Ass: more is not better

[infrequency]

In my listening to WRKO and WEEI, I detect a determination on the part of most hosts and a great many callers to work the word "ass" into every conversation as much as possible. I am reminded in hearing it of when a child is told not to say "pee-pee," and the result is a torrent of "pee-pee's" accompanied by delighted tittering until at last the child gets bored with it. Rather than getting bored with it, these stations seem to be stepping it up.

And in the news today, I see that the FCC is proposing a fine on ABC for the "patently offensive" showing, evidently "multiple, close-up views" of a woman's "nude buttocks" on NYPD Blue. In response, the network said that the "buttocks are not a sexual organ."

In both cases, I would imagine that at one point a rule was liberalized to reflect a lowered standard. The result is a childish fixation on, in this case, posteriors.

As to the radio side, am I the only one who finds the incessant repetition of "ass" annoying and childish?

 

[Tibbs4]

The only thing that is offensive are the clowns at the FCC. Surely, when the country is really in trouble,
our government officials will not even then realize we imploded on ourselves by their stupid Un-American
big government controls and manipulation through fines to force their dictatorship upon all of us. They
spend millions doing nothing except growing their business at taxpayers dollars. If anything, the FCC is
the real @ss and we are the butt of their joke. Sad state of affairs. We have real issues to worry about,
not childish parental supervision from our government. Children being neglected, abused and harmed gets
less attention than Janet Jackson and NYPD Blue's parade of butts!

 

[argytunes]

Has anybody seriously considered REPEAL OF THE FCC?

The agency often does more harm than good...especially when it comes to getting a license renewal or a designated frequency! :-[

argytunes

 

[infrequency]

As to children being neglected, abused and harmed, the FCC has no jurisdiction over it. I would hope that the government authorities that do have that jurisdiction are doing their job. However, even if they are not, that is not a reason for the FCC to stop doing their job, which is control of the material that is broadcast. As a listener, I would like to see more control, not less.

 

[bjohns]

As a listener, I would like to see more control, not less.

Why? Can't you control your own radio? Doesn't it have, like, knobs and stuff? Maybe even an off/on button and some sort of tuning device allowing you to change stations?

Or does the FCC control that for you too?

 

[NHRonin]

Consider this: no where in the Constitution does it give the federal government the right to determine what is and isn't "decent."

The FCC is violating the Constitution by doing so.

 

[infrequency]

The AM band is made up of stations using public airways, so the public's representatives, the government, has every right to regulate their use.

As to changing the channel, my post was not about a Howard Stern-type show, but news and sports shows. Why must the news station be PG-13? The public has the right to expect the use of its airways for the dissemination and discussion of current affairs, and without objectionable language. That a society might be informed - and informed for free - is a far more important First Amendment consideration than the right of some fat slob to say "ass" on my radio.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The AM band is made up of stations using public airways, so the public's representatives, the government, has every right to regulate their use.

No, they do not. There's this pesky little thing called the First Amendment that prohibits government from regulating speech. There's also this other pesky little thing called Section 326 of the Communications Act (the law that created the FCC in 1934) that prohibits the FCC from engaging in censorship.

The FCC's charter, found in Section 1 of the Communications Act, says a lot of things...but nowhere in the Act or anywhere else in any other US law does it say that the FCC has any power to force someone's...ANYone's...morality or sense of decency on anyone else.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

As to children being neglected, abused and harmed, the FCC has no jurisdiction over it. I would hope that the government authorities that do have that jurisdiction are doing their job. However, even if they are not, that is not a reason for the FCC to stop doing their job, which is control of the material that is broadcast. As a listener, I would like to see more control, not less.

If you're so in love with the idea of government control of what you are allowed to see and hear, go live in a place like that. Mainland China, Saudi Arabia, Albania and Myanmar come to mind. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

The only thing that is offensive are the clowns at the FCC...Children being neglected, abused and harmed gets
less attention than Janet Jackson and NYPD Blue's parade of butts!

Amen, brother. However, as long as the FCC is run by political appointees with (presumably) the same agendas as those who appointed them, it's not going to change.

I myself would like to see one...JUST one...shred of evidence which demonstrates any palpable harm to listeners or viewers who see the errant bared breast or naked butt...issues which cost broadcasting companies millions of dollars. Further, I'd like to see the actual number of complainants (note I didn't says "complaints") whose "outrage" the FCC takes into account in levying these millions of dollars in fines. I'd be willing to bet with anyone that the numbers are so tiny as to be inconsequential...and yet those people's moral outlooks are permitted to determine what the rest of us can see and hear. Who gave them that power? I don't recall delegating any such power to James Dobson, Donald Wildmon or anyone else.

 

[infrequency]

There is no question that the government has the authority to regulate broadcast content:

"18 U.S.C. § 1464. Broadcasting obscene language:
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

And the First Amendment is not read to "prohibit the government from regulating speech." There are countless examples of ways in which speech alone could break the law - harassing conduct, hateful speech, threats, etc. So the question is not whether to draw a line, the question is where to draw it.

In my opinion, the line needs to be drawn so that civil discourse about current events can be conducted, as was contemplated by those who wrote the First Amendment. And in my opinion, civil discourse should not contain the boorish language I noted, so that the conversation need not exclude anyone.

 

[Tibbs4]

As to children being neglected, abused and harmed, the FCC has no jurisdiction over it. I would hope that the government authorities that do have that jurisdiction are doing their job. However, even if they are not, that is not a reason for the FCC to stop doing their job, which is control of the material that is broadcast. As a listener, I would like to see more control, not less.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at what you are saying. I think you should not be allowed to say what you just said. So I complain to the FCC and you can't.
YOU live in America. It's about freedom. I understand you or I cannot scream "fire" and understand the filfty-free nature you may prefer,
like most of us. It should be a matter of business ethics NOT government intervention. You are on a slippert slope. But, look at the
bright side...you're going to love it when only the government get to speak freely.

Additionally:

Infrequency --You said:" As to changing the channel, my post was not about a Howard Stern-type show, but news and sports shows. Why must the news station be PG-13? The public has the right to expect the use of its airways for the dissemination and discussion of current affairs, and without objectionable language. That a society might be informed - and informed for free - is a far more important First Amendment consideration than the right of some fat slob to say "---" on my radio. " (I censored this to make you feel better)

YOU NEED TO BE FINED BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS A PUBLIC DOMAINE. RI IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS USING THE MEDIA...READ A FEW RULES ABOUT
THAT. YOU'LL HAVE TWO YEARS IN JAIL. MEANWHILE, SOME CHILD IS MISSING FROM THEIR TAXPAYING PARENT AND THE GOV'T IS TO INEPT AND
FULL OF BURACRAPS TO DO ANYTHING REASONABLY COMPENTENT TO SAVE MOST OF THESE POOR VICTIMS.

OH, AND THAT TERM FAT SLOB YOU USED IS OFFENSIVE TO ME AND PROBABLY ALOT OF OTHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH BELIEVERS WHO DON'T
APPRECIATE YOUR INCONSIDERATE AND CALIOUS INSULT OF PEOPLE OF WEIGHT (WHICH IS PROBABLY THE FAULT OF THE AIRWAVES RUNNING
OFFENSIVE FAST FOOD ADS....WHICH SHOULD PROBABLY BE BANNED ACCORDING TO YOUR THEORY. PLEASE APOLOGIZE.

My comment about the FCC is that the extreme waste of MY and YOUR tax money can be spent better for more important issues.
Perhaps some of the $72M could have been spent better.

 

[Tibbs4]

And I apologize for the spelling errors , I missed the time to modify them:

Look at what you are saying. I think you should not be allowed to say what you just said. So I complain to the FCC and you can't.
YOU live in America. It's about freedom. I understand you or I cannot scream "fire" and understand the filthy-free nature you may prefer, like most of us. It should be a matter of business ethics NOT government intervention. You are on a slippery slope. But, look at the bright side...you're going to love it when only the government gets to speak free.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

There is no question that the government has the authority to regulate broadcast content:

"18 U.S.C. § 1464. Broadcasting obscene language:
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

And the First Amendment is not read to "prohibit the government from regulating speech." There are countless examples of ways in which speech alone could break the law - harassing conduct, hateful speech, threats, etc. So the question is not whether to draw a line, the question is where to draw it.

In my opinion, the line needs to be drawn so that civil discourse about current events can be conducted, as was contemplated by those who wrote the First Amendment. And in my opinion, civil discourse should not contain the boorish language I noted, so that the conversation need not exclude anyone.

18 USC §1464 has already been rendered partially moot by the courts, which ruled that indecency is protected speech under the First Amendment.

As for the First Amendment itself, what part of it do you not understand? "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The reason why we don't see more laws against harassment, hate speech or threats is because such laws, which punish speech and not actions, have repeatedly been ruled to be unconstitutional in the courts.

 

[Middy Weston]

I prefer "turd cutter", "fart box", or "poop chute"...but that's just me.

 

[SonicOverload]

It SUCKS and it STINKS... I remember Teddy Sarandis wouldn't allow those kinds of words on his show.

 

[NHRadio]

The AM band is made up of stations using public airways, so the public's representatives, the government, has every right to regulate their use.

Radio stations use the public "airways" but what you've said turns free speech on its head. Stations operate (theoretically) in "the public interest". One way to do that is to broadcast news. BUT there is no law that says the news(or anything else) must be broadcast in a way that offends no one.


As to changing the channel, my post was not about a Howard Stern-type show, but news and sports shows. Why must the news station be PG-13? The public has the right to expect the use of its airways for the dissemination and discussion of current affairs, and without objectionable language.

NO IT DOESN'T. There is no Constitutional right to not be offended. The news is "Pg 13" as you put it, because THATS WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS. Sorry you don't like it. Try another station.

That a society might be informed - and informed for free - is a far more important First Amendment consideration than the right of some fat slob to say "ass" on my radio.

If you truly feel that way, what I think you mean is, in essence, "you can say anything you want under the 1st Amendment until I don't like it. Then the hell with free speech." TRULY free speech means EVERYONE has it...not just the people you agree with. Even you.

How about a little tolerance, huh? There are lots of things on TV I don't like...I just don't watch them. What happened to live and let live?

 

[NHRonin]

The only thing that is offensive are the clowns at the FCC...Children being neglected, abused and harmed gets
less attention than Janet Jackson and NYPD Blue's parade of butts!

Amen, brother. However, as long as the FCC is run by political appointees with (presumably) the same agendas as those who appointed them, it's not going to change.

I myself would like to see one...JUST one...shred of evidence which demonstrates any palpable harm to listeners or viewers who see the errant bared breast or naked butt...issues which cost broadcasting companies millions of dollars. Further, I'd like to see the actual number of complainants (note I didn't says "complaints") whose "outrage" the FCC takes into account in levying these millions of dollars in fines. I'd be willing to bet with anyone that the numbers are so tiny as to be inconsequential...and yet those people's moral outlooks are permitted to determine what the rest of us can see and hear. Who gave them that power? I don't recall delegating any such power to James Dobson, Donald Wildmon or anyone else.

As much as I love our country and have made personal sacrifices to protect our Constitutional rights, we have it ass backwards in America. We allow our kids to see a head blown off and all other manner of violent acts, but God forbid they see a nude breast or buttock even in a non-sexual way.

The FCC violates it's own charter and no one bats an eye. I wonder why the networks and radio stations tolerate it.

 

[NHRonin]

There is no question that the government has the authority to regulate broadcast content:

"18 U.S.C. § 1464. Broadcasting obscene language:
Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

And the First Amendment is not read to "prohibit the government from regulating speech." There are countless examples of ways in which speech alone could break the law - harassing conduct, hateful speech, threats, etc. So the question is not whether to draw a line, the question is where to draw it.

In my opinion, the line needs to be drawn so that civil discourse about current events can be conducted, as was contemplated by those who wrote the First Amendment. And in my opinion, civil discourse should not contain the boorish language I noted, so that the conversation need not exclude anyone.

There is plenty of question. Just because Congress passes a law doesn't mean that it's not violating the Constitution. We the people are just too stupid and lazy to fight back for fear of missing today's soap opera episode or football game.

 

[infrequency]

The constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 has been challenged several times, and it has been upheld each time. As I said, there is no doubt the government has the authority to regulate the offensiveness - not the content - of the speech over the public airwaves.

And, again, I wish they would no more, not less. Regulation of the language used in communicating ideas in public has been held as not infringing on free speech. You are still free to stand in the middle of Copley Square and demand anarchy. You are not free to demand anarchy in Copley Square in expletive-filled language. Radio speech is subject to more restriction than Copley Square speech, not less, because of the fact that the radio stations are custodians of the public's airwaves. That comes with conditions.

To those who would tell me that this is not a big deal, I would agree. It's not a big deal to leave the words out either. Omitting only a few words from the repertoire would not make the coherent talkers incoherent. Were it my business decison, I would opt for the less offensive.

And I know it's not my decison, and I can see what WRKO and WEEI have opted for. However, and this was the point of my original post, why the effort to overwhelm the air with these words? Most of them sound like schoolchildren with mom or dad out of the house, running their tiresome potty mouths. It hardly makes one not already inclined to agree with them to want to buy into their viewpoint, and I can't believe it would enhance the entertainment for anyone but a thirteen year old.