ad: CQMM-1

FCC PERMITS CERTAIN OBSCENITIES

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by AA7BQ, Dec 16, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: abrind-2
  1. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    no big deal, but, you might want to check the original post by aa7bq, which had, mostly, to do with broadcasting.
    dan,k3xr
     
  2. AI4IJ

    AI4IJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Let me say first off, that I am in partial agreement with the FCC ruling on this issue for a variety of reasons:

    1 - One of the founding principles of this country was, and is, FREE SPEECH. When we let go of that freedom, all the rest will follow.

    2 - Offense is a CHOSEN emotion. And, it is chosen by the one who is offended, and not by the "offender." If you do not like being offended, then do not choose the emotion of offense.

    The "problem" of "offensive" language is entirely limited to those who would use it, and those who would choose to be offended by it. The rest of us are completely unaffected. To me, it is a laughable issue.

    3 - CHILDREN (and, many adults) FREQUENTLY USE such language, so the argument that you do not want your children to be exposed to such language, and it should therefore be prohibited, is fatally flawed. You cannot protect your children from exposure to such language. BUT, you can guide them in how to react to it. You can point out that it is typically the mark of an uneducated or unintelligent person that speaks that way, and that if they do not wish to be viewed as uneducated or unintelligent, they should refrain from using such language. You have the opportunity to USE the "offensive" language of others to illustrate the point to them. They will get the message easily enough, as they see it demonstrated by their young friends - and now, even on television.

    I mentioned earlier that I am in partial agreement with the FCC decision. I disagree entirely with their limitation on the use of the "F" word in regards to sexual references (it feels silly to even have to refer to it as the "F" word even when discussing it). Sex and sexuality are among the most basic of issues to us, and among the most natural. To repress issues of sex and sexuality is a misguided effort. And, it is the spawn of religion, and not logic, reason, or rationality. The separation between church and state intended by our founding fathers would seem to indicate that such religious influence on our society, as it is governed, is completely inappropriate.

    The moral issues of sex and sexuality are not for the religious among us to dictate. And, as someone much earlier in this thread pointed out, we cannot solve problems we are unwilling to discuss. As long as sex and sexuality cannot be freely and openly discussed and addressed, our "problems" with sex and sexuality will remain unsolved. Sexual repression creates sexual aberrance. In their demonization of sex and sexuality, they have Created a Pandora's Box. I wish more Christians would wake up to that fact.

    The fears of the moral decline of society are as the cries of Chicken Little. We are an evolving society, still in its collective infancy (and, NOT at the brink of the Last Days). We must make some choices that do not serve us, so that we can see and understand why they do not serve us, before we can understand what it is to make decisions that DO serve us. That is our NATURE, both individually and collectively (we had to blow up two whole cities to figure out why nuclear weapons do not serve us, and we may yet have to blow up more cities, before we thoroughly learn that lesson, as we still have them).

    Many religions, and most notably in this country, Christianity, seem to think that either God or Satan (or, the equivalents) cause us to think, feel, and do the things that we think, feel, and do. But, that is not correct. We are not under the influence of any such beings. We are responsible for our own actions, feelings, and thoughts. We make choices that do not serve us, so that we can learn why they do not serve us. We cannot learn why something does not serve us by simply prohibiting it.

    We saw this illustrated beautifully through Prohibition (of alcohol). Some of us saw the problems represented by alcohol, and decided to impose its prohibition on us all - thinking that they were making the "right" decision. But, what happened? Did it work? Of course, it did not work. Why did it not work? Because, alcohol consumption is a choice made individually and for the individual's own reasons, as is the decision to stop consuming alcohol. Prohibition did not work, because we are beings of FREE WILL. And, we will react against any and all attempts to repress our FREE WILL. For this same reason, the prohibition of certain language is also largely ineffective.

    We must provide a REAL reason for people to choose not to use such language as we have heretofore chosen to prohibit. The reason for not using "offensive" language should not be because it is illegal. The reason not to use "offensive" language is because it reflects poorly on the user.

    Furthermore, I would submit that the permission of the use of heretofore prohibited language presents a Golden Opportunity for those who are "offended" to learn how to NOT choose the emotion of offense. Learning how to NOT be offended by the world around you is a very valuable lesson. It reduces YOUR OWN level of stress, and contributes to YOUR OWN serenity. Learn how to turn away from those things that offend you, rather than seeking to stop those things through prohibition. You can never stop others from engaging in offensive behavior. Why? Because, we are beings of FREE WILL. BUT, you CAN stop yourself from choosing to be offended. You are in complete control of that.

    In the context of Amateur Radio, you have the choice to not engage in conversation with those who use language you consider to be inappropriate, or stop conversing with them when they do. You have the option of turning the dial, or turning the radio off. And, when those who are "wearing it out" with the obscenities on the airwaves discover that they can find no one with whom to converse, they will leave, or change their ways. And then, they are the only ones to suffer for their actions.

    No, I do not see the appropriateness of the use of such language. But, neither do I see the appropriateness of its prohibition.

    73
    Richard
    KI4DOK
     
  3. WB8NHV

    WB8NHV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I do not listen to early-morning radio programs (Howard Stern, et al.) because of the language used, and yes, I do turn off my TV if the programming offends me. (There are many shows I seldom watch because of their offensive content or language, especially late-night programs such as Jay Leno and David Letterman, or shows such as "Becker" in which Ted Danson swears like a drunken sailor at times.) However, the FCC's ruling allowing the free use of certain obscenities in radio and TV programs and on the ham bands is, IMO, absurd, the First Amendment notwithstanding. There is far too much obscenity on cable TV after midnight as it is; let's not have it carry over to the amateur bands. Let us never forget that every word we say over the air can be and generally is heard by many people worldwide, including children. Television sets are equipped with V-chips to allow parents to screen the programming the kids watch in their absence. However, amateur radio gear has no such feature, but there are many, many children on the air today as licensed hams or prospective ones who can hear today's adult hams (some of them, anyhow) using these crude words on the air, on any band, 160 meters through 2 and up.

     IMO, it is just as wrong to expose young children to filthy language over amateur radio as it is to let them listen to garbage-mouth radio or TV personalities. Let us not forget that children imitate what they hear, which is why we have so many kids and teenagers today using the F-word and worse in their speech. The FCC, again IMO, made a terrible mistake in allowing such crude language (their conditions for its use over the amateur bands and cable TV notwithstanding) to be used over media which are freely accessible to young children. The problem of foul-mouthed kids will get worse rather than improve if this becomes law. We older hams should not have to be ready to turn our radios off on a moment's notice if someone starts in with foul language while our young children or grandchildren are in the shack.

     73,

        Jeff Strieble, WB8NHV (mailto: wb8nhv@arrl.net)
        Fairport, Ohio
     
  4. K3XR

    K3XR Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think i am starting to understand some of the concern here when it comes to prohibiting the potty mouth language.  After all, when you take away ninety percent of a person's vocabulary, they just may have a hard time communicating.
    DAN,K3XR
     
  5. W0UZR

    W0UZR Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa1mn @ Jan. 11 2004,18:12)</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">It's up to you!!!  What kind of enviroment do you want YOUR kids to live in???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I'd like myself, and my children, to live in a society where there is the freedom to hear and use whatever language -- obscene or otherwise -- I or they want to use or listen to.

    Should you not wish to live in such a society with these freedoms DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY FROM ME OR OTHERS WHO WISH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    You mean that you wouldn't try to steer your kid away from that? I hope you would.

    The freedom to do and listen is after we are adults. Then we can,,if we want to degrade ourselves.

    BUT not kids. They don't have a choice to sound like the bronks Or to listen to that crap,, and if you let your kids do that, then you are a poor parent. The parents are to descide for them so they can be taught right and be great people...That is if the parents were taught right and are great people to begin with.
     
  6. W6THH

    W6THH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hey, KW2H, "F'n A", eh? [​IMG]

    Pete w6thh
     
  7. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, I believe it all boils down to a matter of class. (Nothing to do with Amateur Radio.) If you can't intelligently express yourself without words that are offensive, then you display your class. (Or lack thereof.) Most people, CAN express themselves without offending other people (with their words or "language," not necessarily their ideas.)
     
  8. W0UZR

    W0UZR Ham Member QRZ Page

    My dad used to admire this fellow, can't remember his name. And he was on TV. And he could say things, belittle put down, shame, and make you feel like you were 2" tall without a swear word or even the slang words. And when he was done, he had the same, NO! even greater impact on you than if he were swearing like a bar-fly.
     
  9. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    The ironic part of this is that now the White House and Congress want to enact legislation to keep indecent and offensive language off the airwaves. So it's sort of a slap in the face for the Commission, and of course it's hand-picked Chairman.
     
  10. W0UZR

    W0UZR Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa9svd @ Jan. 29 2004,11:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ironic part of this is that now the White House and Congress want to enact legislation to keep indecent and offensive language off the airwaves.  So it's sort of a slap in the face for the Commission, and of course it's hand-picked Chairman.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    It's already come about. It's already here.

    They did pass legislation that the FCC is going to drack down on crap on the ariwaves. And they already seited 2 stations already. And the fine per offence is $250.000 for the first offence, and $500.000 for any additional offences, PLUS reviewing that stations license to consider revocation, suspension, or cancellation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: Schulman-1