FCC set to drop ban on f-word

[Judith]

FCC set to drop ban on f-word, nudity on television and radio stations nationwide
They are seeking public comments; make your voice count!
April 8, 2013

Dear Member,


The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is considering dropping current broadcast decency standards that ban explicit profanity and “non-sexual” nudity.

You can read the press release from the FCC here.

Specifically, if enacted, the new FCC policy would allow network television and local radio stations to air the f-word, the s-word and to allow programs to show frontal female nudity, even during hours when they know children will be watching and listening.

It is accepting comments on the proposal from the viewing public until the end of April.

Current broadcast decency law prohibits expletives and nudity, even if brief or “fleeting.” The Supreme Court has upheld the law as constitutionally enforceable by the FCC, despite lawsuit attempts by networks NBC and FOX to overturn it.

TAKE ACTION

Submit your comments to the FCC, urging it to reject any changes to the current policy.

The FCC will not accept general email comments. To be valid, you are required to file a formal comment via the FCC’s website.

Please follow these instruction carefully, to insure your comment is accepted by the FCC:

1. Go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X.
2. Enter the code “13-86” in the “Proceeding Number” box and fill out the few remaining required fields.
3. Enter your comment in the text box provided and click “Continue.”
4. From there, review your comment and click “Confirm.”

Here is a sample comment you may submit:

I oppose any changes to the current FCC indecency standards that would allow television and radio stations to broadcast expletives and nudity on the public airwaves, even if brief or “fleeting.”

The Supreme Court has confirmed the FCC’s authority to enforce policies regarding expletives and nudity, especially during times when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Relaxing the current policy would not serve the public interest and I urge the FCC to reject all proposals that would allow for the broadcast of expletives and nudity on FCC-licensed stations.


Sincerely,

Monica Cole, Director
OneMillionMoms.com


P.S. Please forward this to your family and friends! Become a fan of OneMillionMoms on Facebook! If you use Twitter, keep up with the latest information by following us.

 

[Amy.G]

According to Snopes.com this is false. It originated from a comment made about 10 years ago.

 

[Salty]

Another rumor is that the FCC is considering taking all religious program off the air - That is not the case. NO need to sign those silly petitions

 

[preachinjesus]

According to Snopes.com this is false. It originated from a comment made about 10 years ago.

Thank you for fact checking something. I wish we could get a snopes filter installed as a widget on this forum.

 

[InTheLight]

Thank you for fact checking something. I wish we could get a snopes filter installed as a widget on this forum.

That would be awesome! Until then the board's ignore function will have to suffice.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Here's the actual public notice dated April 1, 2013, from the FCC. I also found it at transition.fcc.gov/

http://www.onenewsnow.com/latest-he...y-on-television-and-radio-stations-nationwide

Here's an excerpt: It doesn't sound to me like the doom and gloom "warning" from the OP - which by the way, I am finding on religious sites all over the internet. And I can't find anything in the public notice that mentions "frontal female nudity" or "the f-word" or "the s-word".

The public notice reads to me - in full - that the FCC is cannot cope with all the complaints they receive, so they are considering a change in policy for isolated incidents such as Bono letting the f-word fly at the Golden Globes and things like that. They are not seeking - according to my reading the public notice - to drop bans on vulgar language or female nudity.

"After the Supreme Court’s decision in [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 2307 (2012), in September 2012, Chairman Genachowski instructed Commission staff to commence a review of the Commission’s broadcast indecency policies and enforcement to ensure they are fully consistent with vital First Amendment principles. In the interim, the
Chairman directed the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) to focus its indecency enforcement resources on egregious cases and to reduce the backlog of pending broadcast indecency complaints. Since September 2012, the Bureau has reduced the backlog by 70% thus far, more
than one million complaints, principally by closing pending complaints that were beyond the statute of limitations or too stale to pursue, that involved cases outside FCC jurisdiction, that contained insufficient information, or that were foreclosed by settled precedent. The Bureau is
also actively investigating egregious indecency cases and will continue to do so.​

We now seek comment on whether the full Commission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policies or maintain them as they are. For example, should the Commission treat isolated expletives in a manner consistent with our decision in [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Pacifica Foundation, Inc[/FONT]., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2698, 2699 (1987) (“If a
complaint focuses solely on the use of expletives, we believe that . . . deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.”)? Should the Commission instead maintain the approach to isolated expletives set forth in its decision in [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program[/FONT], Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4975 (2004)? As another example, should the Commission treat isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same as or differently 2 than isolated expletives? Commenters are invited to address these issues as well as any other
aspect of the Commission’s substantive indecency policies. ​

Today’s Public Notice does not alter any of the Commission’s current substantive indecency policies. While we build a record for the full Commission’s consideration, the aforementioned directive to the Bureau to focus its indecency enforcement resources on egregious cases remains in force, and the Commission and/or Bureau may take enforcement actions during the pendency of this Public Notice."​

[/FONT]

 

[Scarlett O.]

I've not slept well in the night. It's now 6:28 a.m. and I am officially late for work if I don't leave my house in 10 minutes.

This whole FCC thing is upsetting to me.

I am not familiar with the American Family Association, but this article seems to be nothing more than a lying scare tactic full of yellow journalism and propaganda - something a Christian organization should not be accused of.

I'm of the personal belief that too much indecency is already being allowed on television.

But after seeing several ultra-conservative friends of mine putting this article all over Facebook and googling it and finding it spread all over Christian message boards, I just have to wonder....

....do Christians believe everything that they read? Does anyone factcheck anything anymore?

And why has the AFA presented such an article that is so obviously NOT what the FCC said?

I'm not happy this morning. I may write a letter to the AFA.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I do not know if this is true or false ... I expect false.Regardless I think the word should be banned. There is no need for gutter language.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I do not know if this is true or false ... I expect false.Regardless I think the word should be banned. There is no need for gutter language.

I guess we have found something we can agree on!!

 

[InTheLight]

But after seeing several ultra-conservative friends of mine putting this article all over Facebook and googling it and finding it spread all over Christian message boards, I just have to wonder....

....do Christians believe everything that they read? Does anyone factcheck anything anymore?

It's been my experience that conservative evangelical Christians are sadly often lax when it comes to investigating allegations that support their positions on political issues. (Just look at BB, for example.) Far easier to believe them and continue to propagate them than it is to determine the truthfulness in them. Exhibit A would be all the abrasive anti-Obama emails that have winged around the world for six years concerning trivial stuff like comparing his patriotism to the size of the painted flag on his campaign jet, the fact that he puts his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office, not placing his hand over his heart, etc. etc.

There's plenty of things, almost endless things really, to loathe about Obama but let's get our facts straight, at least!

And why has the AFA presented such an article that is so obviously NOT what the FCC said?

Simple--fundraising. They send out emails to people that subscribe to their newsletter asking for money. My mother is getting up there in years and I've taken to looking after her bills, mail, and finances. You would be shocked at how much email spam and fundraising letters she gets because she used to be active in conservative causes. Sadly, unsubscribe does not remove her from these email lists, and returning fundraising letters to their source does not stop their flow. I think these groups sell lists of names amongst themselves.

I'm not happy this morning. I may write a letter to the AFA.

Please do.

 

[Salty]

I do not know if this is true or false ... I expect false.Regardless I think the word should be banned. There is no need for gutter language.

I guess we have found something we can agree on!!

Does this mean that bob and Crabby are Friends now :1_grouphug:

I have contacted AFA in the past ( I forgot the issue off hand)- with no results

I do remember once I was very concerned about an article in the Sword of the Lord (sorry John of Japan :smilewinkgrin so I sent a letter - no response-
I then sent a certified letter with return receipt -(addressed personally to John R) I finally got my response. I didn't agree with the response - but I did get a response!
Certified letter with return receipt just may be the answer! Keep up posted

 

[go2church]

AFA runs on the fears and chills of those who listen. They are fear mongers of the worst kind.

"Help keep us on the air so we can fight for decency and morals, send....."

Sound familiar?

Scripture says perfect love casts out all fear, we are told to not be afraid time and time again and yet this group of Christians have built an industry on making sure Christians are afraid of something, someone just about everyday.

You want to know what the perfect remedy is for shows that are less the decent? The off button! You want to get a TV channels attention, stop watching waaaaay more effective then some stupid form letter from an organization that has absolutely zero credibility.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Who Can We REALLY Trust???

I agree with Amy and all you others that advocate "fact-checking" anything like this but my question is...WHO can we really trust...even with our "fact-checking"? I can't remember where I read or heard it but I do remember seeing something that questioned the political or cultural stance of informatiion sources like Snopes, as well as Wikipedia and others. Do we need to fact-check the fact-checkers? Who is to say THEY are reporting accurately and honestly? When it gets down to it the ONLY source I have absolute confidence in is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...and His Word. All others are subject to examination and questioning. It seems like I have heard that the owners of "Snopes" are political "left-wingers" but I can't document that. I hope that isn't so. There MUST be some reliable way to filter and confirm what we read and hear.....I hope.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[InTheLight]

It seems like I have heard that the owners of "Snopes" are political "left-wingers" but I can't document that. I hope that isn't so. There MUST be some reliable way to filter and confirm what we read and hear.....I hope.

Bro.Greg:saint:

This is very ironic--The fact checkers themselves are victims of a smear campaign? Sounds like it was another one of the right-wing emails that goes around that are laden with half-truths. (I have seen the Snopes email alleging they are liberals.)

And so what if they are? Any Snopes article debunking stuff on the internet has citations listed so anyone can check out their sources. Read the sources provided at the bottom of the Snopes articles.

Alternative hoax debunking sites are:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://urbanlegends.about.com/

 

[Salty]

...You want to know what the perfect remedy is for shows that are less the decent? The off button! You want to get a TV channels attention, stop watching waaaaay more effective then some stupid form letter from an organization that has absolutely zero credibility.

:sleep:
That only works if your are a Nelision family.

Otherwise, turning off means nothing- unlss you write letters to the sponsors.

 

[Judith]

According to Snopes.com this is false. It originated from a comment made about 10 years ago.

No according to snopes this is not false. it is true. You are looking at an old report.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/fccban.asp

 

[Scarlett O.]

No according to snopes this is not false. it is true. You are looking at an old report.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/fccban.asp

It is true that the FCC announced in a public notice that because it has so many countless complaints that it cannot get to that they are considering changing their rules concerning isolated incidents where someone swears banned words or there is fleeting nakedness, such as the "wardrobe malfunction".

I hope they don't change those rules, because it's such a slippery slope to the next acceptance of immorality.

What is NOT TRUE is what the AFA is purporting. The AFA said that the FCC is going to "allow programs to air" the banned words and "allow programs to air female genitals" in programming of all hours including those where children are watching.

This is a far cry from what the actual public notice says.

There is nothing in the FCC about "allowing programming to air" these things as a part of their daily pre-planned programs. I don't know why the AFA specifically cited female nudity (below the waist).

 

[Revmitchell]

It is true that the FCC announced in a public notice that because it has so many countless complaints that it cannot get to that they are considering changing their rules concerning isolated incidents where someone swears banned words or there is fleeting nakedness, such as the "wardrobe malfunction".

I hope they don't change those rules, because it's such a slippery slope to the next acceptance of immorality.

What is NOT TRUE is what the AFA is purporting. The AFA said that the FCC is going to "allow programs to air" the banned words and "allow programs to air female genitals" in programming of all hours including those where children are watching.

This is a far cry from what the actual public notice says.

There is nothing in the FCC about "allowing programming to air" these things as a part of their daily pre-planned programs. I don't know why the AFA specifically cited female nudity (below the waist).

I am not sure what distiction you are trying to make here but here is the anouncement from the FCC:

We now seek comment on whether the full Commission should make changes to its current broadcast indecency policies or maintain them as they
are. For example, should the Commission treat isolated expletives in a manner consistent with our decision in Pacifica Foundation, Inc ., Memorandum pinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 2698, 2699 (1987) (“If a complaint focuses solely
on the use of expletives, we believe that . . . deliberate and repetitive
use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.”)?

Should the Commission instead maintain the approach to isolated expletives set forth in its decision in Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program , Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 4975 (2004) ? As another example, should the Commission treat isolated (non-sexual) nudity the same as or differently 2
than isolated expletives? Commenters are invited to address these issues as well as any other aspect of the Commission’s substantive indecency policies

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0401/DA-13-581A1.pdf

The AFA got it right regardless of how often the FCC is willing to put up with it.