Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jailminister, Nov 17, 2003.
Please help in this effort.
(Be warned, they spell out the word, which may offend some.)
The AFA exaggerates...again.
This is being discussed on the news forum at:
Scott aparently you did not read the whole report. AFA is correct and your source is incorrect. Here it is from the horses mouth.
Jailminister, appears to me that your link agrees with Scott's.
It appears to me that the FCC has said ok to vulgarity on television. I can not see any agreement wwith Scott in there.
This is a quote from the link that JailMinister provided.
The ruling was for a one time use of the word on a certain date by a certain person on specific stations.
It may open the door, but it does not say, it is ok to be used on network television on any program in any situation.
I don't like "the word" and I think it is inappropriate to use, but I think we should have the facts concerning this issue.
Here is the pertinent section of concern:
As a threshold matter, the material aired during the
``Golden Globe Awards'' program does not describe or depict sexual and excretory activities and organs. The word
``f......'' may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities. Rather, the performer used the word
``f......'' as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than
as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission's prohibition of indecent program content.
So therefore the story from AFA is correct. The use of that word(which is as offensive as I know) is allowed. It does not have to be challenged anymore because the FCC has said it is ok. AFA is correct so please let's stop picking on the messenger and ley the FCC know that they need to change the law.
The facts are that the FCC has not said anything new. It hasn't come out with a new ruling saying what the AFA has maintained.
From the snopes website:
Scott, it is not necessarily the fact that it is new ruling(came about under the Clinton administration), but it is the first time that it was challenged. The FCC by its rulling has said it is ok.
I would recommend that you read it again. The FCC did NOT say it was okay.
I recommend you read it again. That is EXACTLY what they say.
I recommend you read it again. That is EXACTLY what they say. </font>[/QUOTE]
Well, let's take a look:
From the web page you provided:
This statement is completely erroneous. There is nothing in the ruling that makes this statement, nor does the ruling imply this.
Once again, this is never stated in the ruling.
I downloaded the PDF file, and have read the ruling. For all of you who profess to be conservatives and champions of the Constitution, this is a great ruling.
The Chief notes the following under III: [page 2 if you download the “pdf” file]
The Chief then goes further:
Then under A. the following is stated:
The Chief then acknowledges that “the First Amendment is a critical constitutional limitation that demands that, in indecency determinations, we proceed cautiously and with appropriate restraint.” [Thank Almighty God.]
Go to page 3:
Most importantly, the specific ruling of the Chief is on page 4:
There is no mention whatsoever of approval by the FCC. Any claims to the contrary should be supported by specific verbiage.
"Enjoying true liberty means taking the good with the bad."
The TV and radio airwaves are owned by the government. Therefore, as taxpayers we have every right to complain to the government about content on these airwaves since the government serves the people. On someone's private airwave they could use any language they want, but on the public airwaves the people, through their elected representatives, have a say so in the matter.
Okay, when I first heard of this, I agreed with Jailminister. But I later decided to take a look at the fcc ruling here, in an attempt to confirm what I believed to be correct. It turns out that my conclusion was incorrect. Baptist in Richmond is correct in his assessment.
I hate to say it, but you are wrong Johnv and BB. When the FCC said that no rules were violated, what they did was say it is ok to use that word. This is not a hard read, so why do you not see it that way?
You need to let this go. I understand how you feel but you're reading way too much into this. Saying that no rules were violated isn't the same as approving the use of the word.
Mike Mc said
There in lies the problem. For too long Christians have said "just let it go". That is why we have pornography, sodomy, abortion, removal of God from our society. The FCC by saying it is not a "rule violation to say "f...." on public airways, they are saying it is ok for it to occur. They may not be encouraging it, but they made the rules and they make the rulings. The rules are wrong and the rulings are wrong. They promote immorality and filth. I just can't understand why some of you that call yourselves christians, just don't get it and chose to "just let it go".
I call myself a Christian because of the faith that I have in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I really don't appreciate the tone there.