Reply
Thu 18 Mar, 2004 04:23 pm
To borrow a phrase from my favourite political columnist, Ed Anger, of the Weekly World News, I am hopping mad at the FCC for not doing a thorough job of cleaning up smut on our public airwaves! Oh sure, they do something about Janet Jackson's breast and fine Howard Stern, but on our regular public TV, smut continues! The son and I were watching a rerun of Star Trek: Voyager today (he likes the spaceships), the one with John Rhys Davies as Leonardo da Vinci, and when some instrument he had didn't work, I clearly heard him use the word "cazzo"! What's next? My son asked "what's cazzo?" and I would normally say, well, look it up on the interenet, but who knows what might come up? Maybe even the "I Modi", the filthiest book since the Kama Sutra, even in translation! How can we keep our children safe from this foreign smut? I think the FCC hasn't gone far enough.
(Clearly a joke, as I feel censorship of free speech is currently out of control. Discuss.)
Dang! I was gonna ask; what channel?
(kidding)...
Well, "cazzo" is the opposite of "potta", and it's long as opposed to deep.
Well, I'm for free speech. I just think people should be more discerning in their choice of what to watch on television. Most of what I'm defending here is so lame, it ought to be canceled for lack of interest. But, it's obviously not.
cavfancier wrote:Well, "cazzo" is the opposite of "potta", and it's long as opposed to deep.
Your explaination doesn't help me much cavfancier. I don't know what 'potta' means either! LOL
Okay okay....'cazzo' is a not so nice term for penis, and 'potta' is a not so nice term for the vagina. That should clear things up.
Personally, I just found it extremely funny, not to mention hypocritical, that if a dirty word goes out over the public airwaves in a language other than English, it passes. Just where do the FCC stand? I find their policies not only sickening, but completely arbitrary as well.
Just so this doesn't turn into a completely political discussion, the issue here really is the importance or non-importance of free speech. Personally, I feel that if you don't like what you hear or see, just turn it off. To bring this back to philosophy, let's look at Socrates....what's happening now in the US with the censorship makes me wonder how far off book burnings are.
cavfancier wrote:Just so this doesn't turn into a completely political discussion, the issue here really is the importance or non-importance of free speech. Personally, I feel that if you don't like what you hear or see, just turn it off. To bring this back to philosophy, let's look at Socrates....what's happening now in the US with the censorship makes me wonder how far off book burnings are.
Ahhh, NOW your explanation of long as opposed to deep makes sense!
If the right wing conservative Christian wackos had their way, book burnings would happen with regularity. Censorship, they say, is necessary for the protection of the children. Bull! That's just an excuse these control freaks use to limit what others can see and hear. Individuals should choose for themselves what they want to see and hear and what they will and will not allow to be broadcast in their home.
Those of us who promote free speech must remain vigilant in our fight against those who would work to allow speech only they find worthy of broadcast. Clear Channel is folding like a cheap card table, IMO to the sponsors of TV and radio shows by fining broadcasters like Howard Stern.
I agree there, doglover, and I am a dog lover too. There is a pic of my dog in the gallery! My apologies for speaking in metaphor, I just never know when I might be fined.
What I find disturbing is that the responsibility of self-censoring, and keeping your kids away from things you don't want them to see or hear is moving away from the parents and is being hijacked by the government. I wonder why so many people are more comfortable letting others make decisions for them, rather than take it on themselves?
cav, the majority of the American public has allowed themselves to become complacent. They are willing to say hey, the government knows whats best. I'm too busy to pay attention, so I'll let people like John Ashcroft and Pat Robertson decide whats best for me and mine. Remember Jesse Helms? That old codger was a piece of work.
The fundamentalist Christians in this country have to be kept in their place. The Bush administration panders to them with talk of amending the constitution making marriage legal only between a man and a woman. Bush knows no constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage will ever come to fruition, but he says it anyway.
Let the free market dictate what go on the airwaves. If a performer's material is offensive or a TV show sucks people wont watch or listen and the advertisers will bail out. The sponsorship of the show is gone and poof the show is gone.
cavfancier wrote:I agree there, doglover, and I am a dog lover too. There is a pic of my dog in the gallery! My apologies for speaking in metaphor, I just never know when I might be fined.
I just checked out the Gallery this morning and submitted a few photos myself. Your dog is adorable.
I've used the name 'doglover' before on another bulletin board and sometimes regretted it. Those right wingers find creative ways to insult when you go by the name doglover.
from Salon
Quote:The FCC also overruled its staff and said that Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards program was indecent and profane, but issued no fine.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell had asked his fellow commissioners to overturn the FCC enforcement bureau's finding.
I'm really beginning to dislike Michael Powell. First the push to allow greater concentration of media ownership/control, and now he goes apeshit over naughty words.
Bono used the term 'fuk'. I look forward to Powell's explanation of why that word is 'profane'. I also look forward to Powell's removal.
damn...wrong bookmark...was looking for smut
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace