-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Action needed now.
- Thread starter Jailminister
- Start date
Jailminister
New Member
Ransom, Are you saying that ruling on Robert Durst was correct?
And besides these are 2 totally different things. Now the Durst ruling could be used to get someone off, but murder is still illegal. In the obscenity case, the award show got off, but the FCC went further by saying that it was not against the rules.
Thanks for proving my point.
And besides these are 2 totally different things. Now the Durst ruling could be used to get someone off, but murder is still illegal. In the obscenity case, the award show got off, but the FCC went further by saying that it was not against the rules.
Thanks for proving my point.
Glory Bound
New Member
I realize that this topic has been beat into the ground... but I'll chip in anyway. I've been following along since it started.
Technically speaking, from a logical standpoint, the FCC did not say they were allowing use of the offensive word across the airwaves.
On a more realistic angle however, it becomes more clear that the word will not draw the wrath of the FCC when used in certain instances.
But I don't necessarily believe that within months that the airwaves will be filled with this word. The broadcasters know it's offensive to a large part of the public, and they're not eager to offend a large percentage of their viewers. Sponsors carry a lot of weight, and most are not enthusiastic about sponsoring shows that are offensive to a lot of folks.
Perhaps in the next few years we'll see it creep into a few shows on an occasional basis. Like NYPD Blue did several years ago.
Technically speaking, from a logical standpoint, the FCC did not say they were allowing use of the offensive word across the airwaves.
On a more realistic angle however, it becomes more clear that the word will not draw the wrath of the FCC when used in certain instances.
But I don't necessarily believe that within months that the airwaves will be filled with this word. The broadcasters know it's offensive to a large part of the public, and they're not eager to offend a large percentage of their viewers. Sponsors carry a lot of weight, and most are not enthusiastic about sponsoring shows that are offensive to a lot of folks.
Perhaps in the next few years we'll see it creep into a few shows on an occasional basis. Like NYPD Blue did several years ago.
Jailminister said:
Ransom, Are you saying that ruling on Robert Durst was correct?
No. I am saying what everybody has been saying all along, and you fail to understand:
The court ruled that Durst did not commit a crime. It did not rule that murder is no longer a crime.
Similarly, the FCC ruled that Bono's expletive was not a violation of its regulations. It did not rule that the regulations were no longer in force.
Coppish?
Ransom, Are you saying that ruling on Robert Durst was correct?
No. I am saying what everybody has been saying all along, and you fail to understand:
The court ruled that Durst did not commit a crime. It did not rule that murder is no longer a crime.
Similarly, the FCC ruled that Bono's expletive was not a violation of its regulations. It did not rule that the regulations were no longer in force.
Coppish?
Jailminister
New Member
Ransom said
Next, A jury decided that Durst was not guilty. However murder is still murder. When the question was asked of the jury after the verdict, they said that if it had been available for them to find him guilty of manslaughter then they would have done so. This case has nothing to do with this subject though. The fact that the FCC said that the "f-word" is not a violation of their rules. In the durst case the jury said Durst did not commit the only option they were given, Murder 1. These two cases are totally different.
Here you state It(FCC) did not rule that the regulations were no longer in force. What they said was that they had no rule against the use of it. That is as plain as the nose on your face.
Me entiendes.
First of all not everyone agrees with your interpretation.
Next, A jury decided that Durst was not guilty. However murder is still murder. When the question was asked of the jury after the verdict, they said that if it had been available for them to find him guilty of manslaughter then they would have done so. This case has nothing to do with this subject though. The fact that the FCC said that the "f-word" is not a violation of their rules. In the durst case the jury said Durst did not commit the only option they were given, Murder 1. These two cases are totally different.
Here you state It(FCC) did not rule that the regulations were no longer in force. What they said was that they had no rule against the use of it. That is as plain as the nose on your face.
Me entiendes.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
May I make a small correction to this sentence that will make it true?
The fact that the FCC said that the "f-word" was not a violation of their rules in this specific instance.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
I actually found the guidelines that have been in effect since April 6, 2001. http://www.comeniusfoundation.org/NEWS-FCC.htm
The guidelines include:
* The more explicit the language, the greater the likelihood of indecency.
* The extent to which the sexual innuendo is repeated. The more fleeting the statement, the less likely to be a cause for concern. For example, a one time instance of accidental swearing is not as serious as repeating a theme throughout an entire broadcast.
* The intent is very important. A news report including anatomical references are okay, but a graphic joke using the same reference is not.
Context is also important.
* A radio talk show about teen sex-ed or frontal nudity in concentration camps in Schindler's List is not considered to be offensive material.
* The ban on offensive content is active from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.-- the hours when children are most likely to be listening or watching. If a broadcaster is cited for violating the new guidelines the FCC can issue warning, impose a fine, or even revoke the station’s license.
------------
So, hey! According to the pre-existing rules, Bono was not committing an indecent act! So it is not a matter of changing the rules, the FCC ruled in agreement with what was already on the books.
Had this been posted already?
SEC
The guidelines include:
* The more explicit the language, the greater the likelihood of indecency.
* The extent to which the sexual innuendo is repeated. The more fleeting the statement, the less likely to be a cause for concern. For example, a one time instance of accidental swearing is not as serious as repeating a theme throughout an entire broadcast.
* The intent is very important. A news report including anatomical references are okay, but a graphic joke using the same reference is not.
Context is also important.
* A radio talk show about teen sex-ed or frontal nudity in concentration camps in Schindler's List is not considered to be offensive material.
* The ban on offensive content is active from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.-- the hours when children are most likely to be listening or watching. If a broadcaster is cited for violating the new guidelines the FCC can issue warning, impose a fine, or even revoke the station’s license.
------------
So, hey! According to the pre-existing rules, Bono was not committing an indecent act! So it is not a matter of changing the rules, the FCC ruled in agreement with what was already on the books.
Had this been posted already?
SEC
Jailminister
New Member
Ransom said
Scott Emerson, You are somewhat correct in your assumption. This however is the first time they have publicly stated that the the use of the word was not a rule violation and that sets precedence. That is why it is so important to let our voices be heard now.
Well when the hearings start in Congress you can appear for Bono and let them know that they(congress) have misinterpreted the ruling.
Scott Emerson, You are somewhat correct in your assumption. This however is the first time they have publicly stated that the the use of the word was not a rule violation and that sets precedence. That is why it is so important to let our voices be heard now.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
I don't care how many times you say this, it is not true.
I have asked you to show us where the ruling specifically states that the language is "allowable," and you still have not shown us. Stop saying it and start proving it. Don't use other peoples' misinterpretations, don't mention the US Congressman yet again, simply show us in the body of the ruling in the link you provided that "they ruled that the language is allowable."
Why is this such a daunting task?
Because he would have to admit that both he and the AFA are dead wrong.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Please take a moment to fill out an official FCC complaint against Fox and its affiliates at http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/action/fcc/main.asp
Jailminister
New Member
Thanks, Diana, We all need to stand.
I don't care how many times you say this, it is not true.
I have asked you to show us where the ruling specifically states that the language is "allowable," and you still have not shown us. Stop saying it and start proving it. Don't use other peoples' misinterpretations, don't mention the US Congressman yet again, simply show us in the body of the ruling in the link you provided that "they ruled that the language is allowable."
Why is this such a daunting task? </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond and Baptist Believer,
On this instance, I must disagree with you. I do think that the two of you and some others are letting personal dislikes color your ability to look at what you are saying. There is nothing Jailminister can say that you will accept.
But here is what I see after everything is said and done. YES, YES,YES, in this particular instance the FCC said that the word is allowable and did not break the rules.
If so, then I want the rules changed.
I am still not seeing this fine point you are intent on making. They used the f word, and the FCC said it was allowable in this case.
The VERY FACT they said that shows that their ruling in their view allows it.
I usually think of posts by both of you as models of clarity and as having real points to deal with. On this issue, it just seems like you are straining at gnats and ignoring the broader issue of the FCC allowed it.
NOT so long ago, they would not have.
Karen
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
That is quite an observation, given the fact that you don't know me. To what "dislikes" are you referring?
I have shown from the text of the ruling that the FCC did not make any statement that "allows" the usage of the expletive.
Again you use the word "allowed." You are more than welcome to show us where this is being "allowed." While I can appreciate your point of view, and even share your concern, this particular ruling does not make any statements about allowing this word to be used. They simply said that they did not feel that any further action was warranted. If they had actually "allowed" the usage of the word, I would have gone to the website and added my name.this issue, it just seems like you are straining at gnats and ignoring the broader issue of the FCC allowed it.
That is quite an observation, given the fact that you don't know me. To what "dislikes" are you referring?
I have shown from the text of the ruling that the FCC did not make any statement that "allows" the usage of the expletive.
Again you use the word "allowed." You are more than welcome to show us where this is being "allowed." While I can appreciate your point of view, and even share your concern, this particular ruling does not make any statements about allowing this word to be used. They simply said that they did not feel that any further action was warranted. If they had actually "allowed" the usage of the word, I would have gone to the website and added my name. </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond,this issue, it just seems like you are straining at gnats and ignoring the broader issue of the FCC allowed it.
You are correct, indeed, that I don't know you.
And it is quite a claim, especially for me. I have a 3 1/2 year habit on this board of not arguing much.
When I say "you" I refer to your telling Jailminister he has a simplistic mind and deals in juvenile contumely. I refer to Baptist Believer telling Jailminister that not necessarily, he, Jailminister, but others like him have poor reading comprehension skills.
When I refer to "others", one example is Brett calling Jailminister a troll.
My honest perception, that may indeed be wrong, is that you are expressing dislike and distaste.
An additional opinion of mine is that the FCC in some manner, somehow, let this usage go by. That means that it CAN be done again in that manner.
Doesn't mean it will. But a bridge has been crossed. Some groups may carry opposition too far.
But I do think there is room for real concern here, and I don't think I have poor reading skills.
Hope this clarifies.
Karen
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
I find it very interesting that you only perceive this with the posts of three people on one side of the debate. You have a perception that I am posting in a manner to convey contempt, yet the comments directed at me are not to be perceived in the same manner?
So, if I follow you correctly, that does not imply animosity or contempt. Jailminister is making observations (albeit in cyberspace) about my spirituality, but this is not contumely?
This was one of his responses to my repeated requests that he provide proof that this ruling grants permission to use the expletive.
I can appreciate your concern; however, this was not the first time that this bridge has been crossed. This was not the first ruling of this nature.An additional opinion of mine is that the FCC in some manner, somehow, let this usage go by. That means that it CAN be done again in that manner.
Doesn't mean it will. But a bridge has been crossed. Some groups may carry opposition too far.
But I do think there is room for real concern here, and I don't think I have poor reading skills.
Hope this clarifies.
As I have said before, I do not read anywhere that Solomon gave approval to use the expletive. I added that anyone is welcome to show me where this could possibly be the case, and I would reconsider my opinion. As of this post, nobody has done this.
So, if I follow you correctly, that does not imply animosity or contempt. Jailminister is making observations (albeit in cyberspace) about my spirituality, but this is not contumely?
This was one of his responses to my repeated requests that he provide proof that this ruling grants permission to use the expletive. .......
As I have said before, I do not read anywhere that Solomon gave approval to use the expletive. I added that anyone is welcome to show me where this could possibly be the case, and I would reconsider my opinion. As of this post, nobody has done this. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Baptist in Richmond,
I'm really not trying to pick on you.
Jailminister could have handled it better, too.
But it really did sound to me like several people were ganging up personally on Jailminister.
Perhaps we disagree on what the word "approval" means. No consequences came to the people that did this. They did it and nothing happened to them. If they did it again in the same way, presumably, they would have no consequences. This is what I, perhaps sloppily, am referring to as "approval", not necessarily an overt statement of "I approve".
Karen
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I was wrong when this thread first started - this is a REAL story. See this MSNBC Foul Language Story for more.