<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: FCC patrolling our airwaves to protect us from dirty words </title> <atom:link href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/12/fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/12/fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words</link> <description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Science, Religion, Media and Culture</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:40:20 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <item> <title> By: grumpypilgrim </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/12/fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words/comment-page-1/#comment-1104</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[grumpypilgrim]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:40:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=323#comment-1104</guid> <description><![CDATA[I've never understood America's bizarre television censorship laws. It's OK to show movies like 'The Terminator,' 'Alien,' 'Predator,' etc., where nice people are hunted and massacred by futuristic killing machines, but it's a national outrage to show a quarter-second glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast. It's OK to show insanely violent cartoons on Saturday morning children's programs, but there's a huge fine if an excited fan uses the 'f' word on a sports program. It's OK to show American children 100,000+ acts of violence by the time they are 18 years old, but we'd better not let them see a naked buttocks or they might be scarred for life. For a nation of supposedly educated, relatively sophisticated people, America has some truly Medieval (dare I say idiotic?) censorship laws. And as regards dirty words, just stroll past your local grade school playground sometime and listen to the colorful language that kids have already learned to use. Or walk down your local Walmart sales aisle, or stand in line at your local movie theater, and see how long you can prevent your kids from hearing the 'f' word or the 's' word. Indeed, I wonder how many kids learn these words from their parents. Bottom line: I agree with Heather, but for a different reason: keeping dirty words off television does nothing to prevent children from hearing them anyway. Moreover, as Erich points out, kids aren't damaged by hearing them, so what is the big deal? Seems like just another way for Republicans to try to score political points in an election year -- right up there with trying to ban flag burning and same-sex marriage. No matter that such issues are irrelevant to the nation's prosperity; the only metric that counts is whether it benefits the bozos who (currently) control Congress. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I've never understood America's bizarre television censorship laws. It's OK to show movies like 'The Terminator,' 'Alien,' 'Predator,' etc., where nice people are hunted and massacred by futuristic killing machines, but it's a national outrage to show a quarter-second glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast. It's OK to show insanely violent cartoons on Saturday morning children's programs, but there's a huge fine if an excited fan uses the 'f' word on a sports program. It's OK to show American children 100,000+ acts of violence by the time they are 18 years old, but we'd better not let them see a naked buttocks or they might be scarred for life. For a nation of supposedly educated, relatively sophisticated people, America has some truly Medieval (dare I say idiotic?) censorship laws. </p> <p>And as regards dirty words, just stroll past your local grade school playground sometime and listen to the colorful language that kids have already learned to use. Or walk down your local Walmart sales aisle, or stand in line at your local movie theater, and see how long you can prevent your kids from hearing the 'f' word or the 's' word. Indeed, I wonder how many kids learn these words from their parents.</p> <p>Bottom line: I agree with Heather, but for a different reason: keeping dirty words off television does nothing to prevent children from hearing them anyway. Moreover, as Erich points out, kids aren't damaged by hearing them, so what is the big deal? Seems like just another way for Republicans to try to score political points in an election year — right up there with trying to ban flag burning and same-sex marriage. No matter that such issues are irrelevant to the nation's prosperity; the only metric that counts is whether it benefits the bozos who (currently) control Congress. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Heather </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/12/fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words/comment-page-1/#comment-1015</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Heather]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:12:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=323#comment-1015</guid> <description><![CDATA[Personally, I think television shows should be able to say/show whatever they want. What ever happened to taking care of your children eg monitoring them? I get offended by things just like everyone else, and even try to be proactive in this. For instance, I would never stay at a Hilton Inn or eat at a Hardees. Who are we to judge what other people find entertaining or otherwise though? Now the Superbowl incident was a bit different, but the FCC needs to get over it. Stuff happens. The people involved paid their fines, which I think was the right thing to do, and that is that. The news shows what people want to see, just like any other program. Like you said, no one wants to see dead bodies. People are more than inclined to see the appearance of the VICTORIOUS USA. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I think television shows should be able to say/show whatever they want. What ever happened to taking care of your children eg monitoring them? I get offended by things just like everyone else, and even try to be proactive in this. For instance, I would never stay at a Hilton Inn or eat at a Hardees. Who are we to judge what other people find entertaining or otherwise though? Now the Superbowl incident was a bit different, but the FCC needs to get over it. Stuff happens. The people involved paid their fines, which I think was the right thing to do, and that is that.</p> <p>The news shows what people want to see, just like any other program. Like you said, no one wants to see dead bodies. People are more than inclined to see the appearance of the VICTORIOUS USA. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Erika Price </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2006/07/12/fcc-patrolling-our-airwaves-to-protect-us-from-dirty-words/comment-page-1/#comment-1014</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erika Price]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:33:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=323#comment-1014</guid> <description><![CDATA[From the MSN article: "Under a new law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, broadcasters face fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, up from a previous maximum of $32,500." $325,000?! For something uttered by a spectator, no less? I consider censorship rather absurd in principle, let alone the extreme lengths to which the FCC will go to keep live programming squeaky-clean. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the MSN article: "Under a new law approved by Congress and signed by President Bush, broadcasters face fines of as much as $325,000 per violation, up from a previous maximum of $32,500."</p> <p>$325,000?! For something uttered by a spectator, no less? I consider censorship rather absurd in principle, let alone the extreme lengths to which the FCC will go to keep live programming squeaky-clean. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>