Posted on 08/28/2006 7:22:45 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Not content with all the profanity already on TV, CBS has decided to air the profanity-laden unedited version of "9/11" on Sept. 10. The decision by CBS is a slap in the face to the FCC and Congress, which recently raised indecency fines to $325,000 per incident.
"9/11," which will be shown in prime-time, contains a tremendous amount of hardcore profanity. CBS has stated they have not, and will not, make any cuts in the amount and degree of profanity. CBS will ignore the law. The network is suing the FCC over the indecency law, saying they should be able to show whatever they desire whenever they desire. CBS wants no limits.
This is a test case for CBS to see how far they can go. If there is no out-pouring of complaints from the public, they will go further the next time.
(Excerpt) Read more at afa.net ...
There was some "decency group" that was upset about Schindler's List because NBC did not edit out the nudity or language.
I think it was NBC who had the flight recordings of that incident, and they played them, with the profanity, on the Nightly News.(John Chancellor at that time)
It raised a ruckus, but the tapes were very powerful.
I saw it the first time it is aired, and it is definitely not "profanity laden."
Wheels within wheels, my friend. We are through the looking glass.
I think the AFA gets batty at times. What do they expect, everyone to hold hands and sing the "Barney" song while they see people killed by terrorists? I wonder if on DU there is a parallel thread where leftist moonbats are saying CBS shouldn't air the documentary because it shows violence and depicts Islamists in a bad light?
Editing profanity is no different than editing out the terrible images of people jumping or dying in the aftermath so as to not offend people. It's one thing to show some restraint for sex and violence of a fictional nature, quite another to edit reality.
Or we could use the SAP channel, and put the uncensored audio track on it. Then both sides can have their cake and eat it too.
Wheels within wheels, my friend. We are through the looking glass
You know all those conspiracy theorists? Well, they're in on it...
"Please let me know what they say."
I suspect it wouldn't be printable. Or broadcastable...
lol.
This is a documentary, which means its real life. This was an ugly horrible and devastating event...there is absolutely no reason why it should be edited in any fashion. If you think your children aren't mature enough to handle it, send them to bed or watch something else. If your kids are mature enough to handle it but you still wont let them watch it then shame on you. I know for a fact that learning to how to react and deal with real life situations that arent pretty and polite is a necessary skill. If you send your kids off to school and heaven forbid theres some kind of terrorist attack at said school, do you want them standing up pointing to the kid next them in disbelief because they said a "naughty word?"
Are you addressing your comments to me, or to the AFA? I think the documentary should be shown as the directors intended - rough language and all.
A schitzo wrote this. "Oh please. This documentary is one of the most powerful pieces of work I have ever seen in my life. Everyone should be required to see it. If the profanity in it offends you, deal with it. Life sucks, wear a helmet." Someone impatient with censorship; who wants to require viewing.
We've seen the uncut version of the black disaster in New Orleans, now let's see the uncut version of the white disaster in New York.
One NYPD officer said "This isn't f-----g Disneyland" when this was shown before."
CBS prewarned about graphic nature and graphic language the previous time. I think one or two stations chickened and refused to show it.
Frankly, with appropriate warnings, I don't see the problem. Young children shouldn't be watching something this traumatic anyway.
What a shame you couldn't keep your own potty mouth clean while doing your best to strike that all-important blow for the nanny state.
If the public is outraged by the Janet Jackson incident and other examples of potential indecency broadcast on public airwaves, then fines would certainly be upheld in a court of law. And then some. Whether or not a sufficient percentage of viewers are in fact as outraged as you are is an open question, but I certainly have no problem with that outrage. In spite of what outfits like the AFA say about programming that stand out as wild distortions, which is certainly the case here.
For this particular program, I have no problem believing that the percentage of viewers holding any outrage at the broadcast of the this extremely pertinent documentary footage--unedited, unsanitized, uncensored--would be absurdly small. And that if the matter were to see a court of law, that it would be laughed out of court. You are free to disagree.
If, as is claimed, CBS views this as a wedge to simply program as much profanity as possible in the future, then the percentage of viewers sufficiently outraged should serve as insurance that the network would be appropriately sanctioned.
Of course, if most of the people complaining about programming are actually a small number generating multiple complaints under false pretenses, as has long been alleged, that would change things considerably, now, wouldn't it.
What the AFA says about this program is absolutely outrageous, and I seriously doubt that it could possibly fit any reasonable--or even a nanny state--definition of indecent, and certainly not obscene.
I don't see why it is that conservatives wish to appear to be so unbelievably short-sighted and foolish over such a ridiculous issue. Especially given the subject matter. Viewing the profanity in this program as gratuitous is a very odd way of looking at things. And if CBS deserves to be fined, I can't see why it should be over this program.
...now let's see the uncut version of the white disaster in New York.
You think this was a "white disaster?" Do you honestly believe anyone in NYC or beyond was thinking about race that day?
Where did I express anger?
This documentary was aired four years ago, without the profanity. Why do they have to air it now?
I posted why I think they are doing so, and you even quoted it, but you did not remark on it. What do you think?
I see no problem with it as long as it isn't contrived.
The documentary probably went through a lot of editing unless we see it the entire recording. They could pick and choose what to see and what to hear, and they might have felt more comfortable showing those scenes with folks cussin' instead of those with people praying (if there were any.) So, the editing could make it a bit contrived.
But, in sum, if the scene itself is not contrived, and 9/11 was not contrived, then I would not oppose showing it.
Finally, I think continually showing 9/11 is a good thing. Our people seem to have forgotten that we were attacked and 3000 of us were killed.
I fail to see what it would say that a version that bleeps out the profanities would fail to say.
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.