Let me get this straight, FCC...

[Omega]

Turned on my tele and it was on Cartoon Network, but it's night, so it's on Adult Swim right now. No big deal.

That show "The Boondocks" was on.

Over the course of the five minutes or so until I found something else to watch, they said the N-word three times, uncenscored. Admittedly, it was the abbreviated version (with an a instead of an er at the end), but regardless, the impact still stands.

I'm sure we can all agree that this is, in our day, a societally unacceptable word to be playing on television at any reasonable time of the day. It was only 9pm... most kids I know aren't in bed by then. Stuff like Comedy Central's secret stash is fine with me, because that's completely uncenscored and doesn't come on to midnight anyways, at least.

What really surprised me, though, is how they didn't censor the N word, but they DID censor the S word.

Has the FCC lost it's mind? Not censoring a word that is pretty much accepted as one of the utmost societal taboos in american culture, then censoring a word that's used almost as common as anything else?

I know one could argue the point that the s word (I know people who think Crap and Damn are cuss words, at that) is just as bad as anything else, but that isn't what I'm curious about.

I'm curious as to why the hell the FCC hasn't done anything about the use of the N word. I don't care if it's a term of endearment to a specific clique of people, it's still offensive to me (as an American and somebody who strongly opposes racism), and it has much worse societal ramification than pretty much any other word I can think of right now.

-Omega

p.s. Even though this is a discussion about expletives, keep the language clean. I do not want to issue any infractions if I can help it

[Zeus]

you see, the core issue here is that you expect some type of logic to come from a government organization. This is fundamentally impossible. Once you accept this concept, then you become more understanding of why everything in this country is going belly up.

[Omega]

you see, the core issue here is that you expect some type of logic to come from a government organization. This is fundamentally impossible. Once you accept this concept, then you become more understanding of why everything in this country is going belly up.

I understand that our govt. is whacked, I'm complaining about it.

You can bet your bottom dollar that once I'm 18 I will do everything in my legal power (and probably out of my legal power too) to change this country for the better.

But being under 18 means I have less legal rights (or privileges) in this country, and anyways, I have school I still need to worry about, so.

[Airbozo]

I am quite torn on the issue of the "n" word.

The power of words don't come from the words themselves, rather the people speaking or hearing them. If you give too much power to a word, then that word controls you. While I was in the Navy, the berthing compartment I was in was about 50/50 black and white with one or two latino or asian. I hung mostly with the brothers because they were more interesting and liked doing the things I did (sports, exploring, fine restaurants, etc...). Being white I was chastised for using the "n" word once (and that was a drunken slip up). I was taught by my family to never use that word, but hanging with the crowd I was, it seemed to be a socially acceptable term and not one of them was offended _until_ a white person used the term. That is racism. The more I hung with that crowd the more I was accepted, to the point that after about a year of traveling all over the pacific with them, I was told that it _was_ acceptable for me to call them "my n...s". Which was still taboo considering my upbringing but made me part of the click... (I only used the term a half a dozen times and it always sounded wrong) In fact it was one of my close friends in the crowd that told me about the power of the "N" word in mixed company and even he agreed that coming down on another race for using the word was indeed racism.

I personally feel that the whole issue has been overblown by people who have allowed a word to have too much power over them and that is why it is such a heated debate today. Just like telling your kids that they cannot do something. First chance they get they are going to try that said thing. It can also be an issue of _how_ something is said.

I have never seen the "N" word as inherently as bad as say the "C" word or even the "F" word, but again, it does depend on where/how/who you are being raised. For better or worse that word is NOT on the FCC's censor list so unless the station chooses to censor itself (which could provoke a lawsuit by the shows creator/publisher), it is there to stay.

[.Maleficus.]

The N word is a very strange issue. IIRC, Reverend Jesse Jackson recently called Barrack Obama the N word (and said he wanted to cut his nuts off). That baffled me beyond belief, because wasn't he the man who started the national campaign to "bury the N word"? Being a well respected (maybe not anymore..) man with strong religious beliefs and a very active civil rights leader shouldn't he know better than to talk like that? I don't care if "he's a brother" and his color allows him to have free use of the word, but race exclusive words are just as racist as race exclusive public facilities.

Also, I say IIRC because there's been so many weird people in the news I get confused :rolleyes:.

[blueonblack]

Airbozo has got it nailed. The late great George Carlin taught me that more than anyone. There are no bad words. Period. How can a word be bad? Bad thoughts, bad people, bad intentions, but there are no bad words. A word is a word. It's the intent behind it that's the driving force, and so many people now ASSUME an intent that may or may not be there when it's used. In his example, it was fine for the black people to use the word. Why? Intent. They each knew what each one intended when they used it. But it was the same word, wasn't it? Is that word bad, then? Nope. It's the intent, the meaning behind it that matters, and it's society that has labeled it "bad". And yes indeed it is racist to make it out to be a bad word because it came out of the mouth of someone of another race. If it's used in the same WAY, with the same INTENT, it should have the same meaning and effect. I spent a long time in a place that was very strictly segregated among the races, by racial choice rather than compulsion. I've seen this phenomenon over and over again, in its most explosive forms, and it's ridiculous.

More on topic, why did the FCC sensor "the N word", but not "the S word"? Probably because it is not YET considered profane, legally speaking. Give it a while, and it will be, with a great many other words I am afraid. "Don't say Windows, Jimmy, the Mac owners will be offended!"
________
Indian Cooking (http://www.cooking-chef.com/indian/)

[Canadian Eh?]

The FCC is a bunch of F***ing assholes. I do not think the "N" word is bad, I think it is inappropriate. What you can and can't say on TV is hard to figure out. What really confuses me is that watching South Park, some of the "F" words are bleeped out, and others are not. Sometimes **** is, sometimes **** isn't. I don't really think **** should be censored, I hear 6 and 7 year-old's say it all the time.

MuchMusic airs shows in the daytime with Bitch and **** in it, and Futurama has Bitch and Bastard. Kids can easily stay up and watch these shows. Next thing you know you got a school full of second-graders calling each other Bitches and Bastards...

(EDIT: although the kids probably already do that XD )

[PartyLikeARockstar]

honestly... i wish the FCC and all these orginizations would fix the real problem. all these parents want censorship because they don't

a)spend enough time with thier kids on average
b)watch their own language around kids; i mean that's where I heard 99% of the swearing when I was a kid
c)know what their kids are kids are doing, and who they hang out with. Parents here don't take enough role in the upbringing of thier kids on average. It's not that hard to block a program, or teach your kids to listen when you tell them not to watch something.

my $0.02

[Omega]

honestly... i wish the FCC and all these orginizations would fix the real problem. all these parents want censorship because they don't

a)spend enough time with thier kids on average
b)watch their own language around kids; i mean that's where I heard 99% of the swearing when I was a kid
c)know what their kids are kids are doing, and who they hang out with. Parents here don't take enough role in the upbringing of thier kids on average. It's not that hard to block a program, or teach your kids to listen when you tell them not to watch something.

my $0.02

The thing is that the parent's irresponsibilities aren't supposed to be fixed by these organizations, they're counteracted (or at least attempted counteracting).

Parents as a generalization in America are pretty irresponsible. I'll admit that. I'm fortuneate enough to have had parental support and guidance in the times when I really need it. I'm 17 and don't smoke anything, i don't do any drugs, and I don't drink. Sadly, that's a feat in today's society, but I feel that it's a positive representation of the parental responsibility my parents had.

I've only ever been stopped by police once, and even then it was a "you're with him so we're stopping you too" type deal. For the most part, I follow the law (the important ones anyways. I'm not always home by curfew, but I'm not out and about causing trouble), and I take responsibility for my actions.


So yes, I agree that more parents should be responsible. But there's a lot of contributing factors in today's society (most of which are BS imo), so in turn the government makes these organizations and committees to try and counteract a lack of responsibility and essentially dumb down the American public to try and protect it from the real world, because that seems to be the only way our government knows how to ease the blow of real life: Ignoring or censoring it.



Fact of the matter is we're way too deep into these problems now to just say "we can change". Our society has become dependent on these government organizations and committees to help them through life. I think it's complete bull, but what can you do really? We're talking about trying to undo years of damage to the huge majority of Americans. That's not an easy task to take on, especially since most of those Americans will probably reject any idea the rest of us would think is logical.


I always love me a good discussion, man.

[halcyonforever]

From my stint in the television industry, essentially the FCC only enforces the "worst of the worst" and mostly because if they broadened the list it would be nigh un-enforceable.

Television stations also police them selves, most broadcasting companies have their own set of what they will and will not allow on the air. I applied for on-air operator and was given a 2 page list of prohibitied words, I was to attempt to censor them, and report every show that used them which may result in the show being dropped.

The FCC is in about the right place, each individual station needs to take more responsibility for their own content. Personally I don't want to give any government agency a wider net than they already have.

[FuzzyPlushroom]

I'm 17 and don't smoke anything, i don't do any drugs, and I don't drink. Sadly, that's a feat in today's society

Good, I'm not alone, then. I swear we're a minority.

Wait, I said minority. It's okay for me to say minority, right? Just making sure.

Honestly? I'm not a fan of government restrictions in general; as far as I'm concerned, there's two four-letter words (one starts with an F, the other with a C) which should be censored before ten or so, and things should be free afterward... but then, as PLAR said, the parents would actually have to do something.

Which they won't. I didn't even know the "C-word" until I was fourteen. Meanwhile, I see eleven, twelve-year-old kids using it... obviously because of its shock value. I think we've got to stop letting ourselves be surprised and offended by these "bad" words - it's the only way they'll lose their shock value.

(And yes, I agree with the consensus - if a group of urban blacks insists that "n***a" is a term of endearment, like "man" or "dawg" or "homie", then people of any race damn well ought to be able to use it in that context without fear of persecution. It seems stupid to me, anyway - you don't see Latinos calling each other "beaner", do you? I sure don't.)

[PartyLikeARockstar]

@ Fuzzy...

this might not be the norm but latinos at least on my fiancee's side of the family do call each other beaners (lol). I know that others may flame, if so i'm sorry.

my $0.02

[J-Roc]

If you dont like it, dont watch it. Thats how tv should be. Case Closed! They have disclaimers before the show and inbetween every commercial just so you know whats coming. If you get offended, just remember they did state that "some viewers might be offened". Quit bitching about it.

In person is a little diffrent. I dont go walking down the street saying N***er. I use it alot though. I'm nothing but a N***er to my boss. He says do this and i have to do it. I dont use it to describe a race but rather an action which im forced to do with little or no means of avoiding.

[Omega]

While I do always love a good argument I still stress that you all watch your language very closely. I do not want to issue any infractions or temporary bans for somebody saying something that could be misinterpreted in a harmful manner. As much as I'm completely fine with the discussion, TBCS still has it's rules.

Though I must admit there's some very fine arguments being presented.

[dfigravity]

HISTORY of the FCC (Taken from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Communications_A ct_of_1934))

Communications Act of 1934
In 1934 Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission. Title III of the Communications Act contained provisions very similar to the Radio Act of 1927, and the new FCC largely took over the operations and precedents of the FRC.


[edit] Report on Chain Broadcasting
In 1940 the Federal Communications Commission issued the "Report on Chain Broadcasting." The major point in the report was the breakup of NBC (National Broadcasting Company), which ultimately led to the creation of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), but there were two other important points. One was network option time, the culprit here being CBS. The report limited the amount of time during the day, and what times the networks may broadcast. Previously a network could demand any time it wanted from an affiliate. The second concerned artist bureaus. The networks served as both agents and employees of artists, which was a conflict of interest the report rectified.


[edit] The "Freeze" of 1948
In assigning television stations to various cities after World War II, the FCC found that it placed many stations too close to each other, resulting in interference. At the same time, it became clear that the designated VHF channels, 2 through 13, were inadequate for nationwide television service. As a result, the FCC stopped giving out construction permits for new licenses in October 1948. Most expected this "Freeze" to last six months, but as the allocation of channels to the emerging UHF technology and the eagerly-awaited possibilities of color television were debated, the FCC's re-allocation map of stations did not come until April 1952, with July 1,1952 as the official beginning of licensing new stations.

The FCC's "Sixth Report & Order" ended the Freeze. It would take five years for the U.S. to grow from 108 stations to more than 550. New stations came on line slowly, only five by the end of November, 1952. The Sixth Report and Order required some existing TV stations to change channels, but only a few existing VHF stations were required to move to UHF, and a handful of VHF channels were deleted altogether in smaller markets like Peoria, Fresno, and Bakersfield to create markets which were UHF "islands." The report also set aside a number of channels for the newly emerging field of educational television, which hindered struggling ABC and DuMont's quest for affiliates in the more desirable markets where VHF channels were reserved for non-commercial use.

The Sixth Report and Order also provided for the "intermixture" of VHF and UHF channels in most markets; UHF transmitters in the 1950s were not yet powerful enough, nor receivers sensitive enough (if they included UHF tuners at all - they were not formally required until the early 1960s), to make UHF viable against entrenched VHF stations. In markets where there were no VHF stations and UHF was the only TV service available, UHF survived. In other markets, which were too small to financially support a television station, too close to VHF outlets in nearby cities, or where UHF was forced to compete with more than one well-established VHF station, UHF had little chance for success.

Denver had been the largest U.S. city without a TV station by 1952. Senator Edwin Johnson (D-Colorado), chair of the Senate's Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, had made getting Denver the first post-Freeze station his personal mission. He had pressured the FCC, and proved ultimately successful as the first new station (a VHF station) came on-line a remarkable ten days after the Commission formally announced the first post-Freeze construction permits. KFEL(now KWGN-TV)'s first regular telecast was on July 21,1952. [2][3]


[edit] Telecommunications Act of 1996
In 1996 Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in the wake of the break-up of AT&T resulting from the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust suit against AT&T. In part, the 1996 legislation attempted to create more competition in local telephone service by requiring Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to provide access to their facilities for Competitive Local Exchange Carriers.

This policy has thus far had limited success and much criticism. See. e.g. Robert crandall The development of the internet, cable services and wireless services has raised questions whether new legislative initiates are needed as to competition in what has come to be called 'broadband' services. Congress has monitored developments but not as of 2007 undertaken a major revision of applicable regulation.

[dfigravity]

I hate the FCC too Omega.

[halcyonforever]

As the wikipedia quote shows, the FCC really only has a minor role in content censoring anymore. They set some bare minimum and said "here is the line" don't cross it. And for the most part that is where they need to be. Any more and we are just increasing their power to control the broadcast content to an unacceptable level

[gaz_the_chav]

One thing in england (not sure about US) is that blacpeople actually call them selfs the 'n' word so TBH IMO is should be socially aceptable. One thing to remeber is though (wether this would make me biased) is that the city i live in has the most different cultures in the UK.

-gaz

[DaJe]

Doesn't the FCC basically just have control over what's on the airwaves? I think with cable, they can basically show what they want, because you're paying to see it. They just like to censor certain things out of decency, and so their advertisers won't leave them. Now as for signals you get with an antenna, anyone with the right equipment (simple an antenna) can get it. So because it's the open public airwaves, they have control over it, because any innocent person can easily see it. But cable, you're paying it, you don't have to watch it, you're agreeing to it. I thought someone would've mentioned this by now.

[halcyonforever]

Only kind of. You hear about the FCC and deceny issues, but that is really a small portion of what they do.

Primary role is allocation and protection of the electromagnetic spectrum. They issue station liscenes, try to limit interference, track down pirate broadcasters, and a host of issues with broadcasting.

The censorship issue comes up under their liscening capacity. The station liscenses are held "in the public trust" to support the "public interest" and meet subjective community standards as part of the qualification for keeping your liscence.

As far as cable goes, they have very little impact at all. Their broadcast model was used create the cable standard which established the prime/evenging time shift. After that it actually falls to in-state regulations as to what can be shown by their local decency laws. That's why Comedy Central can say what ever they please, most of their *beep* in is for comic effect rather than decency. That's why there are rules on what porn channels can be shown in what zip code on satellite. The decency clause doesn't apply to cable because they are not FCC licensed.

If you have the money and the equiptment you can have a cable channel tomorrow. Unless you want a tv station in Montana your not going to be able to upstart like that because the FCC has the station bands pretty well locked up in every DMA (Direct Marketing Area).

[DaJe]

Well I just happened to have been in Motana because I worked in Yellowstone for the past few months :P

And I have a place there where I could stay, and use as my base of operartions!

[Durrthock]

Honest opinion, This show has a huge cult following, of African American and white people, there is no reason for white people to be offended by the use of a racial slur if the target is not being offended. Its like reverse racism. Should the word be used by white people, no IMO. But if the target of the slur wants to use the word then that's fine with me. Words have no power alone, only when connected to thoughts or memories, or history.
Now if you think about it the FCC can't really do anything about it, because if they do then African American people will most likely say how they should have the right to use the word, which they absolutely should.

That is just my honest opinion.