Badmovies.org Forum

Hi gang. Well, it's been quite a while posting here, what with college and a job to hold. I'm still waiting for the DVD release of DEAD HEAT as it has not hit my Best Buy or Suncoast area yet, but in the meantime here is some delightful food for thought:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040128113209990001

If their is one thing I hate, it's the "we have to protect the children" excuse that I hear all the time. But before I spew fourth my opinion on the subject matter, let's hear your take first. I'm always dying to read into an interesting discussion.

I don't particularly want my child exposed to foul language.  So long as I know the possibility exists ahead of time (so I can turn it off, for example), I am not for censorship per se.

I would not like it if I were listening to the radio and all of a sudden, out of the blue, someone on the air started cursing and such.  Sure, I'd turn it off, but it'd make me a bit angry.

The bottom line is that if the various broadcast industries 'policed' themselves, there would never be an excuse for the gov't to get involved.  I don't understand why so many broadcasters in various genres always try to push the limits.  I personally don't care what foul language appears on Showtime - you want to watch it, go ahead.  I don't get Showtime, so it does not effect me (Showtime chosen just as an example).  But if I am watching ABC at 8:00 pm with my kid in the room, I would rather not have to sit there constantly worrying about the eff word, or the ess word, or whatever nearly explicit sexual reference is the flavor of the week to try to get away with.

Actually, this really does not have to do with 'for my kid.'  I don't particularly want to hear it, either.  But that's just me.

Keep cursing off the radio and the television, I say.  I have kids and I don't want them tuning into that (no, I don't have HBO or any pay channels...  for that reason).  I also know adults, though I am not one of them, who find obscenity extremely offensive to hear.  For parents like me and prudes like that, I think it is a very courteous and decent thing for our society to put some reasonable restraints - language, nudity - on what is broadcast on network TV and radio.  By the way, I have no objection to language or nudity after 10:00pm, though I couldn't care less if they kept banning it either.

And please, I don't want to hear the tired old mantra "well if you were a responsible parent and paid attention to what your kid was watching blah blah blah."  I've heard it before, and if you think it is either possible OR desirable for parents (especially ones that work for a living) to have their kids under 24 hour surveillance, you are in for a rude awakening should you ever have any.

When someone trying to make a serious political statement, expression of their religion, or legitimate endorsement of a commercial product gets shut down by the FCC, then I'll go get my flintlock rifle and join the minutemen.  The first ammendment wasn't put in place to protect shock jocks who want to broadcast animal sodomy jokes to anyone with a radio.

By the way - the irony of you using asterisks to blot out the word f**k in your thread title wasn't deliberate, was it?

:)

Sorry Chris, but I'm a father as well and I would be very upset if they alowed cursing on the radio. It's bad enough that we are bombarded by immoral views on television everyday. Keep the adult stuff where it belongs... amongst adults.

I must add however, that I use to think differently when I was 21 and younger.

I was kind-of using it as an ironic element towards the subject itself. But now after looking at it, it was probably a mislead mistake on my part due to it being written late at night and me being pretty damn tired. Oh well, I gave it a shot.

Eirik wrote:


> And please, I don't want to hear the tired old mantra "well if
> you were a responsible parent and paid attention to what your
> kid was watching blah blah blah."  I've heard it before, and if
> you think it is either possible OR desirable for parents
> (especially ones that work for a living) to have their kids
> under 24 hour surveillance, you are in for a rude awakening
> should you ever have any.

Don't worry, Eirik, I won't tell you the tired old mantra. It's quite true that you can't always watch your kids 24 hours-a-day survalance, as I am told by other reliable parents.

What upsets me is that the FCC is relying on a more government-based censorship rather than going about it on their own. As I can recall, the FCC was created by the radio production community to keep everything in line. So, why go to the Feds for assistance?

I mean, take a look at Great Britian and their form of film censorship the BBFC: it's government created, not created within the productive film-based community. And because of that, the BBFC can ban or cut out what is considered, by the government, to be offensive. Their was a particular case of the Sonia Chiba flick THE BODYGUARD having a scene of a guy with numchucks (hope that is the correct way to spell it) being edited out by the BBFC due to being "offensive". Gee, wonder what was going through their minds.

Even so, one wonders if the next scapegoat will be movies and being told what to watch. It does sound like an off-the-wall thought and doesn't upset me because the chances of it happening here are somewhat limited. But still, I wonder.

So while I do apologize to any parent here who I have upset, I didn't intend it to be any kind of crack towards you. My main concern was the censorship issue and having the government be involved in it, which was the subject I was trying to bring up. But I apparently didn't on the first posting, so I will backtrack to the real question: Government-based censorship assistance towards radio and television, good or bad?

Um, no Chris.  The FCC is a United States federal government agency.

Chris K. wrote:

>the real question: Government-based censorship
> assistance towards radio and television, good or bad?

I think it's not ALWAYS that simple, but in general, government based censorship is bad.  The movie industry has done a fairly good job of 'censoring' itself (not really censorship, but I am trying to make a point) in rating the movies.  I am in the category of 'just tell me ahead of time what to expect' and I'll choose what to watch, and when to watch it.

I *think* at issue with some of the current rulings is spontaneous utterances...things that were *not* planned (at least openly) were broadcast at a time and place that folks were not anticipating.  TV and radio is *not* rated for content-at least not explicitly (though the time-of-day thing sort of functions as the same sort of thing).

The government DOES have an obligation to regulate obscenity.  Obscenity is legally defined as something that has no artistic merit, and this of course is defined by the community (so no, it should not be a FEDERAL issue at all).  The Maplethorpe fiasco is a good example of this.  Photographs of urinating on someone (or worse) were deemed by the community (in many places) as NOT being art, but obscene.  If you want to view that, fine, more power to you, but *not* in a public place like a public gallery.  The problem in the Maplethorpe case was that the artist was trying to force it on communities that did not want it publically displayed claiming a First Ammendment Right.  The problem with this arguement is that there is a right to *create* such 'art,' but there exists no such right to force people to view it.  IIRC, no one at the time was saying Maplethorpe should be banned from producing such art, but a LOT of people were saying "we don't want to see it."

Foul language on tv or radio is similar.  In *most* cases, it serves no artistic purpose, it is just done to appeal to the adolescent mentality that it is cool.  Or it's done for shock value (which proves the point - not art, just trying to offend).

And finally, and I think this was hit upon before, broadcast signals are public - anyone can receive those signals.  When you rent a movie or watch cable, you have 'signed up' for what you get.  There is some level of 'control' of the audience, in the sense of knowing that the audience accepts what is being produced.  In the broadcast case, you have no idea who is listening, and it may be people who have not 'opted in' to foul language.

--one guy's opinions

raj wrote:

> Um, no Chris.  The FCC is a United States federal government
> agency.

Thank you, raj for the quick correction. Proves that some items that you read can mislead you.

However, here is another question: if the Hollywood community is able to police itself with their own ratings department of the MPAA without any U.S. govermental assist, then why does the radio production community need a United States federal government based censor, the FCC, to keep the tabs on what is going on?

Even though I was wrong, I would think that the radio production community would have at least attempted to police themselves, rather than rely on the government.

Because the "airwave" i.e., radio frequencies, are held to be a public good.  In other words, someone's got to divvy up the frequencies,  so in steps the US government, which in addition to handing out parts of the broadcast spectrum (including tv as well as radio), dictates what can't be said.

The major case on this is FCC v. Pacifica Foundation:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726
aka George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words you can't say on the radio"
Interesting note, the Supreme Court opinion itself says what the words are, search for  APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT, and they'll be in the next paragraph.
What would be really interesting is to read the court opinion on the radio-- purely as a discussion of what the law is, and then have the FCC fine you for reading The Law.

Movie theaters are private and so can show things, as you are not likely to be going from one theater to another.  The MPAA is strictly voluntary, so I suppose a theater could allow under 17s into an R-rated movie, or even the unrated version of Showgirls.  Since those movies aren't legally obscene (artistic merit! artisitc merit!), government would have a hard time stepping in.  However, it could be possible that parents could sue privately, or at least generate bad publicity.

Personally I've got nothing against those words being broadcast, but if your schtick is just swearing and the like, then I'm not going to listen.  It is too easy; put some thought into your comedy (pay attention Comedy Central and Howard Stern)

I think we have enough important issues to deal with in this country (and on this planet) that we should be ashamed to waste a lot of time and effort worrying about whether people swear on the radio.  (You can hear worse language walking down any street, in any city, at any time of day).  Let's crusade against homelessness, starvation, child abuse, racism, etc., and not worry so much about words that certain people have defined as "bad."

As long as adults can watch whatever they want [even if that might require them to seek things out] I don't really care.....this is the kind of thing I probably would have cared about when I was younger, but now it just doesn't seem important.

"However, here is another question: if the Hollywood community is able to police itself with their own ratings department of the MPAA without any U.S. govermental assist, then why does the radio production community need a United States federal government based censor, the FCC, to keep the tabs on what is going on? "

Thanks for clarifying, Chris.  Basically, I don't trust the "hollywood community" to do anything but look at the bottom line - $$$.  I think the commercial potential of certain movies GREATLY influences their rating downward (NC-17 to R, R to PG-13, PG13-PG, and I increasingly see PG elements in G movies).  I'm a fairly conservative person who doesn't like lots of laws and government influence in my life...  but I do want the government for some things and keeping a certain basic level of decency in the broadcast media is one of those things.  I don't really worry about censorship.  I think any censorship of political, religious or commercial speech would be absolutely pounced upon by the media (yes, the media is good for something), and our bipartisan system would take care of the rest as the parties hate each other so much that they'd never coordinate on a coherent censorship program.

Sinclair Lewis wrote a book called "It Can't Happen Here" about a fascist taking over the US during the 1930s.  While a good reminder that Democracy can be fragile, I really don't think it's going to happen here, despite what Michael Moore would have you believe.

"I think we have enough important issues to deal with in this country (and on this planet) that we should be ashamed to waste a lot of time and effort worrying about whether people swear on the radio. (You can hear worse language walking down any street, in any city, at any time of day). Let's crusade against homelessness, starvation, child abuse, racism, etc., and not worry so much about words that certain people have defined as "bad.""

Can't argue with that except to say that raising a decent, respectful child who progresses steadily toward maturity (which I consider my primary duty in society right now) is very difficult.  A climate where foul language runs rampant on the air waves makes my job harder.  I know lots of people who blast such rules as censorship but then whenever they hear a foul-mouthed little kid curse in public, they quickly blame the parents for raising a brat.  Little things like this can sometimes mean more than you think, and they're a pretty easy fix.

It's not censorship unless it's illegal to say words at all.  Having rules for the public airwaves isn't censorship.  Censorship would be making it illegal for adults to own or listen to explicit material.  

However, I will agree with the fined DJ who said something like hey, I'm willing to obey the law just tell me where the line is.  

During the Eighties I was one of those who was all concerned about stickers and ratings on records, but now it's obvious that all the things we were afraid of then didn't happen....if anything, records with explicit lyrics are as popular, if not more so, than the "clean" stuff.