Profanity in the media

[2952-0-0]

Today in class I discussed the following scenario:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As soon as we got this I boomed out that the FCC people need to be shot about four or five times before calming down. So what do you think?

[Gabu]

Is this moral progress or regress?

If society proceeds to the point that the government is deciding which words are permissable in public, society will have regressed to such a point that I don't even want to think about it.

Is this possible to happen?

I don't see why not, given that in some countries, openly speaking negatively about the ruler can result in a death sentence.

What problems are there on both sides?

I don't understand this question; please elaborate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The moralists can go cheney themselves.

[Ebowed]

The more regulations on speech and media there are, the more profane speech and press will become.  Unnecessary laws would hopefully breed rebellion.

[angus]

As soon as we got this I boomed out that the FCC people need to be shot about four or five times before calming down. So what do you think?

I think you need to get with jmfcst and see if he'll share his pills with you.

And I think the FCC is a little sick and twisted.  So I'm watching a ballet one day with topless females.  It was an artful bit on PBS.  But they had the nipples censored.  Bizarre.  If the choreographer had intended for the nipples to be censored, he or she would have put little black Madonna-style spikes, or maybe some pom-poms on them.  So basically PBS took it upon itself to defile this art.  Either show it as the artist intended, or don't show it at all.  It's really creepy to censor the nipples.  It's like their minds are deep in the gutter.  It's not unlike Ashcroft with his dark blue curtain over lady justice's naked nipples.  Remember that?  Attorney Generals have been speaking in front of that thing for a hundred years to cameras and reporters.  No one ever made anything dirty out of it.  The fact that Ashcroft put the curtains there tells you he has a very sick little head.  Well, he did lose to a dead guy, that's gotta hurt, and leave some painful scars. 

Anyway, I think Ebowed',s right about the FCC.  When I write fcuk you, I want you to read it.  I don't need this YABB censor putting little asterisks in it.  I find the whole concept of this type of censorship annoying and insulting.  If I'd wanted to type F asterisk asterisk C K you, I'd have typed that.  Know what I mean?  That type of editorial liberty is just a bit drastic and it detracts from whatever the artist, speaker, or writer intended.  It's not unlike the Central Soviet editing plays imported from the West really.

Hey, jmfcst, I think I need some of those bennies too.

[The Constitarian]

Is this moral progress or regress? It is regress, there is nothing moral about forcing totalitarian rule over people.

Is this possible to happen?  Yes

What problems are there on both sides?  The problem with doing it is we would be forced to revolt and that wouldn't be good.

[MODU]

Is this moral progress or regress?  Depends on which side of the argument you are on.  In a blanket, sweeping regulation that you have listed there, I would say it's regress.  However, there is progress in bringing morality to public transmissions.  I would alter it a bit so it is fit around a particular time period.  Example:  Everything from 6am to 10pm that travels over public airways must be PG-13 or less.  From 10pm to 6am, the programing maybe extended to R.

Is this possible to happen?  In a sweeping blanket regulations that you have listed?  No.  Is it possible that we will pull back on the liberalization of content being transmitted over the public airways?  Yes.

What problems are there on both sides?  No one would pass the legislation as it is listed, so there are no problems for anyone except for whomevers name is listed as the author of the regulations.

[Speed of Sound]

If this happened, it would be time for one of two things:

1.REVOLUTION

2.Move to Canada