• 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

FCC Has No Issue With David Ortiz’s Pregame Speech

He may be the Chairman, but he's still only one of five votes. If the other Commissioners disagree, it could result in a fine.

This is why the Supreme Court views the FCC obsenity policy as "capricious." You can't pick and choose when to enforce the law.
 
FCC much more concerned with programming content than some vulgar ad-lib seen as a one-time thing.

The RS probably won't learn anything but maybe they should put a script in someone's hand that doesn't really have a sense of what's out of line?
 
If the FCC only concerned themselves with over-the-air then why the issue w/Nipplegate at the Superbowl? I believe they deal with radio and television. I think we're way too uptight on this issue. I used to hear this kind of language on German pop radio when I was stationed there, and they seem to be surviving the use of a few bad words on air, or in music.
 
Blackroc said:
FCC much more concerned with programming content than some vulgar ad-lib seen as a one-time thing.
Click to expand...

Nope...the FCC is VERY concerned about vulgar ad-libs. They call them "fleeting expletives." They have fined numerous radio and TV stations for similar adlib comments, as when U2's Bono used the f-word when accepting an award.
 
"Fleeting expletive" fines landed the FCC in the SCOTUS, and the court threw out the fines and slapped Uncle Charlie's hoohoo over it.
 
Occasionally something can get through; on Mon night they brought in Kuhner at 7 pm on
WRKO and I heard a woman describe the bombers as "sick f---s" only it wasn't bleeped...
Kuhner didn't hear it.
 
Exactly right, the fleeting expletives rule was thrown out by the Supreme Court. The FCC plays with OTA radio and OTA TV... not cable networks like NESN. If some listener really wanted to complain to the FCC about a one-time expletive during a passionate speech about freedom, whatever.
 
they just showed Papi's speech again and had that line but with the f-bomb bleeped out. Anyone who gets offended by a 7 letter words needs to get a bleeping life and put things in perspective after what this city dealt with all week.
 
Even still, if enough listener complaints were filed for a licensed FCC station that ran the Red Sox broadcast, they would at least have to look into it. Don't forget Genachowski is only one on a board of several. I know some people that were indeed offended on account of young children in the car. I don't think anything will come of it, I don't think anything should come of it, but this is the risk you take when you rely on a program provider (Entercom) for live-without-a-net programming. In any case, David Ortiz himself wouldn't catch the fallout, but the little AM in St Johnsbury or St Albans would if those were the stations on which the complaint(s) were filed. And the offended listener does not care, as long as someone is held accountable.
 
BenKarlow said:
In any case, David Ortiz himself wouldn't catch the fallout, but the little AM in St Johnsbury or St Albans would if those were the stations on which the complaint(s) were filed.
Click to expand...

Right there is the big problem I have with the "fleeting expletives" rule: The actual offender gets away clean, but the stations (or networks) are stuck holding the bag and get punished.
 
The government is going to give Papi a pass. It's the message they want sent out to the world after last week..."This is our f$&@ing city". Implicit in that is "and we will do to you what we did to these guys."

Papi's more valuable than Secretary of State Kerry for a few days.

But the government gains nothing from Bono or Cher saying "f$&@ yeah!" when they win an award or from Janet Jackson exposing body parts.

If Cher married Bono, would she be Cher Bono Allman Bono?
 
michael hagerty said:
The government is going to give Papi a pass. It's the message they want sent out to the world after last week..."This is our f$&@ing city". Implicit in that is "and we will do to you what we did to these guys."
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, Papi isn't the one who broadcast the indecency. The stations are. So they would have to excuse a licensee. In doing so, they will be agreeing with the Supreme Court, who called their policy "capricious."
 
TheBigA said:
michael hagerty said:
The government is going to give Papi a pass. It's the message they want sent out to the world after last week..."This is our f$&@ing city". Implicit in that is "and we will do to you what we did to these guys."
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. First of all, Papi isn't the one who broadcast the indecency. The stations are. So they would have to excuse a licensee. In doing so, they will be agreeing with the Supreme Court, who called their policy "capricious."
Click to expand...

Good point. But they can't appeal the Supreme Court decision, so maybe agreeing with it is the right move anyway.

By the way, what happened to the 6 to 11 second delay we all went to, supposedly permanently, following 9/11?
 
michael hagerty said:
If Cher married Bono, would she be Cher Bono Allman Bono?
Click to expand...

And if she were to get a law degree and pass the Bar, would she work pro bono? And would she still be working pro bono after the divorce, or would her practice then become anti bono?

Actually, Bono's stage surname is Vox, which spoils the whole thing...
 
michael hagerty said:
Good point. But they can't appeal the Supreme Court decision, so maybe agreeing with it is the right move anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreeing with the Court's view throws out the concept of regulating indecency, and it's pretty clear that's not what they want to do.

They are currently gathering public comments on a revised indecency policy. Looking a blind eye at the F word isn't a good sign to send.
 
California based media satirists Negativland put out a single spoofing U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" complete with Casey Kasem outtakes, etc. They were sued by U2's label Island
records, etc. At one point speaking about their case in the copyright infringement lawsuit,
member Mark Hosler spoke to a live audience and got some laughs when he said they were looking into free-for-them legal representation, "which is oddly enough called pro-bono..." (as in the stage
name of one Paul Hewson, aka U2's Bono Vox)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_(EP)
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom