERRIF BART!!'
'The sherriff is (DING DONG DING DONG).'
'Whaddit he say?' 'I think he said the sherrif is near!'
'NO! I said the sherrif is a (DING DONG DING DONG)!'
(and so one)
Funneee bits!
and then there is the 'rising table' as they look at The BAVARIAN BOMBSHELL. It took me until the 2nd time I saw the movie to realize that ALL the men had their hands on the tabletop! (BIG GRIN)
As the line goes in 'Rustler's Rhapsody' "Just wait till the root kicks in!"
K3FT
KB9YCO
03-23-2004, 04:32 AM
Well the fines have come down and the FCC sham, extremist religion and partisan politics motivated, waste of time continues on blindly. Some weird number like $275,500 for Howard Stern's company, and another abitrary number for the Stupor Bowl half second breast flash. As if these are the most important things going on right now in radio or television.
No concern for the fact that diversity in radio and television is declining sharply as a result of large corporate ownership. No concern for BPL or large scale radio piracy. Just concern for one group's narrow version of morality or decency being forced upon the rest of the country. Nauseating and truly un-American.