Ya know, it's really not that hard to filter what you're saying mentally. I've got a very foul mouth, but I've never had a problem with filtering my wording around people who might not appreciate the profanity. Must have been a long day for Joe the Pundit

Nobody should need to filter what they're saying. If it wasn't for the FCC fining the fuck out of people, nobody would give a fuck.

This is cable though and they're under no legal obligation to censor anything. It's a business decision.

Frack you!

FUCK the FCC. FUCK them up their stupid asses. (Heh, can't fine me $550,000 dollars for that, now can you Bush?)

Are these fucking children we are dealing with here? It's like they have never heard the word FUCK before. I use it every day. It's a very useful word. And besides, right at the end there I could have sworn I heard Nancy Pelosy has a cock.

ok, so FCC bad. anyone wanna explain why that is?

>> ^imstellar28:
ok, so FCC bad. anyone wanna explain why that is?


Because of the function as censors. And, you know, fuck censorship.

^okay....and why are censors bad? all you did was replace one word with another. and thats hardly an explanation.

^Because the FCC frightens people and networks into using "appropriate" language, ignoring any context, or the right of a person to express their opinion.

Not a big deal. I was expecting him to angrily say it TO someone. I like how everyone else on the set is giggling like a school child. Uh oh, he said a naughty word.... I'm telling.

>> ^thinker247:
^Because the FCC frightens people and networks into using "appropriate" language, ignoring any context, or the right of a person to express their opinion.


They are "censorers" and "frighteners". I understand. Why does anyone have a right to express their opinion?

^ to jump in here with a question to you, in what way doesn't the first amendment apply here? As far as I can tell everyone in this country has the right to express their opinion, over the air or not. In regards to the FCC comment, I feel that censorship should be taken up by the individual broadcasting institutions and not federally regulated.

^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.

that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

How lame that they would have to apologise so profusely for uttering a word. Another reason I can't wait until the Internet kills everyone's TV.

^'Kills' just isn't a violent enough word for me. I can't wait until the internet ocularly penetrates everyone's TV.

If you insist on stretching this as far as it will go, the ultimate answer is silence in an empty universe.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion

I saw an additional part of the program on cnn:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/10/moos.making.nice.cnn

While having an epic short clip of Bush tap dancing and an awkward moment between Bush & Clinton, the part I'm talking about starts at 1:35 where Joe receives a text from his wife saying two words "Oh My".

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion


It appears that you defend different parts of the Constitution with varying degrees of vigor.

>> ^imstellar28:
^the first amendment is a paraphrase of "the right to express ones opinion" recorded on a piece of paper. anyone can write anything on a piece of paper.
that doesn't explain why anyone has the right to express their opinion


Are you trying to make a point, or just being a dick?

The right to free speech is in the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against suppression of criticism by the federal government. It is not intended to protect vulgarity, and there is significant case-law determining that it does not protect incitement to panic or riot, nor does it protect hate-speech.

However, the monitoring of broadcasts for vulgarities is a direct result of twisted protestant "ethics" influencing government agencies, just as violence is allowed to be shown but not nudity.

so what?

i'm trying to make a point. OBVIOUSLY i believe in freedom of speech. if anyone had the ability to answer my question, i would actually be able to make my point. nobody here does, because everyone here is clueless--so making that point is proving to be rather difficult.

for now, i guess my point is that nobody has any clue why the FCC is bad (or why the first amendment is valid). writing a statement down (i.e pointing the first amendment) does NOT explain the reason for it.

if anyone could kindly explain WHY people should have the freedom to voice their opinions, then i will proceed with my argument...until then "we are stuck in the silence of the universe" i guess.

So again, I say "The right to free speech is in the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against suppression of criticism by the federal government."

How else can that question be answered?

because i was asking why, and the bill of rights is a piece of paper which says "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof" on it. that is not an explanation of anything. the next question is just "why shall congress make no such law".

you are pointing to the wrong document. you need to look at the declaration of independence not the bill of rights--if you are going to answer my question of "why". currently, you are only answering the "what" which is already stated in my question.

so can someone answer me why anyone should have the freedom of speech?

Wow, did you see how ruffled and unhinged everyone was? It's as if he had said, "Heil Hitler." How ridiculous and sad.

And how insane it is that someone is asking what gives people the right to express their opinions.

^if someone is going to claim "the FCC is bad" how is it insane that someone asks "why do you think the FCC is bad" ?

nobody is answering the question, their answers just lead to more questions:

"because people have the freedom of speech" leads to "why do people have the freedom of speech"
"because its in the bill of rights" leads to "why shall congress pass no law..."

Because free expression is inherent in the idea of freedom which is a natural human right. What else could you possibly be getting at?

>> ^nibiyabi:
Because free expression is inherent in the idea of freedom which is a natural human right. What else could you possibly be getting at?

thats exactly what i was getting at...."natural human right"

the FCC is bad because it violates natural human rights.

^OK, I had a feeling you were doing this. I assume this isn't intentional, but when your views are presented in quiz format, they tend to take on an air of condescension and invite angry retorts (as you've probably noticed by now). Stick to presenting your views in a normal, rational way, and people will respect you and listen to you. You have some very interesting ideas, but it's hard to see them through the presentation sometimes.

I thought the FCC decided you could say fuck on TV as long as it wasn't used in a sexual manner. I thought you could also now say shit because I remember there being an episode of South Park where they said shit over and over throughout the episode right after the FCC said it was OK.

fake shock at swearing is so sinister.

Oh no. He used a word. That 99% of people use. In a regular sentence. FUCK!

It's not fake shock. They are not allowed to use those words, and the penalties from their superiors for using it could be severe. Or not. But when everybody agrees not to cross a line and they stick to that arbitrary line for years, it is shocking when somebody steps over it without warning.

Everybody is unhinged because they don't know whether to address it or move on. It really doesn't need to be addressed, because they're all adults and understand adult language. But on the other hand, he's broken a rule they all agreed to live by.

>> ^nibiyabi:
Because free expression is inherent in the idea of freedom which is a natural human right. What else could you possibly be getting at?

>> ^imstellar28:
thats exactly what i was getting at...."natural human right"
the FCC is bad because it violates natural human rights.


I get that you are talking about fundamental rights and not rights "granted by the government", but the truth is this: rights are an abstract concept. They don't exist in reality, only in the human mind.

You can derive rights logically from fundamental needs, but that doesn't make them tangible things. And if they are not tangible, they are subject to debate. In order to have a right, it must be agreed upon by the masses. It must be fought for, and defended against those who disagree.

If the universe was full of rational, intelligent people you might be able to form a government founded upon simple, fundamental, "natural" rights. But that's not the universe we live in.

^very true MaxWilder,

fundamental human rights exist. they are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". however, they are not guaranteed by anyone or anything. they can be violated by those of ill-will. violence is their means.

we must be vigilant and actively defend our right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". nobody will ensure them but ourselves.

we must tell the FCC that we are humans and therefore we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". if they want to oppress us, if they want to take away our freedom of speech, our liberty, we must defend ourselves.

to fight for and defend your rights, you must know not only what your rights are, but why you have them. that was my intention here.

Nancy Pelosi has a caucus?

The Declaration of Independence has pretty much zero legal standing in U.S. law. It's an astounding document, to be sure, but is not considered part of Constitutional law. If you want to talk about Freedom of Speech in U.S. law, then you need to refer to the Constitution and the subsequent Supreme Court cases surrounding Freedom of Speech.

As I understand it, the FCC won a case in the Supreme Court over 30 years ago that basically allows them to fine public broadcasters for the use of swear words between the hours of 6AM and 10PM, as those are the hours children are most likely to be watching TV. Freedom of speech is not being impinged upon because people are still allowed to say what they want on TV. The people aren't fined or arrested for their swears--the broadcasters who subsequently broadcast the statements unfiltered are the ones who get the fine. In fact, up until the Bono incident a few years ago, the FCC did not even bother fining broadcasters when swears slipped past during live broadcasts. It was only scripted TV episodes that it focused on.

The FCC rules have since become rather pointless because technology (cable, satellite, and the Internet) have put most channels beyond the FCC's jurisdiction. So it really is something of a non-issue from the Freedom of Speech standpoint. Cable companies bleep swears only because they do not want to have to deal with the deluge of letters from angry parents and the negative publicity that might follow if their channel gets perceived as hurting or corrupting children.

^failing to explicitly include the contents of the decleration of independence in the constitution was one of the biggest mistakes the founders ever made.

for all intents and purposes, the declaration of independence should be treated as a "preface" to the constitution.