Action needed now.

Haha, that was funny, and it makes the point perfectly. Well done.

 

I realize that this topic has been beat into the ground... but I'll chip in anyway. I've been following along since it started.

Technically speaking, from a logical standpoint, the FCC did not say they were allowing use of the offensive word across the airwaves.

On a more realistic angle however, it becomes more clear that the word will not draw the wrath of the FCC when used in certain instances.

But I don't necessarily believe that within months that the airwaves will be filled with this word. The broadcasters know it's offensive to a large part of the public, and they're not eager to offend a large percentage of their viewers. Sponsors carry a lot of weight, and most are not enthusiastic about sponsoring shows that are offensive to a lot of folks.

Perhaps in the next few years we'll see it creep into a few shows on an occasional basis. Like NYPD Blue did several years ago.

 

Jailminister said:

Ransom, Are you saying that ruling on Robert Durst was correct?

No. I am saying what everybody has been saying all along, and you fail to understand:

The court ruled that Durst did not commit a crime. It did not rule that murder is no longer a crime.

Similarly, the FCC ruled that Bono's expletive was not a violation of its regulations. It did not rule that the regulations were no longer in force.

Coppish?

 

May I make a small correction to this sentence that will make it true?

The fact that the FCC said that the "f-word" was not a violation of their rules in this specific instance.

 

I actually found the guidelines that have been in effect since April 6, 2001. http://www.comeniusfoundation.org/NEWS-FCC.htm

The guidelines include:

* The more explicit the language, the greater the likelihood of indecency.

* The extent to which the sexual innuendo is repeated. The more fleeting the statement, the less likely to be a cause for concern. For example, a one time instance of accidental swearing is not as serious as repeating a theme throughout an entire broadcast.

* The intent is very important. A news report including anatomical references are okay, but a graphic joke using the same reference is not.
Context is also important.

* A radio talk show about teen sex-ed or frontal nudity in concentration camps in Schindler's List is not considered to be offensive material.

* The ban on offensive content is active from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.-- the hours when children are most likely to be listening or watching. If a broadcaster is cited for violating the new guidelines the FCC can issue warning, impose a fine, or even revoke the station’s license.

------------
So, hey! According to the pre-existing rules, Bono was not committing an indecent act! So it is not a matter of changing the rules, the FCC ruled in agreement with what was already on the books.

Had this been posted already?

SEC

 

Jailminister said:

First of all not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

And second of all, this thread has pretty much shown that those who do not, are misinterpreting the ruling made by the FCC.

 

I don't care how many times you say this, it is not true.
I have asked you to show us where the ruling specifically states that the language is "allowable," and you still have not shown us. Stop saying it and start proving it. Don't use other peoples' misinterpretations, don't mention the US Congressman yet again, simply show us in the body of the ruling in the link you provided that "they ruled that the language is allowable."
Why is this such a daunting task?

 

Because he would have to admit that both he and the AFA are dead wrong.

 

I'm told that the word in question (as well as use of the S-word) slipped by the censors (with a few seconds delay in the broadcast) on FOX last night during the LIVE broadcast of the "Billboard Music Awards".

 

Please take a moment to fill out an official FCC complaint against Fox and its affiliates at http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/fcc/main.asp

 

I don't care how many times you say this, it is not true.
I have asked you to show us where the ruling specifically states that the language is "allowable," and you still have not shown us. Stop saying it and start proving it. Don't use other peoples' misinterpretations, don't mention the US Congressman yet again, simply show us in the body of the ruling in the link you provided that "they ruled that the language is allowable."
Why is this such a daunting task? </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond and Baptist Believer,
On this instance, I must disagree with you. I do think that the two of you and some others are letting personal dislikes color your ability to look at what you are saying. There is nothing Jailminister can say that you will accept.
But here is what I see after everything is said and done. YES, YES,YES, in this particular instance the FCC said that the word is allowable and did not break the rules.
If so, then I want the rules changed.
I am still not seeing this fine point you are intent on making. They used the f word, and the FCC said it was allowable in this case.
The VERY FACT they said that shows that their ruling in their view allows it.
I usually think of posts by both of you as models of clarity and as having real points to deal with. On this issue, it just seems like you are straining at gnats and ignoring the broader issue of the FCC allowed it.
NOT so long ago, they would not have.

Karen

 

That is quite an observation, given the fact that you don't know me. To what "dislikes" are you referring?

I have shown from the text of the ruling that the FCC did not make any statement that "allows" the usage of the expletive.

Again you use the word "allowed." You are more than welcome to show us where this is being "allowed." While I can appreciate your point of view, and even share your concern, this particular ruling does not make any statements about allowing this word to be used. They simply said that they did not feel that any further action was warranted. If they had actually "allowed" the usage of the word, I would have gone to the website and added my name.

 

That is quite an observation, given the fact that you don't know me. To what "dislikes" are you referring?

I have shown from the text of the ruling that the FCC did not make any statement that "allows" the usage of the expletive.

Again you use the word "allowed." You are more than welcome to show us where this is being "allowed." While I can appreciate your point of view, and even share your concern, this particular ruling does not make any statements about allowing this word to be used. They simply said that they did not feel that any further action was warranted. If they had actually "allowed" the usage of the word, I would have gone to the website and added my name. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond,
You are correct, indeed, that I don't know you.
And it is quite a claim, especially for me. I have a 3 1/2 year habit on this board of not arguing much.
When I say "you" I refer to your telling Jailminister he has a simplistic mind and deals in juvenile contumely. I refer to Baptist Believer telling Jailminister that not necessarily, he, Jailminister, but others like him have poor reading comprehension skills.
When I refer to "others", one example is Brett calling Jailminister a troll.
My honest perception, that may indeed be wrong, is that you are expressing dislike and distaste.

An additional opinion of mine is that the FCC in some manner, somehow, let this usage go by. That means that it CAN be done again in that manner.
Doesn't mean it will. But a bridge has been crossed. Some groups may carry opposition too far.
But I do think there is room for real concern here, and I don't think I have poor reading skills.
Hope this clarifies.

Karen

 

I find it very interesting that you only perceive this with the posts of three people on one side of the debate. You have a perception that I am posting in a manner to convey contempt, yet the comments directed at me are not to be perceived in the same manner?

So, if I follow you correctly, that does not imply animosity or contempt. Jailminister is making observations (albeit in cyberspace) about my spirituality, but this is not contumely?
This was one of his responses to my repeated requests that he provide proof that this ruling grants permission to use the expletive.

I can appreciate your concern; however, this was not the first time that this bridge has been crossed. This was not the first ruling of this nature.

As I have said before, I do not read anywhere that Solomon gave approval to use the expletive. I added that anyone is welcome to show me where this could possibly be the case, and I would reconsider my opinion. As of this post, nobody has done this.

 

So, if I follow you correctly, that does not imply animosity or contempt. Jailminister is making observations (albeit in cyberspace) about my spirituality, but this is not contumely?
This was one of his responses to my repeated requests that he provide proof that this ruling grants permission to use the expletive. .......
As I have said before, I do not read anywhere that Solomon gave approval to use the expletive. I added that anyone is welcome to show me where this could possibly be the case, and I would reconsider my opinion. As of this post, nobody has done this. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond,
I'm really not trying to pick on you.
Jailminister could have handled it better, too.
But it really did sound to me like several people were ganging up personally on Jailminister.

Perhaps we disagree on what the word "approval" means. No consequences came to the people that did this. They did it and nothing happened to them. If they did it again in the same way, presumably, they would have no consequences. This is what I, perhaps sloppily, am referring to as "approval", not necessarily an overt statement of "I approve".

Karen

 

I was wrong when this thread first started - this is a REAL story. See this MSNBC Foul Language Story for more.