New at Reason

David Weigel | September 14, 2006

Jeff Jarvis tosses his $325k in the bucket and pronounces the FCC's obscenity rules "bullshit."

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Pot and Lone Star beer are… | Main | Discordians from Outer Space →

See all 9 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

|9.14.06 @ 1:59PM|#

"That sounds like a golden opportunity. Find one station that broadcast Bush�s �shit,� file a complaint, dare the FCC to levy its fine�and then dare broadcasters, journalists, artists, and anyone who believes in free speech to stand up and fight for bullshit."

I nominate Jeff Jarvis.

James Anderson Merritt|9.14.06 @ 2:22PM|#

The FCC outlived its usefulness a long time ago. The most that we need it to do is settle claim disputes and prosecute trespassing cases. The available, usable spectrum is now so vast that the "scarce commons, managed in the public interest" justification for FCC control over broadcasting makes that aspect of the agency as obsolete as the Federal Department of Buggy Whips.

There was once a time when open minds might have entertained the need for federal control of broadcasting, based on interstate commerce and scarce commons arguments that seemed to have priority over the First Amendment. No more. The First Amendment is now predominant, in my opinion. "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press..." That says it all, well, except for Mojo Nixon's exhortation: "FCC fall in your grave." THAT's what I'm going to be singing on September 19th (National Talk Like a Pirate Day - yo ho!).

|9.14.06 @ 2:52PM|#

Will someone tell me the religous objection to curse words? I understand the objection to gay sex and abortion, as silly as they may be. But curse words are nothing but a bunch of sounds coming out of our mouth that our culture arbitrarily decided at one point were foul. What is the case for this?

|9.14.06 @ 2:59PM|#

Mr Chalupa, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. Won'r anyone think of the children.

|9.14.06 @ 3:16PM|#

When discussing the word "bullshit" in a libertarian magazine, it is a sin not to mention Penn & Teller's eponymous television show. Tsk, tsk.

I'm not one for lots of cussin', but I don't get the legal efforts to limit it, either. Again, this is the difference between proper (or generally preferred) social behavior and compelled social behavior--Miss Manners or Miss Manners with a machete, in other words. I might prefer not to hear some words in ordinary discourse, but my willingness to fine or criminalize the use of those words is about zero.

Really, why must we use compulsion for so many things? How about persuading us to adopt your superior ways using, I dunno, reason, logic, and even appeals to emotion? Too much work, I guess.

Robert|9.14.06 @ 4:04PM|#

What I want is for someone in Congress to introduce 2 bills to clarify "indecent" in the Communications Act, the 2 bills going into minute detail and differing from each other in same. The precise contents of those bills then become material for public affairs programming.

Guerilla legislation.

|9.14.06 @ 4:21PM|#

"Will someone tell me the religous objection to curse words?"
It's the "curse" part of it. They are also called "swear" words, and "oaths." All these terms have religious, or at least spiritual, connotations.