I'd like to create something a little bit less fluffy, if that's okay with the general community. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this one. We did this topic for debate, and it actually went pretty far.

So, the first amendment protects our freedom of speech. However, for years, television networks have been censoring their programing to either later hours of the night or not at all. While things are considerably more liberal than in my parent's time (they couldn't even say "damn" back then), we still have a lot of words being blocked or censored.

Do you think the FCC violates the first amendment rights of the people? How do you feel about censorship in general? Do you think it should be a law punishable by high fines, or should people rely on self-censorship? Should we be able to say anything on the TV and radio, or should things be edited for younger viewers? Why do you think we censor material to begin with?

I have my opinions already formed on this one from debate, but I'd love to hear yours. Maybe you can flip mine.

While I don't necessarily like the FCC and all of their rules, I firmly believe that they have every right to do so.
First on censorship in general, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the first amendment. While it protects your right to free speech, it does not mean you can just say whatever you want. A web community for example, may have rules against profanity and sexual language. If you agree to participate within that community, you agree to those rules and the first amendment does not apply if you were to go on those boards and say "bitches are sexy, lolz111!!". This same line of thinking carries over to the FCC and television. The FCC controls the public airwaves and if broadcasters want to use it they have to go through the FCC and play by their rules. If they don't like it, that's what HBO is for...

Now having said all that, as I mentioned before, I don't like the FCC and it's censorship. There is nothing more annoying than watching a movie on television and hearing [bleeps] every minute or so. Isn't it bad enough that there's commercials? I was especially annoyed when the catchphrase was completely mangled. Yippee ki-yay 'my friend' indeed... Anyway, one of the big things for me is why bother censoring the TV equivalent of 'R' rated. People who get offended by whatever it is that is censored shouldn't be watching it it in the first place. it's not rated R just for laughs after all. Having ratings and informing people of the contents of the show/movie (i.e. Adult Content, language, nudity, etc) should be all that's required and people can make their own decisions from there.

There are some instances where I think censorship should be applied. Commercials for instance; don't show an 'R rated commercial' while people are watching something PG. You shouldn't even be showing such commercials anyway ...would you show a Victoria Secret's commercial during Blue Clues or some other children's program? I do think that most stations try to do this already when airing 'family-orientated' shows though. Basically, in my opinion, it all boils down to the right of choice. If someone chooses to watch a program and you provide ample information on the contents of the program, don't censor anything. If you are airing something meant for a wide spectrum of viewers and can't control what might be said or done (live broadcast) then I think censorship is okay.

Next we come to should things be censored for young viewers and I'm going to have to give a floor stomping, resounding no. This may not seem odd to you but I feel that the Disney channel is a horrible proponent of censorship. Every show on there is a censorship of life; it tries to hide reality from kids and sugarcoat a perfect world. I won't get to deep into this since this could be considered an entirely different issue, but I just wanted to at least throw that out there. You can't hide things from kids forever and in fact, I'd be more worried about children getting bad ideas from those shows then from knowing that drugs (gasp!) and sex (gasp!) exists. If a kid is old enough to ask, I think they are old enough to get a response. I'm not a big fan of teaching morals through TV shows but at least exploring more serious issues is better than 'learning' that your friend is more valuable than a pair of 'really cute shoes' even if they are Louis Vuitton.

Finally, taking a look at things from the other side of perspective. I have a script for a TV show I'm working on that I hope will one day be picked up by a network. As I wrote, and reread the contents of the script it gave me a new outlook at things. The first thing that I realized of course, was that not only would some of the networks balk at some of the content but that per FCC regulations or their own network regulations, they might censor or edit certain parts. The main thing is that humans beings or life in general is not censored; it's unnatural. The very idea of having your jokes or lines edited and censored is annoying and maddening. Sure you chose to 'join' a certain network and in turn have to follow FCC rules as well as their rules but that doesn't make it any better.

TwistyWristy

Hey Alex!

TW- Once again we park our cars in the same garage my friend! I think the FCC is simply the governments way of maintaining control over our lives. Don't get me wrong, as a parent I don't just let my 7 year old watch anything, but the decision on what he watches is MINE, not the government's.

I know what channels or shows are appropriate & which ones are not. I don't need a government agency to decide for me. I, like TW believe that a rating warning is a perfect compromise. It gives people the information up front so they can decide for THEMSELVES if they want to watch or not.

I said this in another forum, but I feel it bears repeating:

I've been watching 'R' rated movies since I was about 12 & I've NEVER killed, raped, or hurt ANYONE!!! I've NEVER even had anything like that enter my mind.

Merely hearing a 'bad' word doesn't have that kind of impact on a person. What does the FCC think they are protecting us from?

I'll prove it you! Here is a list of the 7 dirty words that the FCC says you are NEVER allowed to say on public airways:

SHIT
PISS
CUNT
FUCK
COCKSUCKER
MOTHERFUCKER
TITS

Okay, you've just read all 7.....Did your head explode? Do you have a sudden urge to kill or rape that wasn't there before you read these 7 awful, dangerous words? Do you feel ANY different than before you read them?

Of COURSE not! These are words that have been around for ages & EVERYONE knows them, yet we operate under this paranoid delusion that these words can cause serious harm if heard by sensitive, innocent ears? PLEASE!!!

I heard ALL 7 of these words WAY before I saw my first 'R' rated movie. I heard them from my parents, other adults, & other children. Not that my parents cursed around me regularly, but there are times when a 'bad' word slips out, or maybe they didn't realize I was within earshot. The bulk of 'colorful' language that I learned at a VERY young age I learned in the school yard from other impressionable youth.

My point is that this type of language is ALL around us & we can choose to deal with it like big boys & girls or we can stick our heads in the sand & pretend that the 900 foot gorilla sitting in your living room isn't really there.

I don't know about you, but I'm going into my living room & sitting down with my big furry friend & we're going to watch Sex Drive & laugh our MOTHERFUCKING asses off!!!

PEACE!

I agree with the previous, for the most part. The one thing that I do feel needs pointing out is TW's idea that the FCC is not in the wrong as per the constitution. Lets check the text:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The FCC, being a federal body, is in fact, abridging the freedom of speech of the people it censors. These censorship rules are laws, with applicable fines for breaking them. This IS a direct constitutional violation, but like many things in our government, it is overlooked and hushed away.

Yet another shining example of our government being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. We have a government to protect us from harm and provide for us when needed, not to tell me what is good and not good for me to hear, or what medical procedures I can and cannot have.

Am I the only one that thinks the Constitution isn't really being used anymore?

Ah, I do so much love waking up to an intelligent discussion. Twisty, I love your rants :)

The problem with the FCC is that they aren't just fining you for using a little bad language. The fine comes for "indecency." The FCC has found itself in court many times with people such as Fox Television. MANY have claimed their censorship laws violate first amendment rights. Like Eyes said, it's true, but when it's the government sworn to protect you that's violating your rights, what can you do? Only an idiot would try to go in court up against the FCC.

Like you said, television is getting a lot more liberal. Back when my father was my age, Grease couldn't be shown on public access television. It was considered too racy. He watches TV with me every night now, and I watch him shake his head at the profanity, sexual content, and just overall topics that in his day and age television wasn't allowed to cross. If we continue to move in the direction we are, those seven words may no longer be part of a list of things we can't say. I've heard a lot of more conservative people say it's a sign that we as a country are losing all of our morals, but they must have never been to Europe :)

As for the younger viewers, it is NOT the FCC's place to do the job of a parent. Screen what your kids are watching. Set up blocks on shows rated over Y-7 or TV-PG. Make certain stations such as MTV and VH1 inaccessible. I am not a big fan of the parent chip you put in TV's, but if you're really that lazy (or stupid, or busy), get one. Don't rely on someone else to do YOUR job as a parent. Besides, kids don't spend enough time outdoors.

Ok, heres my input on this. First I will address Alex's questions and topics, then maybe everyone else if things aren't covered yet.

Do you think the FCC violates the first amendment rights of the people? How do you feel about censorship in general? Do you think it should be a law punishable by high fines, or should people rely on self-censorship? Should we be able to say anything on the TV and radio, or should things be edited for younger viewers? Why do you think we censor material to begin with?

1] As Eyes pointed out, it does indeed violate the first amendment right, but frankly - I'm over it. The first amendment doesn't take into consideration the social implications such terminology and words can influence and institute. I doubt when the constitution was around they had an abundant amount of vulgar words than exist today. Nor did they have the education of psychology to understand how peoples words effect others clearly.

2]It depends on what is being censored. I believe there are things people should or shouldn't know, not particularly pertaining to the 7 words noted by Carlos, but in reference to information and things that don't have any immediate affect or any effect on an individual. Not everyone has a mind mature enough to simply observe such things as those 7, without finding some manner they can use it them self. Many people will always try to find words to use in context to better express their opinion or feelings about something. Which, in many cases those words are used negatively.

3] Perhaps high fines are not the greatest way to influence people to change their opinions about what they say, but it is definitely a good incentive to reconsider before acting. People alone are not responsible enough to understand the full impact of what they do or dont censor, leave that responsibility to the psychologists and academic elites that actually understand. The majority of people rarely know how words they say will effect the people around them. They assume that the meaning of the word, and the word itself, are the only things a person picks up on. Whether subtle or not, psychological influences are floating around everywhere and in many cases, it is out of control.

4] I do not believe we should have the right to say anything on the TV and radio whenever we want. That removes everyones social responsibility to be a role model and good influence. As a result of expression, people will always have opinions and values on a topic. If you want to express your opinions and perspectives, define the things that led to such ends, so others may then form their own concepts of what it is you're talking about. Most of the time on TV (media), you never see actual facts pertaining to actual things that exist, rather you hear and see opinionated, biased, excerpts explaining or breaking down their own perspective of such thing. If there was no censorship, I could just imagine how many fools we'd have all over television and radio who are going to be blowing up the airwaves with vulgar, unproductive language that are virtually worthless. I can only ask, why do you feel the need to say the word shit, piss, cunt, or even fuck, motherfucking? Because it is a social norm of a thing to do? What kinds of things make rated R movies with vulgar languages acceptable? Is it the fact that they're in the screen and we're not, but we can associate ourselves with them? As adults, with knowledge of such words, can witness such things, without making moral judgments about it, mostly because negative terminology has evolved to the point of acceptable. I disapprove of such, simply because visible and audible media is available to everyone, given the proper technology available and loop holes around governance whether it be parental, governmental, or technological.

5] Like I said above, for the most part, there are influences that should be avoided and influences that should not. Negativity should be avoided, if you can't say anything nice or productive, don't say it at all. I understand that a person may think 'if a child is old enough to ask, they're old enough to get an answer'. But I believe how they will take that answer, and the context in which they understand it with that situation or other situations, will always be variable to the point where no one really knows exactly how those words effect the child until they are years older. People use that as a phenomenon they see fit to back up the right of free speech, as an excuse for immature behavior. I believe people can teach their children the aspects of negativity and positivity, in a manner that is neutral and universal, without needing to have to explain a multitude of things other people have put in front of them, whether with or without your permission. And perhaps this may nullify the effect such words have on them, as they can look at them objectively. But if you don't want your child using vulgar language, why should you?

On the other hand, I can't lie. I watch movies with vulgar language and negative connotations, and they do have their own value. Some of which is funny or dramatic, and some of which is just plain wrong or unnecessary. This does not make me hypocritical though, because I see where things are appropriate and inappropriate and whether or not other words could be used. The fact that such words deemed vulgar have multiple definitions depending on the context used, leaves there to also be humorous meanings. Who's to stop us from making new words to ascribe to those scenarios, words that can be used more particularly in accordance to a situation? Meanings and words should be clear, language is a tool for evolution, and if we don't all have the same understanding of language, there is an issue. It seems that we've become so lazy as to stop making new words, unless we are part of the scientific or whatever else community.

Education is the key to revelation.
We can either choose to find respect, honesty, and positivity as acceptable. Or we can choose vulgarity, disrespect, and negativity as acceptable. We all have the ability to just turn our ears away from the unacceptable, or judge one using it. But why is it there in the first place?

Either get along or move along. In the end the greater will prevail.

These responses were better than I expected.

Joe and Twisty, great job! I loved reading your replies, and it looked like you really put a lot of thought into it.

As usual, I agree with Eyeswideshut. The Constitution clearly states the government will not interfere with the people's freedom of speech, and that is precisely what censorship does. Like Lynsey said, it is not the government's job to parent these kids.

You guys really stole my thunder, just so you know. Lynsey debated this topic with me before, so most of my points (TV chip, court cases) were stolen by her.

I'll try to get to voting for everyone who posted here. You guys did a great job, and I can tell you worked hard.

With most things, I find that the challenge is to strike a good balance between individual freedom and responsibility.

In the case of freedom of speech, I feel that we should generally err on the side of greater freedom, but of course, we cannot allow one person's freedom to impinge on the welfare of the group.

I think that we actually strike about the right balance here in the states. For the most part, you're allowed to say pretty much anythin you want, as long as it doesn't pose an immediate threat to someone else.

Instances where we might decide to limit this freedom are for things like threatening to harm someone, or libel (damaging their reputation with unfounded claims).

As far as the FCC thing goes, I think that the question really is, where is the FCC going? With everything heading online, and with neutrality being one of the cornerstones of the internet, and a nearly unlimited number of means to circumvent a central authority, what will happen when we're recieving our TV shows from the net? (Like hulu?)

Or radio?

And these are some pretty serious questions, if you think about it. 3G and 4G coverage are only the first hint of the mobile broadband technologies that are being deployed. Within the next ten to fifteen years, you'll probably be listening to internet radio in your car.

So, where do we draw the line there? I mean, according to the internet rules, nearly anyone can access hardcore porn within moments, so are the FCC decency rules an anachronism? Will we need to adapt?

eyes..i must agree
the constitution has been raped so badly that it is now something to be interpreted from and even there you must look beyond the bandages that help support it.
carlos...you must know the late george carlin and lenny bruce. they made their livings off those 7 words. i really didnt need to see it printed in your rant..but well, you did your thing.
the fcc is sort of a watchdog on the morals of the world in broadcasting. that was one of the reasons cable television became so strong. they were not under the auspices of the fcc and could broadcast those r movies with no bleeps.
as much as carlos is right with the fact we have heard those words before seeing a movie is going along with the culture of our society. my students sing rap songs and here the word f***k, etc and then i ask them what they are saying. they have no clue. they think people talk like travolta/jackson from pulp fiction..when in fact we know better. i think we do have a moral responsibility to show to the children some acceptible form of television and like tw said who would ever think of having a victorias secret commercial duing blues clues (oh my..reference to the felt friend!)...but anyhow..they show womens products on there all the time. always got me on that one when i was a child..what does that mean???
the more we dislike the fcc...or the riaa for its parental advisory stickers...we also know that there is a purpose to it. there must some form of acceptance to it.
yes censorship is unamerican...but it also helps. it protects.

ever seen the video ....you! by lily allen =)

dabear

Joseph- The "F" word in its first known use as a verb meaning to have sexual intercourse is in "Flen flyys", written around 1475. Therefore words like this had already existed for at least 300 years before our constitution.

The first amendment was put in place to protect the MOST outrageous speech, so that people would not live in constant fear of being arrested by their government for saying the wrong thing.

I'm REALLY glad to hear that you are 'over it' when it comes to the first amendment, because that is the ONE amendment that truly makes this a free country & is the foundation that our republic was built on. I'm NOT over it, nor will I EVER be & it's that kind of thinking that has allowed fascism to surface in this country over the last decade.

Like Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!"

Who determines what speech is nice or respectful? Who determines what speech is indecent or vulgar? Is it the words themselves that are 'vulgar' or is it what they represent? Who decided that those 7 dirty words were 'dirty' in the first place?

For instance, if the "F" word means sexual intercourse, then you would have to believe that sex is indecent in order for that word to be considered indecent, right?

Well I DON'T believe that sex is indecent, therefore I don't feel that the "F" word is either!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the FCC to determine for sure what is indecent & what is not because it is COMPLETELY subjective & there is NO government agency on the planet that is qualified to make that determination for an entire country.

On one hand, it would be nice if everyone were respectful to one another. On the other hand wouldn't it also be incredibly BORING too???

Hey Bear- I was merely making a point about those 7 words & the fact that even though you didn't like reading them, you were still physically able to respond to this thread after seeing them PROVES my point!

continued....

Advertisers know that marketing something like Victoria's Secret on Blues Clues would NOT make them look good to the general public & that is why they don't do it. If they did, there would be backlash from the general public. That is what keeps them from doing whatever they want. We do NOT need a government agency doing ANYTHING that we can do for ourselves.

BTW- Yes, I am VERY familiar with George Carlin & Lenny Bruce & while the 7 'dirty' words were a part of their act, it was NOT what their careers were built on. Both of these men were incredibly intelligent & brilliant comedians. They did NOT rely solely on profanity to be funny. You can't just go on stage recite the 7 words & get people to laugh to the point where they will pay to see you over & over again. There is actual content there!

Here is an example of George Carlin's act on the 7 dirty words from 1978 which I think pretty much sums up how ridiculous the FCC is.

********WARNING ADULT LANGUAGE NOT SUITABLE FOR SENSITIVE VIEWERS!*********

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

Enjoy!

Wow..do you have any idea how elitist, totalitarian, and condescending it sounds to hear, "we have a moral responsibility" to show children what is "acceptable" television programming? What I want to know is whose morals? The morals of the average secular humanist, evangelical southern baptist, mormon, or wahabbi muslim. What is it about the "obscene" (and I'm speaking only about sexual content) that makes it any less acceptable than violence? Why is graphic violence more acceptable in our society than graphic sex? What does that fact say to children and the youth in this country? It says that violence is more acceptable than kinky sex. That's just a downright stupid thing to allow. Teach the youth by being open and honest and answering every question they ask and engaging them in conversation, however uncomfortable that conversation may be to you as an "adult". Wanna fix this? Get rid of censorship altogether, and start teaching "logic" and "analytical reasoning" via the socratic method at the earliest possible ages, along with ethics (NOT MORALS), and create a new culture of inquiry. It'll never happen, and here's why. There are far too many parents who would go off the deep end the first time little suzie or johnny looked at mommy and daddy and said, "that's a red herring, or a straw man, or a non sequitur, daddy" resulting in kids being beaten half to death if the timing is bad for such a statement from a "mere" child.

@Carlos: I think I just gained a new level of appreciation for you.


As he stated above, the first amendment is the number one amendment to make our nation as free as it is. It gives us the freedom of religion, press, petition, assembly, and yes, SPEECH. I don't agree with what half of the community on CNet says on certain subjects. Does that mean I have any right to stop them from saying it? If I get offended by people calling Muslims terrorists, does that mean I can honestly tell them they can't? How about people who call gay people "faggots" or white people "crackers?" Do I really have the right to take away YOUR freedom of speech?

If you don't like certain television programing, common sense says not to watch it. Just about anyone will tell you not to sit a toddler in front of HBO's night time programing. This is why we have a million family-friendly DVDs, stations such as Nick and Cartoon Network, etc. In all reality, I used to make my brother watch the Food Network. He was highly impressionable in his first few years of life, and repeated everything he heard. I was less afraid of him repeating "onion" than "bitch."

I have the right to decide what a child in my care watches. I have no right to decide what the rest of America watches. Society in general needs to get over themselves. Control your actions and your intake, and leave everyone else's rights alone. I'm not trying to make you watch The Hangover or marry a gay man, but I still have every right to do so.

Oh, welcome to CollegeNet, windmarkbob. Glad you could join us for our rants :)

--Carlos
Right on man!

--Eyes
While I fully agree with you that the FCC is unconstitutional, as it stands now because of a precedent set by past rulings, the FCC is 'fully within its rights' to fine broadcasters for breaking its indecency laws. I can't for the life of me recall both of the example cases I wanted to give you but one of them was the ruling in FCC vs Pacifica (which funnily enough, had to do with the "Seven Dirty Words").

--IntelliJoe
Such vulgar language did exist around the time of the creating of the constitution; I think a better way to put it would be that in general, it was not deemed socially acceptable to use such language. Swearing in front of women and children, for the most part, was socially frowned upon. As time progressed, society became more relenting until we reached the point where we are today.

While I agree that not everyone is mature enough to handle certain things, this is objective and indecency is impossible for the government to define, nor should they try to; every kid will handle things differently and it's the parents job to deal with. Carlos raised a really great point. The main goal for the majority of broadcasters is to make money and in order to make money their shows have to appeal to viewers. As long as their is a demand from a particular demographic broadcasters will supply it. Perspectively, there's no moral motivation to create family-friendly/children shows but rather a demand for them. Like Carlos said, advertisers and I'm going to add broadcasters as well, know there would be a public backlash if they were to air a Victoria's Secret commercial during Blue's Clues. The FCC is not keeping Nickelodeon, Disney or other channels clean nor will it ever need to. If Steve starts throwing around the F word because Blue isn't finding clues, parents, who aren't going to let their children watch that particular station anymore and move them to another channel that appeals to parents looking for a child 'safe' station. Nickelodeon would lose advertisers which would lead to a loss of money and they know this perfectly well which is why you will never see Steve or anyone else using such language.