F-Bomb Ban Overturned....

AZKJ · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:50 pm

F-bombs away!!

A Federal Court in New York overturns the FCC ban of using the F word on network TV. While I'm no prude, this country is really losing it. There is a place for everything, but the F-Bomb on our public airways is not one of them.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postte ... decen.html

Coliniksi · **Joined:** Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:49 am **Posts:** 242

every time i hear somthing like this it feels like we are moving closer and closer to the movie Idiocracy, while im not a prude either when these things a happen i do feel uneasy. the public tv network is no place for the F-bomb

ihatemybike · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:30 pm

Sorry, can't help myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-xKUU5sWS4

STINGN · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:45 pm

ihatemybike wrote:

Sorry, can't help myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-xKUU5sWS4

is it sad that i know every word to that movie...probably my favorite movie of all time :roll:

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:24 pm

will it be overturned on LOST?

Combat Truck Monkey · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:29 pm

reminds me of my reaction to my wife when I was up in Canuckistan on mid-tour leave. Late at night, the Canadian radio stations are allowed to play "un-editted" songs. I looked at my wife and asked her what the F did I just hear on the radio! I really don't think we need it, I say/hear it enough at work anyway! :ROTFL:

BVCRD · **Posted:** Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:51 pm

JL Rockies wrote:

will it be overturned on LOST?

Fu** No!

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:50 am

I approve of this. Don't like it. Turn away.

Don't want your kids to hear it? Be a parent.

I see no point in the government trying to step in and be the nanny's of our culture.

I'm also for the right to bear arms and that its a personal choice to be lame or not wear a seatbelt(though your a total f-in moron if you don't wear your seatbelt).

InCommando · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:51 am

Sir Sam wrote:

I approve of this. Don't like it. Turn away.

Don't want your kids to hear it? Be a parent.

I see no point in the government trying to step in and be the nanny's of our culture.

I'm also for the right to bear arms and that its a personal choice to be lame or not wear a seatbelt(though your a total f-in moron if you don't wear your seatbelt).

Let me guess...you don't have kids? :roll:

There should be "safe haven" for broadcast TV as, this may be tough to follow, THAT WAS THE DEAL FROM THE BEGINNING. Perhaps restrictions during certain hours, well publicized, should remain; but not open season on some dim-wit Beavis fan sneaking a f-bomb into Barney for the shock value is stupid and niave.

Again, this is a tough concept, so pay attention: Broadcast TV is available to everyone and has open exposure. Pay TV can set their own rules as people voluntarily subject themselves to it. You cannot stop broadcast TV from being receivable in your home but you can stop pay tv. Easily.

You can spot someone who is not a parent (even if through a chemical reaction they reproduced), and who may still live at home being parented themselves, as soon as you read something like a blanket "be a parent." Idealism increases proportionally with your distance from a problem.

501 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:19 am

Why not? They curse all day long on network TV. More and more every show is talking about sex, so why not the F-bomb. So what difference will the F-bomb be? They bleep out Bull-s... but they use GD and the B word like they are common, every day words. So why not un-censor them all.

KJWildman · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:50 am

"The battle over indecency in broadcast began when in 1972 comedian George Carlin began to broadcast his 7 Dirty Words stand-up routine." I remember this and it was a BIG deal then. "The FCC issued a complaint against a Pacifica radio station for airing the routine in 1973, an order the radio station fought all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court eventually ruled in favor of the FCC." This Supreme court ruling still stands today, even with this new ruling. "A federal appeals court on Tuesday knocked down the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy, saying that the agency's guidelines for "fleeting expletives and other indecencies in broadcast "were vague and violated the First Amendment." Not the original ruling on the " 7 dirty words"

The airwaves are a public venue. Our society, in its attempts to remain civilized, restricts what may happen in public. In keeping with the First Amendment the restrictions are fairly minimal. For public safety, one may not shout, "Fire," in a crowded movie house; for national security, one may not post military secrets in the newspaper; and in every society in history, there have been standards of decency. Those who suppose the First Amendment provides them an absolute right to shock their neighbors with indecent and obscene words and behavior are simply mistaken, remarkably rude, and for the damage they cause in the long term, dangerous.

If it's true that the standards we set are unclear, that's another question. But there are a finite number of expletives, and while some of us don't know what all of them are, there is broad agreement on the subject. Is there really a question about what a "single, nonliteral use of an expletive" is? I don't think so. There just happen to be judges who no longer wish to enforce the norm of decency. This is their excuse. The mire in which our decadent civilization wallows grows deeper by the decision.

InCommando · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:23 pm

Nicely put, Wildman.

The decline in our society is, IMHO, being hastened by certain factions to serve their own interests. History has shown repeatedly that the fall of civilized society is a precursor to the fall of the society as a whole...

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:39 pm

InCommando wrote:

Perhaps restrictions during certain hours, well publicized, should remain; but not open season on some dim-wit Beavis fan sneaking a f-bomb into Barney for the shock value is stupid and niave.s

I think restrictions during certain hours are reasonable, but come 10pm they better be over. Also, do you really think barney is going to go around dropping f-bombs at 7am saturday?

InCommando wrote:

Again, this is a tough concept, so pay attention:

Oh I'm paying attention, and I'm seeing someone who would rather trash talk and intentionally try to get a rise out of someone than have a rational discussion. This is in keeping with your personality, so it's not really unexpected.

InCommando wrote:

Broadcast TV is available to everyone and has open exposure.

Ya, and by the same definition so does the internet. Should be censor the internet like China does?

Weldnfab · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:27 pm

I know I use the word, probably way too much for some, and not enough for others.... most of my co-workers and friends do also..... You can always retreat from the conversation if you don't care to hear what is said..... just as You can always turn the channel if you don't like what is being broadcast..... we are very carefull not to use too much expletives around our nieces... 6 mo and 4 years.... although they probably hear worse at the stores and school?...
that being said..... I really hope they don't permit its rampant use on tv..... maybe after hours?... I don't know..... the use of this word is considered sexual harrassment at work, doesn't even have to be in mixed company... you have to be very carefull, if anyone takes exception to your use of it?.... it is grounds for reprimand, maybe even dismissal.

is this double standards?... possible.

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:47 pm

Don't feed the statist troll.

InCommando · **Posted:** Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:16 am

Sir Sam wrote:

InCommando wrote:

Perhaps restrictions during certain hours, well publicized, should remain; but not open season on some dim-wit Beavis fan sneaking a f-bomb into Barney for the shock value is stupid and niave.s

I think restrictions during certain hours are reasonable, but come 10pm they better be over. Also, do you really think barney is going to go around dropping f-bombs at 7am saturday?

InCommando wrote:

Again, this is a tough concept, so pay attention:

Oh I'm paying attention, and I'm seeing someone who would rather trash talk and intentionally try to get a rise out of someone than have a rational discussion. This is in keeping with your personality, so it's not really unexpected.

InCommando wrote:

Broadcast TV is available to everyone and has open exposure.

Ya, and by the same definition so does the internet. Should be censor the internet like China does?

So, do you have kids that you parent, do you live with your parents,or was I trolling way off of base? It is relevant if someone makes a stupid statement about a topic for which they apparantly know little about and/or have zero experience with. Idealism increases..... You sorta ignored that whole dealio in your response???

I don't think questioning your credentials to discuss a subject is irrational. I mean, even if you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night I would not accept your opinion on the need for open heart surgery just because you posted it on a jeep site...

KJ 119 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:54 am

InCommando wrote:

You sorta ignored that whole dealio in your response???

Double D-chill!!! :shock:

IC,you've been hanging round JL too much.

Lil Doogie knows about that F-bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEmzQ4nXthg

InCommando · **Posted:** Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:47 pm

KJ119, it is a common tactic of certain people to never address the actual issue: in this case, I questioned his credentials to comment on parenting. In a debate, the pressure is on the person exerting a claim ( in this case that they know anything about being a parent while insulting actual parents) to prove it. In an expected move, he read the post, ignored the relevant questions as to his credentials to comment on parenting ( causing the obvious conclusion that he has none and I was correct) and then goes kind of personal by ignoring the issue and going after me with zero connection to the cause at hand. So few of the youngsters have any grounding in the points of debate and, as such, fail miserably at it. Any idiot can profess an opinion: to be able to defend your ramblings with credentials and proof is another step entirely and, in my mind, goes a great distance in showing who is actually trolling.

KJ 119 · **Posted:** Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:40 pm

InCommando wrote:

KJ119, it is a common tactic of certain people to never address the actual issue: in this case, I questioned his credentials to comment on parenting. In a debate, the pressure is on the person exerting a claim ( in this case that they know anything about being a parent while insulting actual parents) to prove it. In an expected move, he read the post, ignored the relevant questions as to his credentials to comment on parenting ( causing the obvious conclusion that he has none and I was correct) and then goes kind of personal by ignoring the issue and going after me with zero connection to the cause at hand. So few of the youngsters have any grounding in the points of debate and, as such, fail miserably at it. Any idiot can profess an opinion: to be able to defend your ramblings with credentials and proof is another step entirely and, in my mind, goes a great distance in showing who is actually trolling.

Seriously,you're giving me too much credit here.

I was commenting on your use of the slang "dealio".

I'm a parent of two lil ladies,and don't wan't them to hear that crap on TV.
Thanks for the gesture though.Shows you think highly of me. :oops:

Mabe I'm a troll,mabe not.I don't have a big belly and a pointy hat i can tell you that. :goink:

InCommando · **Posted:** Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:05 pm

My apologies, KJ119, as i was referring to the troll trying to give parenting advice without any experience other than still being parented themselves, not you.

F-Bomb Ban Overturned....

Who is online