What is this? 1950?:
Broadcasters meeting Wednesday to discuss indecency said they would consider an industry code of conduct, an idea the nation’s chief telecommunications regulator suggested they should pursue.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell said that if the industry leaves it to the government to set strict standards for broadcast decency, they won’t like the result.
“You do not want to ask the government to write a ‘Red Book’ of dos and don’ts,” Powell told the gathering organized by the National Association of Broadcasters. “I understand the complaint about knowing where the line is, but heavier government entanglement through a ‘dirty-conduct code’ will not only chill speech, it may deep-freeze it.”
No, Mr. Powell, I don’t want the government writing the book on what I can and can not view or read or see or purchase, you grandstanding, bullying shitheel. I am officially sick and tired of this bullshit from these jackasses. These stupid fucking assholes keep trying to impose their morality on me, and I am not going to take this crap anymore. They can go piss in the wind for all I care. And this is bi-partisan horseshit from our elected officals.*
* If this offended you, you can do what everyone else can do with the radio and television. You can make the personal decision not to come here any more, just as you can change the DAMNED CHANNEL ON YOUR TV AND RADIO.
Terry
I suggest that you take a tranquilizer or a strong shot of bourbon…Powell is in basic agreement with you that the government should stay out of the rule writing game. And the problem is not totally solvable by the simple answer of “change the channel;” some people are rightly concerned about children watching television in circumstances in which a parent can’t be monitoring whats showing up in real time. I think you’re overreacting to what is a real concern of many people.
Mason
I don’t like it either. One bit. But I partially agree with what Terry said… the FCC received something like 200,000 complaints after the Janet Jackson titcircus. That’s an amazing amount of complaints, and is probably behind the recent decency-frenzy.
M. Scott Eiland
There are, the last time I checked, about fifty gazillion ways that human beings can communicate with each other other than the TV/Radio spectrum that has always been somehow considered uniquely rare and therefore subject to government regulation (i.e., censorship). End this farce and formally sell the damned spectrum already, with a clause in the contract that lets the government have access in times of national emergency. That’ll solve the problem. Of course, the social conservatives will hate the idea because it’ll give those damned “perverts” free reign, and the liberals will hate it because they hate the idea of corporations getting ahold of *anything*. So it’s not going to happen, and we’ll just have to live with the complaining.
Davey
You know, at first I thought that the FCC tightening bootstraps was a good thing. But I think that they are going a bit too far with all this. This is just a classic example of locking the gate after the horses have escaped.
As far as personal responsibility goes, I’m with you!
Chris
Bravo, John! I wholeheartedly applaud your outburst. The day we let the government dictate what we can and cannot hear, see, read, etc. is the day we take a step backwards as a society. While Terry is right in saying Powell is in agreement with you (as he alludes to in the excerpt), I believe the problem IS totally solvable by simply changing the channel – or better yet, switching off the TV or radio altogether.
However, the problem goes deeper than the solution suggests. The drivel we see and hear every day on TV and radio is a reflection of our society; our society is not a product of TV and radio. The types of programs that people are complaining about now are the very programs they’ve essentially been asking for all along. If people didn’t watch TV programs and movies that glorified promiscuous sex and violence, they wouldn’t be produced. If people didn’t listen to radio programs that pander to the lowest common denominator in society and talk radio that holds acerbic partisan attack up as the height of political discourse, they wouldn’t be on the air. The fact is people do watch and listen…eagerly.
It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they do and do not find offensive and then seek out alternate programming or stop watching and listening. It is up to parents to monitor what their children are watching on TV, listening to on the radio, or surfing for on the Internet.
It’s not the government’s responsibility to tell people what’s good for them. That’s called a dictatorship. It’s not the industry’s responsibility. After all, they’re only trying to turn a profit by giving their customers what they want. It’s the individual’s responsibility to think for themselves and use their own moral compass. Sadly, these are skills sorely lacking in today’s world.
Misanthropyst
At the core of why this 20+ year Republican voter will vote Democrat this year. There are greater threats to America than Islamofascists.
CadillaqJaq
Misantropyst: why you would choose to vote for a political party that IS a greater threat than Islamofacists is a curiosity to me… but it’s still a free country.
As far as John Cole’s “outburst,” tell us what you really think, John.
Lex
This whole “issue” is nothing more than a distraction.
Mason
Misanthropyst, the differences between the GOP and DEM in this respect are miniscule, and in most cases only differ in a matter of degree. If you think your civil liberties are safer under a Democrat administration, you’re fucking nuts.
At least the GOP isn’t shy about it.
The Communication Decency Act (CDA)? Clinton Administration. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)? Clinton Administration. “Know your Customer” banking laws? Expanded Civil Forfeiture? Record amounts of wiretap requests? Expanded drug testing — with even Clinton backing a plan that would drugtest all teenagers before they could receive a drivers license? The Clipper Chip? The V Chip?
All under Clinton.
This doesn’t even bring up the drug war.
So go ahead, and vote for a Democrat. At least you’ll still be able to hear someone mouthing off on the radio.
Pete Guither
There are more than enough options available for market forces to work. Are you offended by “mother-f***er”? Then watch those channels that won’t let it be used. Are you offended by Bruce Willis dubbed saying “Yippee Kiyay, My Friend” in Die Hard? Then watch it on the premium channels
I have to agree that both parties really suck on this. So how to we get either one of them to stop meddling with us? The politicians on both sides seem all too willing to listen to those who believe that problems would go away if the government would just become our mother.
van
While I agree that we all have the choice to turn the channel, were we allowed to make that decision during the half-time show? Granted, Stern, Mancow, et al. are pushing the line, but I know who and what they are. It is different if the offending material is on during a football game.
I think the whole thing has become overblown. Janet Jackson et al. should be dealt with. Bundling the others with her is a little overboard.
Chris
Van makes a good point. The whole Janet Jackson thing caught most people by surprise and resulted in the hoopla we’re witnessing now. While it’s true we weren’t given a choice in changing the channel during Janet’s much celebrated “wardrobe malfunction”, I think that a situation like that is the exception rather than the rule. The FCC should’ve heavily fined her, Justin Timberlake, MTV, the NFL and anyone else affiliated with the whole affair…and then moved on. Instead, they blew it way out of proportion. It is overblown, hence the outcry from people like myself.
slickvguy
It’s nearly a sure bet that you don’t have kids. People who say “they can just change the channel”, really don’t understand this issue isn’t about *THEM* – it’s about the kids. My kids. And please don’t go down the “parent’s responsiblity” route. That doesn’t quite cut it with reality.
Have some kids. Raise them. Then you’ll understand.
p.s. I enjoy your blog. Keep up the good work.
John Cole
You made a choice to have kids, therefore I have to live with your decision?
slickvguy
Actually, you DO live with my decisions, in some respects.
All of us who have children, are creating society’s future adults. You will live with them. Perhaps one day your very life may depend on one of these kids.
Do you also resent paying taxes which goes toward funding public education? You’re paying to educate other people’s kids. Using your “logic”, you are living with another person’s decision to have children.
Liek it or not, we are a society. We live with each other, we pay for each other, and we should help each other do what is best for society as a whole. For the common good.
I wonder if your parents feel the same way about this as you do. Maybe you should ask them for their views on this issue?
If you dont’ mind me asking – how old are you?
John Cole
33. No- I do not resent funding public education, but that is not the same thing as decrying nanny-state attempts to control content over public mediums for the sake ofthe children.
Despite your protestations, it IS an issue of parental responsibility. And as you are the parent, the responsibility lies with you.
slickvguy
1) The airwaves belong to the public, which includes parents and children.
2) Unless you are advocating an “anything goes” approach, then you agree there should be SOME limits. Once you agree that there should be SOME limits, the main questions that remain are *WHERE* do we put those limits, and *WHO* gets to decide where those limits should be.
3) I agree with some of what you wrote (politiczation, bullsh*t, etc.) – but the “let them just change the channel” really misses the mark, and is usually only argued by those without children.
Chris
Nice going slickvguy. Open mouth, insert foot. It just so happens I do have kids. I’m the proud step-father to a sweet 13-year-old girl and the proud biological father of a 4-month-old bouncing baby boy (who’s sitting in my lap as I type this). Good thing you hedged your “sure” bet by using the word “nearly” or you would’ve lost that one.
Allow me to disabuse you of the notion that I don’t understand what this issue is about. It’s not about me, or my kids, or you, or your kids. It’s about every American’s right to watch, hear, read, purchase, publish, post (that’s right, blogs are included), etc. pretty much anything they want (as long they don’t hurt anybody else in the process) without the government interfering. Child pornography and the like are excluded for obvious reasons. They shouldn’t have the government making these decisions for them.
And incidentally, why shouldn’t I go down the “parent’s responsibility” route. If you choose to become a parent then you inherit a truckload of responsiblities, my friend. And one of those responsibilities is being aware of what your kids are watching, listening to, surfing for, and reading. That does cut it with reality whether you think so or not. I’m not saying it’s easy, because it isn’t. Far from it.
John’s right. My kids aren’t his responsibility, and they aren’t the government’s responsibility either. They’re my responsibility and my wife’s. Just like your kids are your responsibility. Maybe if more parents paid attention to what their kids were up to instead of sitting them in front of electronic heroin, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
slickvguy
Either you agree it should be ANYTHING goes on the public airwaves, or else you are advocating some form of censorship. Don’t dodge the question.
Which is it? Anything goes -or- some form of censorship?
p.s. I did not say my kids are anyone else’s responsiblity. I’ve done a damn good job with mine, and they are now beyond the age where I worry about this kind of thing. In fact, nothing is more important to me than my children. I don’t want to brag – but they are really terrific kids.
Yes, there are a lot of lousy parents out there who don’t pay the attention they should to their kids. Also, many kids watch far too much TV. Agreed. (I limited my kids’ TV exposure).
However, it is totally unrealistic to expect parents to be able to sit and watch TV with their kids WHENEVER their kids want to watch. 100% is not possible.
If you tell me that your kids never watched TV without you or your wife (which I wouldn’t believe) then that would put you in the .0001% of all parents. So are the other 99.9999% “irresponsible” parents?
Can we have an honest discussion, or are you going to pretend to be perfect?
slickvguy
Chris,
This post of yours, I completely agree with. (But it sure seems like you’re contradicting yourself).
“The whole Janet Jackson thing caught most people by surprise and resulted in the hoopla we’re witnessing now. While it’s true we weren’t given a choice in changing the channel during Janet’s much celebrated “wardrobe malfunction”, I think that a situation like that is the exception rather than the rule. The FCC should’ve heavily fined her, Justin Timberlake, MTV, the NFL and anyone else affiliated with the whole affair…and then moved on. Instead, they blew it way out of proportion. It is overblown, hence the outcry from people like myself.”
That’s pretty much my take on it. Why does govt have to screw things up so badly? heh. People were right about JJ’s Superbowl show. But to censor her saying “jesus” on Letterman? That’s outrageous.
In a very short period of time, these clowns have given those who are against *ALL* limits (which I oppose) all the ammunition they need. That bothers me.
Chris
Slick,
I’m not dodging the question nor am I contradicting myself. If you read my last post, you will see that I don’t advocate an ANYTHING goes policy. There should be some form of censorship, but very minimal. Like I said before, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (like child pornography) then it should be allowed. I also don’t claim to be perfect and never even faintly suggested that I was, so I don’t know why you’re going down that road. I also agree it’s unrealistic to monitor your kids 100% of the time and I never said that either. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things and then use a condescending tone while taking things out of context. If you’d get off your high horse, stop putting words in my mouth, and pay attention, then, yes, we can have an honest discussion.
I never meant to imply that you were an irresponsible parent. I’m sorry if you took it that way. No, of course I don’t monitor by my step-daughter 24/7. I don’t have the kind of money to pay for the therapy she would need if I did that. I also can’t control what she does when she’s over a friend’s house. I trust her to do the right thing. If I discover she’s done the wrong thing, we’ll address it then. What I DO do however is check in on her every so often while she’s watching TV, or surfing the Internet or whatever, to see what she’s up to. We also limit the amount of time she spends on the Internet or watching TV. I think that’s really all any parent can do or should be expected to do.
“That’s pretty much my take on it. Why does govt have to screw things up so badly? heh. People were right about JJ’s Superbowl show. But to censor her saying “jesus” on Letterman? That’s outrageous.”
Well, we seem to be on the same wavelength, but obviously our signals are crossed. I am not against ALL limits. I advocate minimal limits, putting more responsibility into the hands of citizens where it belongs and less responsibility into the hands of government where it does not. What I am against is the Orwellian jackboot tactics the FCC is trying to use to wage witch hunts against people THEY deem to be “offensive, profane, and obscene.” It’s not for the government to decide what is offensive and what isn’t – again, with the caveat that things like child pornography, etc. be outlawed – it’s up to each individual to decide for themselves what is and isn’t offensive and then make a choice.
I cannot be any more clear about this.
slickvguy
Thanks for the back-and-forth.
It was never my intention to sound “condescending”. Au contraire. I am actually a very humble (slickv)guy, and try to live my life with great humility.
Sounds like you and I parent in a similar fashion. Glad to hear that. My kids also know I have a very strong computer background, and know I can monitor their surfing easily (if/when I want to).
Once again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. No offense was intended, and I apologize if I came off too strongly.
Later…