The FCC is not only allowed to, but is mandated to adjust the meaning of Indecency on an on-going basis, and ban things between 6am and 10pm. They do not have to wait for laws. They can act on complaints, and rule song by song. Hell they are allowed to rule community by community, as well. Sure they are a villian if you don't like their rulings. FCC operates under Common Law. If you think they are redefining Freedom of Speech (which I don't think they are anymore that Clutch is with his cuss filter), then you must take it to court. They are allowed to make rules without asking Congress and the Courts. Hell, do you hate the R-rating for movies, too? And call that an infringement of 1st Amendment rights to watch a movie. When the FCC outlaws a song for broadcast at anytime, restart this thread, and I will be in uproar.
And just for the record, what is the Supreme Court's legal definition of the term "outlaw"? I'd like to know since it's not any defintion that is in place anywhere else, apparently (since most people would say that to outlaw something would be to "make it against the law", but that's apparently not the case here. Making something against the law is just "regulating" it). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
I do think the movie ratings are stupid, and I don't think they would hold up if ever challenged in the courts. But since that's a voluntary system, it's hardly the same thing. There is no force of law behind it. A filmmaker is not required to live by the MPAA code and isn't required to have his movies rated at all. But even as a volutary system, it's got plenty of problems. The ratings are not universally applied. Some things that would be R sometimes are PG13 other times and NC17 at other times. And since newspapers, theaters and video stores use these unfairly applied ratings to determine what can and cannot be shown, then I would maintain that yhe ratings system is bad and should be abolished. I would also say that when the Government makes rules that have the power of law and can fine people for defying them, it's a far cry different than when a private company chooses not to screen a movie, put it in their video store or accept advertising for it based on content or words or whatever. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
The only reason I brought that up is because you kept telling me that it's not the FCC doing this. Now we know that it is the FCC doing this. The FCC is changing the rules unilaterally. They are empowered to do so, but no one told them to change the rules two months ago. They did it on their own. Therefore, they are the villian in this case. They weren't simply acting on orders. They could just as easily have continued the same policy as before. None of the groups that empower the FCC required them to make the changes. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
I didn't mean to challenge your dictionary. I certainly didn't mean to discuss a general definition of "Outlaw". That is why I kept capitalizing it. I meant to say that the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ruling of 1978 by the Supreme Court defines "Outlawed" speech for radio broadcast. I'm sorry. I thought we were agreeing that my quoted text earlier that gave the definitions is what we were discussing, since all the articles about the Slim Shady issue are quoting it as well. peace biscuit btw: No one guessed what Pacifica played that led to a Supreme Court ruling
My guess would be something by George Carlin, but I don't know that for a fact. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
mrpaige, Maybe you should play the lottery. Apparently you are correct : http://eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision ------------------ "Now it is more clear that it doesn't make sense." -- HeyPeeism at its convoluted best.
My movie analogy was poor. Good points all around. I would not say "changing the rules". I would only say "adding songs to the Indecency list" under the rules. I consider the FCC reactionary regulators (dealing with complaints), not progressive regulators (having bands submit songs to preview their content). That about sums it up for me. Here is why I feel that way. At KTRU, we would preview all new albums for content before giving them to the DJ to play. We would label each song Indecent or not. If a DJ caused a complaint, the FCC would notify us and we'd deal with it. Do you feel like the FCC is changing the rules on specific songs that they once RULED was fine but now is not. Say they have a complaint, make a ruling about the song, and now return to that song and say no no no...not anymore. I don't see it that way. We never returned to the stacks to reclassify songs, and we were pretty up on our FCC regulations, and took great care not to break any for fear of losing our license. This Slim Shady thing is weird because the very fact that the label put out the radio version makes it seems like the FCC made a ruling on that version. But did they? My understanding was someone complained and only then did the FCC rule. At least that's the way I remember the NPR story about it. Now you got me curious. I think the complainers are the villians.
I would not say "changing the rules". I would only say "adding songs to the Indecency list" under the rules. I think mrpaige's point is that they they recently changed guidelines they use to determine what's indecent. They did that on their own decision and expanded it from clearly vulgar language to innuendo. What if they decided that saying "ass" was indecent? Or extended it to "butt"? Or "rear end"? Or "behind"? At what point does it become unconstituitional? It's a slippery slope, and I think you could make a case that there's a significant difference between innuendo and words. Here, the FCC moved down the slope by their own choice -- I'm guessing that is (one on) mrpaige's issues with it. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Well, we have a different understanding of the situation then, as I took the story to mean that the new definitions issued two months ago changed how they viewed certain songs. So, The Real Slim Shady radio edit was fine for a while and then they suddenly decided that the same song wasn't okay. That's what I've gotten from the story. I have a hard time believing that the FCC had never been faced with that song in the radio-edited version until now when they ruled in this case. The story here mentions that someone was fined for playing the non-edited song (which makes sense as that would probably never have passed muster), but acts as if this is the first time they've ruled the edited version to be indecent. To my understanding, the radio-edited version of the song was fine until two months ago when the FCC changed its rules. Going beyond that, though, the government is wrong to have these standards of dececy anyway since their whole reason for imposing them is flawed. The government is protecting children from something they don't need to be protected from. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
George Carlin was just the first person from the '70s who I could think of who would probably say something offensive on the radio. My second guess would've been Richard Pryor had Carlin been wrong. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
Oh I have another story. Once KTRU got 50,000 watts, many religous groups started coveting thy neighbor's bandwidth...they wanted us to lose our license. They started monitoring us and reporting crap to the FCC. Basically, the Rice Board of Governors struck an understanding with the FCC that they should just ignore the complaints. I'm willing to bet a similar group is complaining about rap and Slim Shady. It is the organized complaints (the loudest ones) that force the FCC to make a ruling. imo, they don't like to make rulings. Hell, Pacifica was giving a chance to explain themselves after a man complained because his kid heard the Carlin monologue about all the cuss words, and Pacifica basically wanted to test the limits of Indecency. They basically said come get us.
If the song had used the word 'copulate' instead of '****' would it be OK? Whats the difference between those two words? ------------------ "I always thought it was something that went around my house" - World B. Free on Defence
I wouldn't think so any more since the innuendo would seem to be clear. However, context would be important. If you're talking about mating habits of the African Swallow, you're probably cool. if you're singing a rap song about wanting to copulate with Christina Aguilerra, you're probably boned (so to speak) ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
It's an independent agency that reports directly to Congress. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
The FCC has a lot more things to worry about that Slim Shady. You should go to their site and see everything they do. Do you know the FCC deals with Wireless, Radio, TV, Cable and now even digital communications. Their Enforcement Bureau progressively hunts down long-distance slammers, hoaxes, unsolicited faxes, illegal telemarketing, plus monopolistic and illegal practices of local phone companies, and oversees phone company mergers. There is a lot of good this agency does. I really do not think they care that much about Slim Shady and changing the landscape of music.
I've been to the website, and know all about the FCC. I still have a hard time believing that as long as that song has been out, this grandmother was the first to complain and the first time the FCC dealt with the issue at all. And if they don't care about it, they should probably stop fining people for playing the edited version of the song and spending their time coming up with new rules to impose on radio stations. Maybe if they'd quit worrying about innuendo in songs, they could finally quit postponing the FM frequency auction they keep putting off and let these stations get on the air (and allow the FCC to collect the fees this auction will bring), and so on. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
I told you I was getting curious I found the actual ruling of the case. Make your own determinations now. btw Jeff, turns out the Slim Shady version was an edit by Citadel Communications, not the label as has been assumed in some of the articles. <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da011334.html">Here is the text of ruling</a> Basically, they are claiming that Citadel's edit was not good enough. They were probably influenced somewhat by the original, and read too much into it. When looking at their rules to over a year ago, the case by the radio stations is always "that's just innuendo". mrpaige, I really don't read this as something new in the last 2 months. The radio stations and the FCC argue about Indecency versus Sexual Innuendo all the time. They have been fining willful violations of Indecency through Sexual Innuendo for a long time. <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da00951.html">Check this 4/27/2000 innuendo case out about a mornning talk show</a> It appears that most cases are talk shows, not songs. I really don't think our song lyrics are in jeopardy (much less freedom of speech), because I don't see the change in the FCC that you are stating. And mrpaige...I LOVE MUSIC and ALL LYRICS, and love to DJ. They only go after you if you repeatedly did something and willfully. And these usually are big revenue making radio stations. Here is the argument about the FCC changing according to the FCC. This is their biggest judgement...a whopping $35K for 5 days of indecency. Note how this station tries to weasle around the law two different ways, before being fined.
