Unofficialbmw.com

[SaturdayNightBimmer]

Curious to see what some of you have to say about certain situations within the media that have sparked a very strange response from the FCC and our government around The First Amendment.

Janet Jackson and her stupid boob on the Superbowl seemed to have sparked a pretty scary response from our government. The FCC is fining and attacking radio personalities and dumping them from radio markets left and right. Howard Stern is on their hit list. Go to Howard's Website for some REALLY interesting reading about what's going on. (like his show or not, there's some interesting info there)

Stern gets fined for a show from 3 years ago where they discussed "blumpkins" and the "nasty sanchez," yet Bono from U2 can say the F word on live TV and NOT get fined. HUH? Oprah has a show talking about oral a.nal se.x and "rainbow parties" and does she get fined for indecency? No. Why is this?

The FCC won't put anything in writing defining what is, or what isn't indecent. They just decide they don't like it and declare it indecent. How can this be?

Why are these government factions telling me and my family what I can and can't listen to on the radio, or watch on TV? Who are they to decide what is right for me? Can't I make up my own mind and just turn off my radio or switch channels? Do I need the government telling what to do?

Is anyone else alarmed at all by this?

[board_nerd]

quote

Quote:

They just decide they don't like it and declare it indecent

It's not the FCC. It's the advertisers. Radio and TV are not free speech. They are commercial speech. 100% of the programming in both is based on the ability to sell product. CBS itself could care less if the Christian right boycotts it. The whores at Proctor and Gamble or Nestle care, however, and they write the revenue checks. Can't have anything that might hurt sales.

[Frankie]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SaturdayNightBimmer:
Curious to see what some of you have to say about certain situations within the media that have sparked a very strange response from the FCC and our government around The First Amendment.

---

I wouldn't be too concerned. In fact, I welcome it.

Most reasonable people agree that our public life has been coarsened and standards of behavoir have fallen. Look around you: public verbal obcenity is almost unavoidable now, violence in TV & movies has expanded, along with sexual images. And no, it wasn't always like this.

Of course, media entertainers continually push the envelope of ever declining standards. I think we've reached the point where some minimum standards simply must be enforced.

quote:

---

Why are these government factions telling me and my family what I can and can't listen to on the radio, or watch on TV? Who are they to decide what is right for me? Can't I make up my own mind and just turn off my radio or switch channels? Do I need the government telling what to do?

---

Remember, we're talking about enforcing minimum standards of public decency, NOT important political or philosophical speech. Defending public conduct involving vulgarities or obcenity isn't what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the first amendment.

What about the argument "just turn off what you don't want to watch on TV"? The trouble is, bad conduct pollutes public life, just as untreated sewage pollutes the water. Often times, it cannot be avoided. For example: I simply cannot walk my public park trails without hearing the F word. I sometimes play a game to see how long it takes before I hear the word.

It's been said that a civilized society has a right to demand that its citizens be civilized. I wholeheartedly second that.

[ 03-23-2004: Message edited by: Frankie ]

[markf]

Whats difficult to believe is, just how many people in this country have little, to no dignity, and are willing to compromise whatever degree they may posses, to get their 15 minutes of fame, on Howard Sterns assinine show.

I dont think its entertaining in the LEAST, to watch women, degrade themselves on national TV, like those poor creatures do.

I must have gotten their share of dignity, cause I feel ashamed and embarrassed for them, when I pause on their spectacle.

If you think people can always just turn the channel, well let me remind you, that while you have turned the channel, the act of degradation continues. Turning the channel is no different than turning your back on an issue.

Folks.. just because its legal, or there isn't a law, doesn't mean its OK.

When our founding fathers drafted up this land as one based on the principles of freedom, i do not think they had ANARCHY in mind.

And what is Anarchy, but a state in which absolutely anything goes, so long as there is a market which will bear it.

Do you know of a society which is rapidly approaching this state in the name of freedom?

well, I for one, am not an anarchist, so I am for some degree of censorship.

I support legislation which will prohibit that which would inspire my children, or I, or YOU, to revel in the excrement of society.

Such legislation would hopefully limit such excrement. NOT foster it.

We are, all of us, creatures of inspiration. When we see war, we are inspired to war, and when we see love, we are inspired to love.. and when we see pain we are inspired to compassion. We need to guard our inspirations, if we are to mature to nobility.

If we don't, some New York Jew will make millions, publically mocking human dignity.

Drive on...

[toolman7672]

unfortunately...you are all right. We live in a society that has morally degraded from what would have been considered decent in a relativel short period of time. zthere was a time when the outcry of the viewers would have canned the shows without government intervention. I am so put out by what I see on TV that I rarely watch anything except TVLand(which shows shows popular in the 60's and 70's.) SE.X sells. advertisers know it. As long as there is a market for it advertisers will by the time to pedal their wares. I don't think that the government should decide what is acceptable and what is not. Much of what I have to say is considered controversial.(ie.no homosexual marriage,espousing the 10 comandments, Telling of the shed blood of Jesus Christ.) I often offend people with my views of puritanism. I do not want the government telling me that I can not express my views on the television or any where else. I believe there will come a day that the government willtry to shut my kind up in order to promote everybody getting along.

If you don't like something on the airways,call the station or network. Call the sponsors and boycott the products. Just leave the government out of it.

[ 03-23-2004: Message edited by: toolman7672 ]

[donaldan]

Why do you single out New York Jew? Is it pure ethnic prejudice? That is kind of attitude we should strongly condamn.

What is decent and what is indecent has to do with our cultural acceptance and our personal decision. For a few FCC bureaucrats to decide for us is no different from Hitler establishing racial purity standards. A democratic society should be deeply vigilant against that.

[board_nerd]

quote

Quote:

some New York Jew will make millions, publically mocking human dignity.

quote

Quote:

For a few FCC bureaucrats to decide for us is no different from Hitler establishing racial purity standards

[ 03-23-2004: Message edited by: board_nerd ]

[McK]

I think the gov't has a pretty bad track record for fixing society's problems, real or perceived. The war on drugs, violence, and now a war for family values. My personal belief is that these are fueled by the very few and impact the many -- either through increased taxes, ammendments of your rights, or arbitrary limitations on what you can say/hear.

I have started flipping to stern's show during my commutes, solely to hear his latest opinions on this topic. According to Stern, the govt's putting pressure on the media conglomerates, and are not only singling out shows with outrageous sexual themes, but even dj's with anti-war or anti-Bush commentaries. He's not alone; two other morning shows in Chicago that I know of are voicing the same concerns.

What I do find interesting, jumping back up to sat'nightbimmer's post, is that Oprah can air an episode in the midday with a bunch of mothers on her show explaining street lingo for oral anal sex, Jimmy Kimmel can air a clip of Oprah's show at midnight, but stern can't air the clip of Jimmy Kimmel's clip of Oprah's show because he'll get an FCC fine. As it happens, I saw a portion of that Oprah show when they re-aired it at 11pm - this wasn't a doctor or sociologist discussing teen sex, these were grown women screaming and laughing and shocked at the terminology their kids are using nowadays. I also saw Kimmel's show, and I happened to hear Stern's show when he tried to play the clip.

So if you're going to enforce some minimum standard, why doesn't everyone have to play by the same rules?

[SaturdayNightBimmer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by McK 325iS:
My personal belief is that these are fueled by the very few and impact the many -- So if you're going to enforce some minimum standard, why doesn't everyone have to play by the same rules?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by donaldan:
What is decent and what is indecent has to do with our cultural acceptance and our personal decision.

---

I wholeheartedly agree with that!

Great opinions guys, good to see both sides checking in. I for one am not too excited about the government attempting to make ANY decisions for me. This is only the beginning. I hope things can calm down a bit before they get "out of hand."

Since I was a child, I was told "we are republicans honey, and we only vote republican." This is the first time in my life as a voter that I am actually lost as to who I feel would be the next appropriate leader of the free world. Tough times we're in right now.

But hey man, my Bimmer runs friggin' awesome right now, so to hel.l with everything else!!

[ 03-23-2004: Message edited by: SaturdayNightBimmer ]

[Greenhornet84]

If we don't, some New York Jew will make millions,

Good Grief Charlie Brown, Bigotry is alive and well on our sacred board. I don't like Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh or Sean. So I don't listen to any of them. So tirn the channel. These people, after all, will affect less than 1% of thr electroate. They,re preaching to the Choir. That is people who already believe.
If I can quote Walter Cronkite: " I don't believe in censorship"
Mark

[Roadstergal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenhornet84:
If we don't, some New York Jew will make millions,

Good Grief Charlie Brown, Bigotry is alive and well on our sacred board. I don't like Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh or Sean. So I don't listen to any of them. So tirn the channel. These people, after all, will affect less than 1% of thr electroate. They,re preaching to the Choir. That is people who already believe.
If I can quote Walter Cronkite: " I don't believe in censorship"
Mark

---

Amen to that.

The founding fathers would be shocked that women are showing their legs. Should we outlaw shorts? Decency is subjective. Everyone has the right to change the channel - or, in my case, pitch the TV. I haven't watched TV in years.

[ 03-30-2004: Message edited by: Roadstergal ]

[Rich Maddox]

A libertine is much less dangerous than a
puritan. A Libertine expands freedom at the
cost of threatening accepted social mores.
No one is required to engage in activities
practiced or promoted by a libertine. On the
other hand, a puritan contracts freedom by
demanding that a society accept his/her
social mores; enact laws to enforce those
mores; detain, arrest, try at court; and,
where guilt is found, punish. Everyone is
required to engage in, or refrain from,
those activities promoted, practiced, or
criminalized by a puritan. Puritans are
often thought to have come to America to
practice religious freedom; but, nothing
could be further from the truth. They came
here to be free to practice their religion,
not to allow others to practice their's.
One of the results of this ridgity was the
founding of the colony of Rhode Island.
(If you disagree with this, I suggest you
get, and read, a history of the founding;
and, subsequent 200 years, of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony and the state of
Massachusetts.)This desire to ridgidly
control society became an intregal part of
the American character. While America, as a
whole, has never been as ridgid as the
original puritans, there is in society, a
constant pulling, back and forth between the
extremes. Obviously, I'm on the side of the
libertines. This soapbox session is now
officially terminated.

Xman

P.S. On the marriage controversy, I whole
heartedly support people marrying their pets
as long as their pets are over the age of
consent(dogs in doggy years, etc.); and,
those pets can testify in court as to the
giving of their consent. After all, people
can, and do, will their estates to pets, why
not marry? On the other hand, here's a
sobering thought: chimps and gorillas have
been taught to communicate using sign
language.

[ 03-30-2004: Message edited by: Xman ]

[markf]

Jewish Comedians from New York, make millions, profiling themselves as Loud, obnoxious, tasteless, rude, and offensive.
And, this is an adequate description of howard stern.
Being in agreement with them, I supose I look like a bigot, when I pick up their ball, and run with it.

[ 03-30-2004: Message edited by: markf ]

[Roadstergal]

quote:

---

Originally posted by markf:
Jewish Comedians from New York, make millions, profiling themselves as Loud, obnoxious, tasteless, rude, and offensive.
And, this is an adequate description of howard stern.

---

Seinfeld is a Jewish comedian from New York. *shrug* Plenty are not obnoxious, tasteless, rude, and offensive.

Howard Stern's defining characteristic in this isn't that he's Jewish, it's that he's an asshole. What you're doing is bigotry because you take something tangential instead of the important bit. Mike Tyson is black, but the important bit is that he's an asshole. Rush Limbaugh is male, but the important bit is that he is an asshole. Bigotry is taking the Jewishness, blackness, maleness, or otherwise the otherness of a person as being synonymous with the assholeness, and extending that assholeness to all others who posess the otherness, but are basically good people.

Just explaining why we're jumping on you, because it is inappropriate and a generally unacceptable way to judge people. Not to mention inaccurate.

(Is Howard Stern even jewish? Certainly not orthadox. Oh, well, I couldn't care less.)

[ 03-30-2004: Message edited by: Roadstergal ]

[markf]

point taken. Very well then.. I offer my apologies to all offended parties.

Sincerely.