Help out with the petition to the FCC

[Rockpup]

Ok, unfortunatly this only applies for people in the USA. If you feel the FCC has over-reacted and oversteped their boundries by determining that they alone, not your local comunity, will set the standards for broadcasting PLEASE visit http://www.stopfcc.com and let them know how you feel by signing the petition.

If you disagree with the petition, feel free to express any thoughts you have in responce.

Thanks in advance

Jim

[PJ]

With all due respect to the creator of this thread, for the sake of fairness, I would like to offer a link introducing the official FCC stand on this issue.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.html

With both sides of the argument presented, people can make their own decisions fairly.

If you need more information, search the web using such keywords as "FCC" and "Freedom of Speech".

[Anita C.]

The Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. It was written many, many years ago when people exercised better control. I don't think the authors of the Constitution in their wildest dreams could have even conceived of Howard Stern & his shenanigans! I don't care for Howard Stern and others who hide behind the Constitution in an attempt to be offensive & obscene. Not my idea of talent OR entertainment! Mr. Sterns' "cutsey-poo" attitude regarding his boorish behaviour is sophomoric. Fining him had no effect nor did station sanctions. He was issued a license with certain provisos he chose to blatently disregard. Janet fine was fair, just & necessary. And as for Michael . . . well, don't get me started. Call me a prude if you will but I believe that there are things that are not acceptable to the general public and should not be granted the same access & protection as more "PG" material. As for Howard? Good-bye. I listened to him once . . . that was enough. Yes, one can always change the station. BUT, should minor, impressionable children have access to this crapo when Mom & Dad are elsewhere? I don't think so. Ciao! Anita C.

[Trolldeg]

what happened to "the land of the free"?

[Anita C.]

America is STILL the Land Of The Free & the Home Of The Brave. I believe that Shakespeare once said "Profanity is the rage of an impoverished intelect." Our Founding Fathers couldn't have conceived of radio, TV & the 'net. I don't think that their thoughts in guaranteeing free speech included indecency & profanity OR the likes of Howard Stern, Janet Jackson and the like pushing the innocent concept of freedom of speech & expression to the limits that THEY wish to explore and be still be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Peoples' limits vary and the point when one person says "enough" might well be farther down the road than anothers. We are STILL a Democracy ruled by majority, If, therefore, the MAJORITY is of the belief that someone has abused the privelage of Freedom Of Speech for WHATEVER reason then that person should be restrained and/or punished. Even here on this Forum there are guidelines. Exceed those guidelines and you will be censored. This is as it should be. "The needs of many outweigh the needs of a few". In summary, should I say "F*** you, you F***ing moron!" People would be rightfully appalled. If, on the otherhand, I say "You block-you stone you worth than sensless thing!" It would hit harder & mean more to a larger audience. For the meaning might full well be the same the way I communicated it would be better received in the second example Ciao! Anita C.

[Trolldeg]

so.. it's ok to say what you want as long as you don't say anything that might be the slightest offensive to anyone? exactly what is it about Howard Stern or the JJ superbowl thing that is so dangerous? "what? the land of the free? who ever told you that is your enemy." - Zack de la Rocha

[Bubba136]

Trolldeg, the true test of offensiveness is to test it and see what happens.

[Anita C.]

The actions of HS & JJ aren't dangerous, just offensive/obscene to MOST. And way beyond "slightly". To reiterate: we are a country where we do what is best for the MAJORITY. In the case of Howie & Janet the MAJORITY found their actions offensive & reprehensible. Are Howie & JJ dangerous? Dangerous, no (STUPID? The juries' still out). Were their actions offensive? According to polls in US Today, Reuters' and Neilsen, absolutely. Were they being "picked on"? Don't be niave. The list of Howies' FCC infractions & fines (that Howie never objected to OR fought) often exceeded his salary. What did Howie in was that stations could no longer SELL Howies' airtime. No sponsors-NO SHOW. In Radio & TV only two things matter - RATINGS & REVENUE. Howies' last fiasco proved to be his undoing, he went too far too often. G'bye, Howie. As for JJ . . . what can you say? She went blatently outside FCC rules for nudity. She paid her fine without protest BECAUSE SHE WAS GUILTY AND SHE KNEW IT. As for the star over her nipple . . . c'mon, now, a first year law student could prove to any jury that by covering her nipple the whole incident becomes premeditated because she had made that preparation. Some say to bolster a floundering career. JJ didn't protest-she just wanted the whole thing to go away. Furthermore, because of the "JJ incident" FCC raised the fine for indecent exposure to $500,000. Back to the question posed that you can say what you want as long as long as you don't say anything that might be slightly offensive . . . slightly offensive, yes. Obscene? NO. Locally, there was a crowd of people being interviewed after a sports event live. During the interview on of the interviewees said the "F" word. The TV station was prepared and had police standing by & the foul mouthed little puke was arrested, booked, tried, found guilty & sentenced to 90 days (he couldn't come up with the $5,000.00 fine). He was made an example of and the whole thing was made VERY public. Now people think twice before they speak on TV. And that was the whole point. The MAJORITY of people will agree that Howie has broken the law repeatedly and too often. The MAJORITY of people agree that the whole JJ thing was premeditated and the fine was fair & just. We are a country where the MAJORITY rules. Ciao! Anita C.

[shyguy]

Hi Anita C. Am I right in thinking you are an entertainer? I think I saw you post somewhere here to that effect, if I'm wrong I apologise. But if I am right, would there be some group of people who may find something you do offensive? Maybe not where you are, but somewhere in the world you may be considered to be doing something offensive, would you feel it right if you were censored for it because someone didn't have the same views as you? I view censorship as wrong, don't like something, don't watch, or don't listen or read it. As an adult I have the mind to decide for me what I don't like. There is PORN all over the net, I don't have to view it so I don't, I made that decision, but I don't say no one should be allowed to view it because I don't want to. I feel all media should be the same, if you like it watch/listen/read, if you don't then give it a miss, but don't stop others enjoyment just because it doesn't fit with your morals. I don't even know what Howie said or did, being in the UK, but I believe in his right to say it. Also I find that the "majorities" spoken of in our "free" countries, usually amount to no more than a vocal minority, the majority of people are too apathetic to care, sadly, so the views of a few who shout loud enough get to dictate to the silent majority. Lets face it the world is diverse enough, and getting small enough that at some point everything could be censored because it offends some religion, race, or group.

[Anita C.]

Yes, I am an entertainer. I have always operated under the rule that I never say or do anything onstage that I wouldn't do in front of my Mom. Now in some third world countries they would have a problem with women performing without shroud & veil. The USA is not one of those countries. I leave the cheap stuff (profanity & nudity) for lesser people with either a lack of talent and a lack of decorum. Several entertainers feel the same. George Burns, Celine Dion, Bill Cosby, Tony Bennett, Barbara Streisand, Ella Fitzgerald, Dianna Krall, Frank Sinatra . . . I could go on. These entertainers have all found a way to be entertaining without lowering their standards. You have your opinion & I have mine. You cannot change my position any more than I can change yours. As for censorship, if one cannot express ones' self in a way void of profanity, nudity or obscenity then perhaps one might need to re-evaluate ones' communication skills. Saying "I'm very angry" has just as much impact as "I'm f****** pi**** off". More will listen with the first example. What happened to Howie & JJ was fair & just. I have proven my point. Nothing can change my mind. Ciao, Anita C.

[shyguy]

Saying "I'm very angry" has just as much impact as "I'm f****** pi**** off". More will listen with the first example

If they both mean the same, why is one profanity, and one not?

Because someone says so.

They are all just words, but someone or some group decided that one word for a body part or function is profane, one is ok, why if they describe the same thing?

Hey Anita, I wouldn't ask you to change your opinion, there has to be different views to make the world work correctly, and maintain a balance.

I don't think I am 100% right, I don't think you are 100% wrong, there is as always in any discussion a huge grey area, and I respect your views as a product of your lifetime of experience.

I just think that everything should be available, and people should make decisions for themselves what to watch, read, or listen to. I think it's sad that adults need someone to nanny them to make choices for them.

I also look at censorship as a form of control, if we are censored as to what to read, view or listen to, how can we make informed choices? How much history has been censored to make something good look bad, or vice versa?

If you hadn't seen Howard Stern, and someone told you he was funny, you could now not decide for yourself, because he is censored and has become less accessible.

And I agree there are a lot of funny people who do not resort to profanity, there are some equally funny people who use profanity to enhance what they do. Also bear in mind the good uses to which profanity has been put, the shock factor of Bob Geldof's speech re: Live Aid, caught peoples attention, and his "give us your F---ing money" was a lot more effective than a please donate generously, if that had been censored, Live Aid could have been less successful.

Nothing pesonal Anita, just enoying a good rant on a subject that raises strong emotions in me (censorship)

[PJ]

"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech."

"the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience."

"the Courts have said that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time."

These quotes come directly from the FCC web site at:

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.html

For the government's position on indecent and obscene broadcast material, go to the official FCC site at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

Here is something to think about. Supposing our "founding fathers" got together this year to "update" the Constitution. Do you think there would be many changes or would they leave it as written over 200 years ago?

[Anita C.]

Sorry, I disagree. I support the FCCs rulings because I looked at the entire picture from both perspectives. As long as there is a vocal majority who feel that obscenity & nudity have no place in prime time, things will remain as they are and no amount of campaigning by a minority under the giuse of the first amendment will change it when push comes to shove. All I ask is for all parties to look beyond your own viewpoint. Look at how the majority of the populous feels and acts. "T'would be a simpler world if everybody thought, fealt, reasoned & processed the same . . . they DON'T!". When Howard was removed from many stations it was because his ratings went into the toilet and those stations could no longer sell airspace. The sponsors quit buying airtime for a myriad of reasons. What the bottom line was Howie became unsellable and was dropped by most markets. JJs' actions weren't supported by the majority of the viewing public allowing no forum for redress. She paid the fine because she knew she'd lose BIG in a court of law when this went to a jury. Why did her legal advisors suggest she do this? Because the jury will see this not as an accident but as something that was premeditated. Why? Because she was wearing a star over her nipple and this would be construed and persued by the prosecution as her having knowledge before that the "accident" would lhappen. Otherwise, why did she have the strategically placed star? Johnny Cochran wouldn't have been able to get her off. Pay the fine & learn a lesson. People can and should speak their minds. Nudity can be beautiful. HOWEVER there is a time and a place for everything . . . obviously this wasn't it. All it accomplished was sensationalism and a cheap thrill for a few. In closing I ask all to say if the current limits in place are unreasonable, where do you set them? Do you just say to hell with it & throw the gates open to beastiality, brutality, child molestation, open masturbation and the like? Just say "anything goes"?? You have to draw the line somewhere. Ciao, Anita C.

[shyguy]

You make a valid point about protecting the defenceless like children and animals, but adults do not need protection from tv, film etc. I see a big difference between someone swearing, and someone abusing a child. And as you say a line has to be drawn, but do we really need the line to be pulled back so far. Each time someone gets close to a line the "majority" (in my view the vocal minority) move the line back closer to their standards so as to make it look like the line was crossed. As far as art and nudity, who decides what is art and what is gratuitous nudity? Over the years the "majority" view has moved all over the place on this subject. What was art became filth, and what was filth has been called art. And then changed again. Victorians covered piano legs as to show a leg was considered rude in the extreme, even a wooden one on an inanimate object, aren't you glad that this view changed? Your stories talk of skirts, heels and hose, all would be unacceptable somewhere, because they are acceptable to most Americans, does that make your or their views of decency wrong? Forcing your standards on others is wrong. Majority rule is ok to a point, but humans are pack animals, we follow the herd, individually our views can be different from when we're in a group. Once the group has 2 or 3 vocal "leaders" they can convince the rest of the herd that their views are the same. we don't like to appear different, look at most of the threads here, they are about stigmas of being different by men wearing ladies shoes/clothing. We need to conform, so once an opinion is put forward strongly by a few people, others follow, and your majority appears. How many people here tell individuals about their heels, and find those individuals ok one on one, but once they get in a group they will ridicule that friend who wears womens shoes. That's how vocal minorities can make it seem they are a majority. All our liberties are being eroded in the name of decency. But who decides what is decent? In closing, protect the innocent, and defenceless like children, animals etc. But please let the thinking, reasoning adults decide for themselves what to see. There is an off button, if your tv disturbs you, or 57 other channels to entertain you in a way more to your liking. Someone else may be enjoying what you find so tasteless. Some things are rightly taboo, but JJ showing a star on her boob, is that really so bad?? There are much more important things to get worked up about. And just who are you protecting from what there?

[Anita C.]

I remember the hubub created when the Maplethorpe photo exhibit received funds from the public arts endowment. You had to go somewhere & see the exhibit. People who went knew full well what they were in for. TV is different. Was JJs' boob that big of a thing? Yes & no depending whom you talk to. You have hit the nail on the head when you said forcing your standards upon others is wrong! Absolutely! But isn't that what is taking place here on both sides of the arguement? Why should some be forced to view what they deem obscene so others who aren't offended can? A slippery slope indeed! I stand unyeilding. My opinion is unchanged. VSY, Anita C.

[shyguy]

Why should some be forced to view what they deem obscene so others who aren't offended can? A slippery slope indeed!

No one's forcing anyone to watch anything, just giving the people who may want to the opportunity to.

Anita C. you are a brilliant debater, and we could go on all year but I'll agree to disagree, we both have valid points, and it seems a stubborn attitude to our own views.

I thank you for your reasoned and civilised comments on this, you have made me use my brain tonight.

I propose a draw?

[WarrenB]

Janet Jackson's breast exposure became the straw that broke the camel's back. Most people in this country are sick of the garbage on the airwaves. Pay TV, that's different. I support the FCC's actions to clean up the airwaves. Those laws have been around for years but recently haven't been enforced. NOw they will be.

[azraelle]

A $500,000 fine for uttering the F word on the air is excessive, and probably unconstitutional--it would, indeed, be both "cruel and unusual punishment" for someone who makes $150 a week as a part time disk jockey, or for that matter someone who makes as much as JJ or "Howie". On that note alone, I will sign the petition. Local governments SHOULD have power over what they consider to be indecent or not, but for the anti-censorship gurus here it may very well backfire in their faces--most local governments, with the exception of the likes of San Francisco, tend to be MORE restrictive on obscenity, not less.

[Bubba136]

Shyguy, you're flat out wrong!

[shyguy]

Bubba136 says:

Shyguy, you're flat out wrong!

wow Bubba, with that well put argument I am totally floored, you have changed my views completely .

most local governments, with the exception of the likes of San Francisco, tend to be MORE restrictive on obscenity, not less.

So which will be the first local government with enough of a vocal minority to ban those "sick individuals" who crossdress from doing their thing ? Or even those women dressing provocatively in stiletto heels?

Get enough Muslims in your state, shouting loud enough, and our Anita is wearing a full length gown, flat shoes and a bhurka to cover her face, now that's censorship for you.

BTW, how long can America be the "land of the free" when peoples right to express themselves is being watered down?

I believe censorship has its place but too many minorities use it as a stick to beat down people with differing views.

[Anita C.]

The $500,000.00 fine was imposed AFTER the JJ incident and was for JJs' flash on nationwide TV. NOT for local radio jocks who use the "F" word. Should a DJ utter the "F" word his FCC license would likely be pulled and sanctions would be brought against the radio station. I still feel what was done was fair and just. Again, I ask all to look at BOTH sides of the arguement objectively before deciding. Like George Burns said in "Oh, My GOD" "You can't have heads without tails, happy without sad and good without bad." The first thing they teach in law school is to view the other persons' arguement completely and objectively. In Howies' case there are pages upon pages of well documented violations. Obviously, Howie takes a rather cavalier attitude regarding the FCC rules. Now he has to pay these fines HIMSELF-the radio station ain't gonna do it anymore! With JJ . . . the view in the legal community is that the "accident" was premeditated. The evidence of her having a star over her nipple is the key here. WHY else would she have done it?? This is why she paid the fine (a mere $50,000.00 for the record. The fine was raised to $500K AFTER the "incident".) and wants this whole episode to just go away. As yet I have heard no arguement that would make me change my mind. Ciao! Anita C.

[Rockpup]

I also dislike HS and JJ.. guess what? HS is still on in my city, and I still don't listen. I prefer other radio shows. I also don't plan to buy any albums by any Jackson.. but thats my -choise-. The majority is never vocal. The 0.1% who get whipped up enough to open their mouths make enough noise to convince everyone else they are 'the majority'. 30% of eligible voters in this country actually vote, which is sad considering all those who fell in the name of freedom. I do not belive it is the governments job to 'protect' us from anything we may find offencive. Economics can do that. If the majority of people didnt listen to shock-jocks they wouldnt have a job. Make it local. If you do not like a radio show and find it offencive write to your local radio station and let them know that your area will not support it. Get thousands of signatures on a petition, that will get their attention. The constitution was written giving the Fed Govt limited power for a very specific reason. It is the state/local authority's job to determine what is best for their own citizens. Gotta stop, off to work now. Glad to see the discussion going, keep it civilized though Jim

[Bubba136]

Shyguy, I wasn't trying to change your mind. You insist on compairing apples with oranges. There's no connection between using obscene language on public airways and crossdressing.

[shyguy]

the connection is the censorship, it starts with banning swearing dj's or popstars showing their body parts, but when some smallminded group gets vocal enough and they believe crossdressing is wrong, they will "protect" others from seeing crossdressers by censoring them, and fining them.

I just found your post odd nestled inside an intelligent debate, to just say "you're wrong" no explanation, no backing up your statement. Just

Shyguy, you're flat out wrong!

Thanks Jim c. you back up my argument on the "majority" issue when you say

The majority is never vocal. The 0.1% who get whipped up enough to open their mouths make enough noise to convince everyone else they are 'the majority'.

A more direct way of putting what I was trying to say about the "majority" who push their views on others

[Trolldeg]

We are a country where the MAJORITY rules.

No, the US is a country where the rich rule. You can't be president without obscene amounts of cash. Where does that come from? From people who'd like the favour returned when the election is over.

Who maintans that F--- is an obscene word?

Who says that showing a naked breast on national TV is indecent?

In the US, the religious right, who are, I'm guessing, not in majority, but they probably shout the loudest.

It is totally allowed to say f~ck on swedish TV/radio, and it is totally allowed to be as naked as you wish, and can you imagine? We're not a country in a state of total moral decay, and I can bet my whole shoe closet that young people here don't swear more than kids in America.

[Rockpup]

What? Language has yet to corrupt the Sweeds? My oh My? What are we to do?

[Bubba136]

Shyguy, like I said, I wasn’t trying to change your mind. When I said you were wrong, I didn't mean your opinion was wrong. Your opinion is fine. I meant your entire premise is wrong. Besides there are already enough people here debating this issue with you. The point has already been made that the moderators of this forum practice censorship. Members and guest frequenting this forum are not free to say anything they feel like saying -- especially obscene remarks or derogatory behavior. No matter how much you think that holding someone accountable for their actions is censorship, it isn't. It’s about maintaining a level of decency established by the majority of the people in our community. What you or any of your broadcast personalities do or say on your country's radio and TV stations, really doesn't interest me. However, I am interest in what my children and grandchildren are exposed to. Sweden and the U.K are far more sophisticated than the U.S. will ever be. One good thing for people living in the UK like you, Shyguy, or in Sweden, like Trolldeg -- or in France or Germany and/or any other country for that matter -- that do not like the United States, our government or way of life, is that they never have to set foot on our shores. However, this is our country and our laws are made and enforced by people living here. If the citizens decide the laws no longer reflect the mindset of the majority, they can vote to change them (Just watch what happens to our abortion laws in the next few years). You, Shyguy and Trolldeg, don't have any say in this matter – simply because you aren't citizens of this nation. If you don't like our laws, just be sure you never set foot in this country. Because as soon as you do, you are subject to them. And, should you practice what you believe is your legal right under the laws of your native land -- that aren't viewed and practiced the same way here -- you will quickly learn that we don't make allowances for foreigners. And, having visited both Sweden and the U.K many, many times over the last 40 years -- and having lived in Belgium for a number of years when I was a young boy, I know for a fact that while I was within your country's sovereign boundaries I was accountable to obeying your laws regardless of how much I disagree with them or how asinine I might think them to be.

[shyguy]

Thank you for the clarification Bubba136, I knew you weren't trying to change my mind already, or your first post would try to convince me through reasoning

Secondly I have no problems with the censorship here on this forum as it is obvious from posts from most members that it is a TRUE MAJORITY who want no porn here (myself included) another point I make is that as adults we can choose what we want to see read and hear, if I wanted more porn style or fetish shoe discussion I could go elsewhere on the net to get it, I don't so here I am MY CHOICE, and I therefore live within the rules of the forums here, hopefully not offending anyone ??. But as I say in my posts the "majorities" quoted in the issues bought up in this thread are not truly majorities, rather, vocal minorities.

I have no wish to change laws anywhere in the world, especially the US, I feel very strongly about the issues of foreigners changing laws. We have to put up with a lot of it in the UK as immigrants come here, make their home in the UK and then try to change things to be more like where they came from. I also respect the US way of life, even as far as I would move there if the opportunity arose. And fyi I am a very law abiding citizen, not even a traffic violation to my name here. As for the UK hating the US, most of the people I speak to support the US even when it is running round the world trying to force its ideals on other countries. If we listened to a vocal minority here, we would cut our ties instantly with the US but luckily for us all we don't.

I am interest in what my children and grandchildren are exposed to

I also have children, and I have stated we need to protect their innocence, but again it is up to adults to decide what they want their kids to see. I protect my children from things in a way others may find excessive, but it is my choice, when they are adults I hope my children will not need someone else to tell them what is right or wrong, they also should be allowed to decide for themselves as adults what to watch, hear or read.

The only points I make is that most majorities are minorities who shout loudest. Censorship led by these minorities can spiral to ridiculous proportions. Anita said a line must be drawn, and she is right, but it also needs to be firm enough to stop over sensitive minorities censoring everything adults may do. Adults should be able to choose their own level of censorship, I censor myself, I don't like porn I don't go where it will be found, shouldn't others just let me make that choice?

Shouldn't others just make their own censorships?

I think a joke I have heard in relation to censorship sums up the mentality of the actual majorities.

"It was so disgusting I had to watch it 3 times to believe my eyes before I complained"

[Bubba136]

I'll say it again, Shyguy -- You're wrong! Nuff Said!

[Firefox]

Anita C. wrote:

We are a country where the MAJORITY rules.

That's strange, I was under the impression more people nationally voted for Gore than they did for Bush.