Broadcasting the F word

Each family has a very potent tool that can be utilized to adhere to the sensibilities of the particular family. It is called a remote control.

I am glad that the courts ruled the way that it did. It is, IMO, not the government's business, even though I personally abhor the depths to which some TV shows have sunk.

The way to that consumers can control these sorts of programs is not to watch them, organize boycotts and protests, and write to the networks and complain.

I think that it is about time that citizens took responsibility for themselves, and not look to the government to act "in loco parentis"!

Anybody remember Anita Bryant? She was a Miss America runner-up who had a lucrative career selling Florida orange juice. She went on a campaign against homosexuals. People protested, and she was thrown out of her job. Never heard from her much after that!

http://www.ohnonews.com/bryant.html

crude language
I would say that the question is a bigger one than that of protecting children. For example, I think that a major reason that we are here instead of at Abuzz is the abandonment of any central control. If there is any doubt about that, just look at the responses that I got to a post identical to this that has just been placed there.

As far as protecting children, it would also be of interest to hear from some of those that are "in the trenches" - parents. My suspicion is that they might feel that leaving the job entirely up to them is not a practical solution.

central control
Phoenix,

You might want to examine some of the thoughts in this Abuzz thread "The Sociopathy on Abuzz" which examines not only Abuzz but the question of how well humans will behave when there is a lack of central control.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.350969/discussion/df/true/e/1.134/

hsweet- Oh yes, I have seen about how Abuzz has deteriorated, and it saddens me. I think that you have missed my point. There are many social controls that are in place, and are perfectly appropriate, IMO.

If a person goes to a bar, and behaves like a clod, I have no problem with the bartender to throw the miscreant out on his rump. If a person causes a scene in a store, security has the right to eject him.

Our Constitution has given us Freedom of Speech. That freedom relates to the fact that the government cannot censor a person from saying what he pleases.

Abuzz is produced by a private company, the New York Times Digital. Although I do believe that they have abrogated their duty to the members, it is their choice, and a member's choice. In my case, in the issue of Abuzz, I voted with my feet. It is my choice, and the choice of every member of Abuzz.

What I object to is GOVERNMENT controls.

Phoenix,

In an ideal world, the government's function would limited to things like printing currency and establishing mundane standards such as traffic rules and the like. But we are not quite there yet.

In prior Abuzz posts I outlined my concept of the three levels of consciousness - criminal, alienated and enlightened. It is the criminal and the alienated that compose the bulk of the population and these levels of consciousness are the antithesis to altruism.

Government, at least in its best form, is what keeps the criminal and the alienated from reducing society to rubble.

Abuzz is a poor example--and is, in fact, not analogous, in that there are not real consequences. People behaving in an ordinary social mileu as people often behave at Abuzz would result in swift and definite consequences--at the very least it would result in ostracizism.

When the Supreme Court took up the issue of pornography, they applied a principle of community standards. This was an entirely reasonable recognition on the part of the Court that what offends some may not offend others. Start shouting **** you, **** you, **** you in Times Square, and people will either ignore you (the likely response of most New Yorkers), or laugh at you (the likely response of younger New Yorkers or transplants), or to roll their eyes in a "what do you expect" sort of gesture (the likely response of tourists). Pull the same stunt in downtown Laramie, Wyoming on a Saturday morning, and you'd be lucky not to get the holy, livin' snot kicked out of you.

Phoenix has this one right: change the channel or turn off the television. The government has no damned business in this issue, except at the local level, and to the extent of the preference expressed by the local electorate.

My support is with Phoenix and Setanta.

Sorry about this one, it's a bemused European moment, but what's Abuzz? Some kind of censorship that rids one's TV of the profanities surrounding one in real life?

Although I find disgraceful what some TV executives will do to attract audiences, and dislike the way some shows have completely degenerated, I do not want Père Gouvernement to tell me what to watch, to tell me what is and is not acceptable. That is just a repression of freedom of expression. Sure, I think it's wrong that profanities are working their way into earlier and earlier schedules, but everyone should have the right to choose. If this be a democracy, people should choose profanities or non-profanities. One must call attention to the fact that, what one family considers inapt, a single guy or girl might not. Censorship is the régime's way of decreasing individuality. I can only see this ruling as beneficial.

dròm_et_rêve - Abuzz is an internet forum that was developed by the New York Times Digital, a division of the New York times. (the newspaper.) Many of the people who are on A2K were originally members of Abuzz.

In the beginning Abuzz was a wonderful site, with inteligent, thoughtful posts. After awhile, when the IT business tanked, people who were paid moderators were laid off. After that it was a free for all. There is something about the software that allows more than one person to take the same screen name, A bevy of impostors exploded on the site, and caused havoc. Most posts sounded like psychotic ramblings.

We all (me included) had a deep emotional connection to Abuzz. After awhile it got so bad, that many of the members left, in disgust. Then Craven opened A2K. Many of the great former Abuzz members quickly joined A2K!

I wish that I'd found out about this site sooner!

Well you are here now, and that's what counts!

censorship
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me propose a radical idea. I suggest that it is possible to fully express your thoughts without using any profanity thereby bypassing any possible censorship of profanity. Just think of it, a government that prohibits the use of profanity in the public media would be absolutely powerless to stop you from promoting your ideas.

hsweet - can't really see how Bono's turn of phrase was intended to be 'obscene' in the manner that the FCC defines it.

FCC Obscene/Indecent Programming

Unless someone can prove that the director of the awards bought him on specifically to utter obscenities and then broadcast them deliberately.

In terms of a 'lowest common denominator', I'm pretty sure that's the function of the Golden Globe Awards in the first place. :wink:

Mr. Stillwater, The problem is with the FCC's definition. IF we were to have put Bono into a time machine and sent him back to the sixties, he would never have given the slightest consideration to expressing himself on the air in that way. But we still would have gotten his message.

Me too.



It sounds awful, how people took over Abuzz in what sounds quite the fiasco. Did anyone ever take over your account? You see, the minority always have to ruin it for the majority, or should that be 'the majority always ruin it for the minority.' Nothing lasts forever, I suppose, but at least Craven set up a site that gives intelligent posts and good people somewhere to post without an attack by the idiot brigade.



Ah, if only it were that easy, Hsweet! Whereas the majority of people here are capable of articulating themselves without using dodgy Anglo-Saxon words, the majority of people sadly are not. Swearing repeatedly, and using profanities as adjectives as many people do, are signs of a lack of vocabulary/power of articulation. One cannot improve this; any attempt to do thus would equate to censorship. Believe me; if the whole world were rid of profanities tomorrow, I believe sincerely that the government would still continue to censor. To censor profanities is not the only form of repression of belief or speech.

a proposal
Drom et reve & group, I am not suggesting that profanity be entirely censured in all places, only in the public broadcast media where it would be applicable to script writers and those being interviewed.

There needs to be a judgement made to moderate between the unacceptable extremes and we are near the bottom end now. Law is never easy to make and the written word doesn't always reflect the thoughts of those that write them. I sit on the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals and, from time to time, we have to make an "interpretation" of the law. That is we have to give our opinion of what it means and go with that. But by not trying to address the profanity issue at all we are left leaving the judgement of conduct being left entirely up to the individual and here on the grunt side of enlightenment, human judgement is greatly flawed!

Let me throw this out for the group to chew on. What if a list of the most egregious expletives were to be placed on the edit out/bleep out list and only applicable to the broadcast media. Nothing more. Please tell me how this would be a problem. And don't tell me that it is "a slippery slope". The "slippery slope" argument is one that is essentially calling for the elimination of judgement in human affairs. IE the gun folks (or some of them anyway) saying banal things such as "If they take away my howitzer they'll be after my shotgun next."

At work it's every second word spoken. At uni, it's hardly heard. Just depends on the environment.

hsweet- I don't know how old you are, but I can remember the days when an actor could not say "pregnant" in a film. Married couples were shown in twin beds with a night table between them. That was totally ridiculous, but it DID adhere to the prevailing mores of the day.

I will repeat. I DO NOT like GRATUITOUS profanity on film or TV. I will not watch a show that has it, unless the work has some redeeming feature that overrides my distaste for that sort of thing.

But that is MY choice, and the choice of every other TV watcher and film goer. I don't want the government to tell ME what I can and cannot watch. Once the government starts dictating to the TV and film producers, it is a small conceptual leap that the government could start banning books that they found unacceptable.

And that is the slippery slope towards censorship.................and dictatorship!

I thought the idea of government was to remove up to two hundred of those types and give them a McJob in a shiny building. Otherwise they'd turn their talents to screwing over the rest of us without any restrictions.

I revert to my favorite Clemens quote:

No man's life or property are secure while the legislature is in session.