• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Can Of Worms?

Xenophobe

Xenophobe

Concerning the tweet that said the FCC Chairman "approved" the David Ortiz Boston speech, Did the FCC just open up a can and make it interesting for future incidents? If I "speak from the heart" (as the Chairman said) and punctuate it with a "----ing" expletive, will it be overlooked? I understand passion, but this intrigues me to no end. Can it now be argued, with this precedence in Boston? Comments, anyone?
 
Is the precedent, that if you have a generally responsible public figure who knows they're on TV and doesn't have a past record of foul language, and something slips out, that we won't hit you with a punitive fine? I think both the industry and the public would embrace that precedent.


What is, all told, best for the public interest?

Fact is, many many many Americans use this kind of language every day. Every adult has heard it, as have the vast majority of children.

If we prosecute for allowing this to get through to air, we require every broadcast involving personnel not working for the station to be broadcast on delay. Do not underestimate the cost of a broadcast delay for television. More importantly, don't underestimate the cost of paying for a warm body to watch every remote with their finger on the dump button.

In the end it'd probably be cheaper to air the remote live & pay the fine.. or, to simply stop doing live broadcasts & put everything on tape.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the comment was carried on a cable television. The FCC does not have jurisdiction over the content of those channels because they are not freely available to the public over the air. At least in theory, you have to pay and/or have special equipment in order to receive these channels. Technically, while it would certainly not be something I would like to see, a cable channel could air all the profanity and pornography they want and there wouldn't be a thing anyone could do about it other than change the channel.
 
jo-nathan said:
If I'm not mistaken, the comment was carried on a cable television.
Click to expand...

Also on the Red Sox radio network.

A tweet by the FCC Chairman doesn't constitute a ruling the by the FCC. He doesn't have that much power.

But yes, this is what the Supreme Court meant by "capricious."
 
"Fact is, many many many Americans use this kind of language every day. Every adult has heard it, as have the vast majority of children." No, they don't. The vast majority of children use the F word? Wow.

People use the potty and do other things in private that don't need to be aired. What about nazi propaganda? Free speech. What about hardcore gay porn? Free speech! Heck, go all the way why not?

I'm suspect as to the agenda. It's not about the 1st amendment anymore, it's about promoting a "live and let live" sort of attitude.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom