Posted on 01/11/2004 6:13:51 AM PST by conservativefromGa
Politician would ban dirty words from TV He's angry that FCC failed to act
Edward Epanuary 9, 2004
Rep. Doug Ose of Sacramento has seven dirty words very much on his mind, courtesy of such free speakers as U2 singer Bono and Nicole Richie, the rich kid co-star of "The Simple Life.''
Fed up with recent repeated instances of broadcast TV networks allowing language that many people would deem offensive to be aired live, the Republican House member has introduced a bill that spells out the seven awful words that would be banned from the public air waves in all their forms and all their meanings -- "including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms,'' as the bill says.
Among the words are such swear-word standbys as those used for excrement, fornication, urine and parts of the body. The list includes one word, a -- h -- , twice, as one word, and in its compound form to leave no doubt Ose wants it banned.
The proposal, which seems headed for a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee after Congress returns to work later this month, has stirred a vigorous debate.
On one side are those, including Ose, who say recent Federal Communications Commission decisions declining to sanction broadcasters for airing offensive language are unacceptable to the majority of Americans, particularly those with young children. On the other side are free speech advocates who say government should get out of the censorship business and that parents should monitor their kids' TV watching to make sure they don't see programs that might include raw language.
"There just isn't any way I want to hear that stuff coming out of my TV on the public airwaves,'' Ose said Thursday. "My kids and my neighbors' kids shouldn't have to hear that stuff.''
Ose's anger was touched off by an incident last January and the resulting FCC decision not to fine television stations for airing the Golden Globe awards show during which Bono blurted out, "This is really, really f -- brilliant.''
The five-member FCC ruled that Bono's words didn't measure up to its standard for indecency because he was using the dirty word as an adjective, not in a sexual context.
Since then, a few other incidents over the publicly owned broadcast airwaves have also garnered attention and the anger of those who say broadcasters are stooping ever lower in the race for viewers against unregulated cable TV and other entertainment.
On The Billboard Awards show Dec. 10 on the Fox network, Richie said, "Why do they even call it the 'Simple Life?' Have you ever tried to get cow s -- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f -- simple.'' The FCC hasn't acted yet on Richie's words, which were broadcast even though the program was on a five-second delay designed to bleep out such talk.
Fox apologized for its failure to bleep out Richie's comments.
Ose has had enough. "If the commission wants to split hairs on this, that's fine," he said. "I and a number of my colleagues will be happy to hold them down and shave their heads for them.''
So far, he has one co-sponsor, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, but expects many more when the House returns.
The Senate is considering similar bills. One, by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., condemns the FCC decision on Bono's words and calls for stiffer penalties. Another, by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., also calls for tougher action.
One legal expert on censorship, Craig Smith of Cal State University Long Beach, said Ose's one-paragraph proposal, HR3687, seemed to be drafted narrowly enough to withstand legal challenges.
Current broadcast law on dirty words stems from a 1974 ruling involving comedian George Carlin and Pacifica Radio. The courts ruled that because Carlin used seven dirty words on an afternoon show on radio, "a uniquely pervasive medium'' available for free to everyone, the FCC could ban those words.
Ose is trying to close the loophole that let Bono say f -- by writing a law that would ban the words in any usage or connotation, noted Smith, who is director of the Center for First Amendment Studies at Cal State Long Beach.
But even though it's legal, the proposal isn't a good idea, he added. "I think you have to demonstrate that there's a harm'' by allowing dirty words on the public airwaves. "That's a burden they can't meet.''
Another broadcasting expert, Robert J. Thompson of Syracuse University, said the proposal was "just so infantile, so juvenile,'' especially because Ose's bill spells out the words it says should be banned.
"It reminds me of a bunch of 8-year-olds looking those words up in the dictionary and laughing uproariously,'' he said.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic, but the only reason to bar this is protect the ears of children. But if everything on TV or radio has to be OK for the age of 6, then nothing can be more sophisticated than that,'' said Thompson, a professor of TV and popular culture.'' He suggested that parents more closely monitor their kids' viewing habits.
But Ose says such oversight frequently isn't possible today, because of changes in family life. "There are a lot of latchkey kids,'' said the congressman, who has daughters ages 11 and 9, referring to the number of children home alone after school while their parents work. "I don't want to be sitting there when a guy blurts something out over the TV and have my daughters ask me what those words mean.''
He also said his bill had to use the dirty words and spell out all potential usages because "I'm trying to give a statutory prohibition to the provisions the FCC has today.''
The effort to force the FCC to crackdown has attracted the support of the Parents Television Council, a group whose Web site includes a link allowing viewers to complain about alleged obscenity directly to the FCC.
Brent Bozell, the council's president, said Fox's apology over the Richie incident was unconvincing.
"I encourage parents, Capitol Hill leaders and other family organizations not to be duped by such a meaningless apology and by Fox's latest attempt to back-pedal from an obvious ploy to titillate and shock audiences with indecent programming," he said on his group's Web site.
Your wish on naughty words is Congress's command.
Look at the text of HR 3687 in post 1, or search for it at http://thomas.loc.gov in case the Moderator decides he doesn't want children to read that bill.
Hmmm, remember the Schoolhouse Rock episode with "I'm just a Bill"? Maybe that could be updated with the text from HR 3687 to increase the kids' knowledge of the law and vocabulary.
Really? Lowers morals, lowers percieved intelligence, and lowers vocabulary usage.
"It reminds me of a bunch of 8-year-olds looking those words up in the dictionary and laughing uproariously,'' he said.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic, but the only reason to bar this is protect the ears of children. But if everything on TV or radio has to be OK for the age of 6, then nothing can be more sophisticated than that,...
I guess Thompson never heard or saw Bob Hope, Jack Benny, Burns and Allen, Red Skelton, Abbot and Costello and a host of others on radio or TV, and he's considered an expert!
When I first got into broadcasting many years ago, a radio station lost it's licsence for broadcasting the sound of a toilet being flushed!
I thought it was grainy and hard to see with the night vision and all... /wink
You don't need to have the state sponsor your obscenity. You a free to get your obscene entertainment away from the public airwaves.
No, I insist you pay for it.
"Now on CBS, the "How Many Times In Thirty Minutes Can We Say 'F***' Show."
YOUR OBSCENITY????
Are you trying to imply that I want obscenity? Never said that at all. If you are implying it - dont be a wus - come out and say it!
I do find pandering politicians out to protect "the children" disingenuous. I feel they should be cutting government spending.
As far as the trash on TV goes, I don't care about the kids - they know all the dirty words all ready - I just would prefer that no one tells my parents about them...
You don't need to have the state sponsor your obscenity. ***********************************
YOUR OBSCENITY???? Are you trying to imply that I want obscenity? Never said that at all. If you are implying it - dont be a wus - come out and say it!
Read slowly what you said and then read slowly what I said and observe that I followed your usage of the impersonal "you" in a sentence with my own usage of the impersonal "you" in a sentence.
You are not even emotionally capable of having a levelheaded debate. Take you wus comment and stick it!
It is not ok to be as obscene as ONE wants in the public square -- kids or no kids.
Why not have sex on the village green?
It is not ok to be as obscene as ONE wants in the public square -- kids or no kids.
Why not have sex on the village green?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.