Back to You, FCC

A federal appeals court has spoken: The FCC can't punish a TV network when someone unexpectedly swears during a live broadcast. It's a common-sense decision, so naturally FCC chief Kevin Martin is unhappy [pdf]:

If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can't restrict the use of the words "fuck" and "shit" during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.

Commissioner Michael Copps, whose love for censorship makes Martin look like Larry Flynt, vows to fight on [pdf]:

The FCC has a duty to find a way to breathe life into the laws that protect our kids. That may entail an appeal of this decision. Certainly it includes strong enforcement action of the many indecency complaints before us that are untouched by today's decision. Enforcing the laws against indecency, profanity and obscenity must remain a Commission priority -- America's families and children expect and deserve no less.

In real life, Michael Copps has five children. In his mind, he has 83 million.

Comments

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:04am | #

A blow against bibertarianism.

Fuck the draft!

Pirate Jo | June 5, 2007, 10:05am | #

Oh, fuck the children.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:09am | #

I don't know if it's that commonsense of a decision - doesn't it basically mean that as long as a broadcast is live, anybody can say or do anything, as long as it's "unexpected"?

Granted, I'm sure many here would be fine with that, but as part-owner of the nation's airwaves it seems as though we're better off restricted adult language to adult programming.

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:10am | #

Fuck Michael Copps.

Anybody who supports his statement, fuck you, too.

ed | June 5, 2007, 10:11am | #

Careful, Jo. Fucking children may be ok on your pirate ship, but the Federal Government sorta frowns upon it.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:13am | #

If I'm part owner of the airwaves, then where's my check?

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 10:14am | #

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

OMG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
THE HUMANITY!

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:15am | #

ProGLib:
Dan T spent on "solving" "society's" "problems".

Michael Copps = Plus ten twaddlenock. What a nerfherder. May Lindsey Lohan walk on by him and ignore him completely. May Paris Hilton not give him an autograph.

Christopher Monnier | June 5, 2007, 10:17am | #

> If I'm part owner of the airwaves, then where's my check?

You get "paid" through mandatory public interest programming...isn't that good enough??

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:17am | #

VM,

Shame on you. Dan T. is fighting for your biberty.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 10:20am | #

Wow, VM
You're making sense to me today. I must be losing it...

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:21am | #

And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

To hell with the well-being of children - they're only the future of our society. Our desire to watch trash on TV is much more important!

swillfredo pareto | June 5, 2007, 10:22am | #

If I'm part owner of the airwaves, then where's my check?

My guess is that the government would answer that your check is in the form of a reduced tax burden. That being the case, their obligation is to maximize revenue for the airwaves we all own. If that means putting the Spice Channel next to News Channel 8 so be it.

Russ 2000 | June 5, 2007, 10:22am | #

In his mind, he has 83 million.

In his mind he has 300 million children.

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:23am | #

Rein - yikes.

*hands him a Grape Nehi

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:24am | #

Christopher Monnier,

Those public airwaves insulted my employer recently. Pro Libertate is not pleased! I may have to utter an inadvertent epithet.

Incidentally, if I were, say Brian Williams, I'd end each broadcast with the phrase, "What the fuck?"

Dan T.,

I believe that Karen is a libertarian who is a mother. And a large number of us male-men around here are fathers. Or don't we love our children, too? Let me raise my own child, thank you very much.

pigwiggle | June 5, 2007, 10:25am | #

And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

Mothers? Wild idea - maybe they can regulate what there children watch. You know, instead of some massive bureaucracy. Just a thought.

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 10:26am | #

I want to hear a precise and detailed description of how the word "fuck" actually harms children.

It only harms children if you accept the circular definition that holds that children are somehow worse if they themselves repeat the word "fuck". In other words, you have to accept that the word is harmful before you can argue that it's harmful.

And where's the control group? I need to see some kids who don't know and use the word "fuck" so I can compare them to kids who do know and use it. Where are these mythical children? Make them available so that I can compare them to the Kids That Say Fuck.

pigwiggle | June 5, 2007, 10:28am | #

ugh ... their, ouch

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:30am | #

In his mind he has 300 million children.

One could say the same thing for Jesse Walker, et al, who want to protect us from the big bad government that we elected.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 10:30am | #

Dan T is right. I should surrender my right to watch trash on a service that I pay for so that parents everywhere can ignore their children and feel good about it in the process.

So long Dr. 90210... how I'll miss thee

jp | June 5, 2007, 10:31am | #

And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

Full disclosure 1: I don't have any children.

Full disclosure 2: I am somewhat troubled by the way primetime TV has come to glamorize casual sex among teenagers.

The solution IMO is to leave it up to parents to control what their children see & hear. We already do that with the Interweb, CDs, and DVDs.

carrick | June 5, 2007, 10:32am | #

And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

My libertarian solution was to drop cable TV from my household from the time my oldest turned 10 until the time my youngest turned about 17.

I expect no more or no less from any other parent that doesn't like what TV has to ffer for their children. Either that or learn to use the eff-ing parental controls that come with nearly every TV or set-top box.

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:33am | #

"In other words, you have to accept that the word is harmful before you can argue that it's harmful."

Turning that into the BIBERTARIAN mantra:


"In other words, you have to accept that [anything that makes a BIBERTARIAN uncomfortable] is harmful before you can argue that it's harmful."

See: masturbation. sex education. substances. Ashley Olsen (damn, what a giveaway). Red Bull.

MP | June 5, 2007, 10:33am | #

One could say the same thing for Jesse Walker, et al, who want to protect us from the big bad government that we elected.

Might makes right! Majority rules!

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:34am | #

WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING CHILDREN??? OMG OMG OMG

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 10:34am | #

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.

Where would Hollywood ever get the idea that they have the right to say whatever they want?

Mouth Breathing BIBERTARIAN | June 5, 2007, 10:36am | #

OMG OMG OMG! THAT MEANS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN.

THINKOFTHEHUMANITY. THIS TURNS ME INTO SOLITARY WACKJOB.

OMG! OMG! OMG!

YOU PUT A BANANA IN THE TAIL PIPE!!!!!

LOOKOUT, FRANK! A COD-STUFFED MUPPET BOBBLEHEAD PLAYS THE TUBA WITH GREAT ENTHUSIASM!!!!!!!

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 10:36am | #

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:04am | #

A blow against bibertarianism.

Fuck the draft!

PL, I almost have the bibertarian t-shirt design (che / bib) completed. However, given the time I have available to work on it, and vacation coming up tomorrow, it won't be done for another couple of weeks :/

Either way, screw the bibertarians!!

carrick | June 5, 2007, 10:37am | #

My father told me this joke when I was about 15.

On Halloween night, he was giving nice red apples to the children instead of candy. One of the children was a lovely little girl about 10 years old that was dressed in an angle costume. He drops the apple into her candy bag. She looks into the bag, then looks up and says "you broke my fucking cookie".

Hugh Akston | June 5, 2007, 10:38am | #

One could say the same thing for Jesse Walker, et al, who want to protect us from the big bad government that we elected.

Funny, I don't recall voting for Martin or Copps.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:40am | #

With all due respect to bibertarianism, I think there's a big difference between saying that television and radio should be able to air cuss words or other distasteful words or images and saying that I want my kids exposed to it. My wife and I kick the kids off the Intertubes and the TV all of the time because we don't like the content. But, see, it's our call for our specific children. Who we know and stuff.

jimmydageek,

Excellent. I await your production in eager anticipation.

jp | June 5, 2007, 10:40am | #

See: masturbation. sex education. substances. Ashley Olsen (damn, what a giveaway). Red Bull.

Yeah, I'm still pissed about item #1 there. To think of all the energy I put into avoiding that as a pre-AIDs, pre-Dr. Ruth teen.

Timothy | June 5, 2007, 10:41am | #

Unfortunately, Martin and Copps' statements are pretty demonstrative of the mindset around government regulatory agencies. "If we don't act they'll...they'll...SAY WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT!" It's sad that such a ridiculous thing could be said without a hint of irony, and that Copps likely won't be taken to task for it in too many places.

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:42am | #

ooof.

URKOBOLD does offer a weekend BATIN course. You get to learn different techniques, methods, positions, and excuses.

jp | June 5, 2007, 10:42am | #

Oops. I guess that should be "AIDS."

Timothy | June 5, 2007, 10:42am | #

PL: Wait, wait, there's more than one Proto Libertate? SWEET!

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:43am | #

I expect no more or no less from any other parent that doesn't like what TV has to ffer for their children. Either that or learn to use the eff-ing parental controls that come with nearly every TV or set-top box.

That would be great. I also wonder if we could get rid of all criminal law as well and simply wish real hard that parents would teach their kids not to get involved with crime.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:44am | #

Economically disadvantaged parents depend on TV to babysit their children. As a society it is up to us to make certain there is decent programming for these children to watch. You can hardly expect their parents to take time from stoop sitting or leanin against the post to police the TV.

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 10:44am | #

Guys, remember: When somebody elicits the same "OMG! Did he really just say that?" response in thread after thread after thread, perhaps it's time to stop responding.

Adding a contrary view to the discussion is fine. Routinely adopting a near-strawman stance is not.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:44am | #

They're from a previous marriage and lack the Libertate gene. However, my wife and I will make them sensible one of these days.

VM | June 5, 2007, 10:45am | #

Timothy:

you bet! One has even been named as Zod's Successor!!!!

jp | June 5, 2007, 10:47am | #

Guys, remember: When somebody elicits the same "OMG! Did he really just say that?" response in thread after thread after thread, perhaps it's time to stop responding.

That's an eminently reasonable view. But it would make most of these threads awfully short.

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 10:47am | #

Dan, I still want a precise description of the exact way in which hearing the word "fuck" is harmful for children.

I'm not just being a dick here. I honestly can't think of a reason that doesn't boil down to "If they hear it, they might say it," and there's no real reason to be very concerned if they say it. So what?

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 10:49am | #

jp-

I'm sure we could find some interesting angle to talk about if the oxygen weren't being sucked out of the room by Dan T.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 10:50am | #

thoreau,

Just curious, but does your filter scrub fake trolls as well? So if someone claims Dan T. status, then they are non-persons as well?

I miss the Amazing Dr. X.

Oh, and as VM points out, there is a true Proto Libertate, who has consistently fought against the oppressors' attempts to mandate nightly sleep for all seven days of her life. Her zeal for freedom is inspiring.

robc | June 5, 2007, 10:50am | #

carrick,

You left an important decription out. What kind of angle was she? Obtuse? Right? Im betting she was acute angle.

robc | June 5, 2007, 10:53am | #

decription - yikes. Intarweb rule #1, if you are going to mock someone's spelling, preview your post.

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 10:53am | #

PL-

Depends on whether you set it to filter a name or an email address or a web site listed with the handle.

Ask Eric the 0.5b for details.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 10:54am | #

Economically disadvantaged parents depend on TV to babysit their children. As a society it is up to us to make certain there is decent programming for these children to watch. You can hardly expect their parents to take time from stoop sitting or leanin against the post to police the TV.

Looks like I'm being spoofed again. Bound to happen sometime I guess.

carrick | June 5, 2007, 10:54am | #

Economically disadvantaged parents depend on TV to babysit their children.

Their choice.

As a society it is up to us to make certain there is decent programming for these children to watch.

No it's not.

You can hardly expect their parents to take time from stoop sitting or leanin against the post to police the TV.

Go fuck yourself.

Dan-T, you say you come here to provide an opposing point of view so that H&R won't be an echo chamber. But you so rarely provide anything useful. Mostly just bullshit.

You have posted enough stuff to show some glimmer of intelligence on occaison. So the only question is whether you actually believe the bullshit you post or whether your just being a prick.

JW | June 5, 2007, 10:56am | #

I want to hear a precise and detailed description of how the word "fuck" actually harms children.

God knows it hasn't hurt my kids. If anything, it's given them a more colorful vocabulary. I just have to remind them, "those are daddy's bad words." This is truly a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-said situation.

I could easily be Jason "Jay" Mewes' dad.

carrick | June 5, 2007, 10:56am | #

Looks like I'm being spoofed again. Bound to happen sometime I guess.

Your troll-mirror is more consistant than you are.

Ryo | June 5, 2007, 10:58am | #

Fluffy, the reason why you don't want your kids saying "fuck" is the same reason you probably don't say "fuck" in public that much. People will treat you differently (in general worse) if you sprinkle casual conversations with expletives. Which means it'll make it harder to get what you want, which means your quality of life will suffer. It's the difference between asking the waitress for a refill and fucking refill. Well, you'll probably get the refill in either case but one stands a much higher probability of being delivered in your lap.

Swear words don't bother me, but that doesn't mean I'm not mindful of those it might offend.

Chuck | June 5, 2007, 10:59am | #

On Halloween night, he was giving nice red apples to the children instead of candy. One of the children was a lovely little girl about 10 years old that was dressed in an angle costume. He drops the apple into her candy bag. She looks into the bag, then looks up and says "you broke my fucking cookie".


Well, at least she wasn't an obtuse angle!

carrick | June 5, 2007, 11:00am | #

Chuck, meet robc

robc | June 5, 2007, 11:00am | #

Chuck,

That joke is so 9 minutes ago.

tarran | June 5, 2007, 11:01am | #

Hey, if I am a partial owner of the airwaves, I would like to sell my share. I don't like the way the property is being managed and want to take my money out.

Anyone want to buy my share of the airwaves?

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:02am | #

Fluffy - my take on it at least is not so much that profane words are "harmful" for children to hear or say in and of themselves, but since kids tend to repeat what they hear and are generally not sophisticated enough to grasp the complex social rules for when profanity is acceptable.

So children who are exposed to profanity on a regular basis will use it at times when most adults would realize it's inappropriate, which elicts negative responses from those who hear it from them. Kids who cuss are going to come across as bratty and disrespectful (whether they intend to or not) and will be treated by others as such. Which leads to a kind of downward spiral as being treated negatively will lead to more negative behavior, etc.

Frankly, I'm puzzled that people would argue that we don't have a duty as a society to protect kids at least to some degree from exposure to profane language.

robc | June 5, 2007, 11:02am | #

tarran,

Sure. I will swap you my share of the Washington Monument.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 11:03am | #

thoreau,

Nah, I like the unedited feed. Besides, I can scroll really fast.

Chuck | June 5, 2007, 11:03am | #

P Brooks | June 5, 2007, 11:03am | #

"...the big bad government that we elected."

Whaddaya mean "we" White Man?

Chuck | June 5, 2007, 11:04am | #

Cool! A blank comment! Sort of like the vast empty reaches of the inside of my head...

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 11:05am | #

Ryo, that's silly. There are any number of things I could potentially say in conversation that will make it harder to "get what I want".

If I tell the waitress she's fat, she will probably not give me great service.

If I tell a potential customer that Christianity is stupid, I might not win that customer's business.

Do we need to make sure that kids don't hear the word "fat" on TV, or make sure they don't see any programming that questions the bases of Christianity in any way?

Of course not, because people can and do judge the social context they're in before speaking.

I've heard the word "fuck" about a billion times, and I heard it as a child on HBO all the time - and I have never, ever asked the waitress for a fucking refill.

jp | June 5, 2007, 11:05am | #

OT, but please bear with me. . .

Since most of the regulars seem to be here this morning, I wonder if there would be any interest in something I've been mulling over for a while. What if we had the capability of creating user profiles that others could access? It could be either H&R run (preferably) or set up independently.

I thought this might be helpful because the various commenters have special expertise in various areas that can give what they say greater (or lesser) weight. I've inferred from reading here a lot that LarryA is an editor, thoreau is a physicist (I think), Karen is a prosecutor (I think), Jennifer is a journalist, Pro Lib and a number of others are lawyers in private practice, etc. I assume that biologist is one.

It would seem to be helpful to have a place where we could go to see what person X's background is when reading one of his/her comments, in order to get a better sense of whether s/he knows what s/he's talking about. (Of course, X could be lying, but those sorts of misrepresentations have a way of exposing themselves through what the misrepresenter says.)

Any interest in such a thing?

VM | June 5, 2007, 11:07am | #

There is a rumor hier of who might head up the FCC in the General Zod administration.

Chucklehead | June 5, 2007, 11:08am | #

I'm sure we could find some interesting angle to talk about if the oxygen weren't being sucked out of the room by Dan T.

I suppose an argument could be made, following the same lines Jennifer argued w/r/t the pharmacist not selling the pill, that as regulators of the broadcast spectrum, the FCC has absolute authority over what it can and can not contain.

A bit of a stretch, and not one I endorse btw. But it's sumthin' to discuss.

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 11:12am | #

"Kids who cuss are going to come across as bratty and disrespectful..."

Compared to whom? There are no kids who don't cuss. The kids who don't cuss directly to your face are cussing when they talk among themselves. I guarantee it.

This even includes the Amish, based on the documentaries I've seen of their Amok Time. Did the FCC fail the Amish?

Frankly, I'm puzzled that people would argue that we don't have a duty as a society to protect kids at least to some degree from exposure to profane language.

I don't see why you are puzzled. I heard so-called "profane" language prior to my 18th birthday. There are many contexts in which I would use, and still would use, so-called "profane" language. To accept that children are harmed by it, I would have to conclude that I personally was somehow harmed by it. I don't conclude that - I conclude the opposite: I wasn't harmed by it in the slightest. Just like I wasn't harmed by alcohol or marijuana or contact with the opposite sex or anything else that I supposedly needed protection from. And unlike most people, I didn't become a hypocrite on my 30th birthday and I still apply the maxim of my action to ALL of that stuff.

Pirate Jo | June 5, 2007, 11:12am | #

"Careful, Jo. Fucking children may be ok on your pirate ship, but the Federal Government sorta frowns upon it."

Ew, yuck, are you kidding me? No, those noisy little critters - we don't keep 'em around for fun, we use 'em to catch sharks. That way we can watch anything we want on TV.

Chris S. | June 5, 2007, 11:14am | #

Oh God, I can only imagine what will happen to the kids now that they're heard the words "shit" and "fuck."

I once uttered the words in front of my 1 yr old nephew. He was instantly reduced to ash. Imagine the horror.

Jesse Walker | June 5, 2007, 11:14am | #

Dan: Do you mean to say you're opposed to the court's decision to strike down the FCC's ruling?

I'm shocked. After all, those judges are part of a government we elected.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 11:14am | #

I know there's an opinion that has not yet been expressed here, and is generally going to be the defense of the FCC, so I'm just going to put it out there.

Someone is going to say that parents can't possibly be expected to choose programming for their children if they don't know what to expect the program's content to be. Therefore the argument about better using the V-Chip is invalid, because the V-Chip and other TV technologies would not choose the Billboard Awards as a program to block due to profane language, yet the court just ruled that the broadcaster was not punishable as long as any profanity was unintentional profanity. This is the general reasoning behind ratings, which are supposed to help "guide" parents as to what programming is appropriate for their children.

Now what about those ED commercials? Or that pregnancy test commercial that shows a stream of pee falling onto it? I don't know about that one either.

Ryo | June 5, 2007, 11:15am | #

Fluffy, you're misinterpreting what I was arguing. You asked what harm there is in a kid swearing and I think I demonstrated that. Is it about as harmful as being just plain rude? Pretty much. That was the jist of what I was saying.

I didn't argue that a kid hearing the word "fuck" on TV leads them to repeat it. Nor am I arguing for censorship.

tarran | June 5, 2007, 11:18am | #

No, I don't want another share of the Washington monument... I used to own a share in that, and it took me years to unload it. Most people wanted me to pay them to take it away.

Nope, I will only accept cold, hard money, or Federal Reserve Notes for my share of the airwaves. Remember, the guy who buys my share will become twice the boss of Michael Copps compared to anyone else. The weight of your opinions will be worth that of two of your fellow citizens! With two shares compared to everyone else's one, you will become the largest share holder!

So don't be shy! It can be a great investment. do I hear $100.00?

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:19am | #

I don't see why you are puzzled. I heard so-called "profane" language prior to my 18th birthday. There are many contexts in which I would use, and still would use, so-called "profane" language. To accept that children are harmed by it, I would have to conclude that I personally was somehow harmed by it. I don't conclude that - I conclude the opposite: I wasn't harmed by it in the slightest. Just like I wasn't harmed by alcohol or marijuana or contact with the opposite sex or anything else that I supposedly needed protection from. And unlike most people, I didn't become a hypocrite on my 30th birthday and I still apply the maxim of my action to ALL of that stuff.

Well, you've probably never been harmed by FCC censorship either.

Although I'd submit that perhaps you were harmed to some degree by the vices you've particpated in, even if you don't recognize it. If the collective wisdom of centuries of human experience didn't recognize that these things were harmful, nobody would care.

Chris S. | June 5, 2007, 11:19am | #

Fluffy - my take on it at least is not so much that profane words are "harmful" for children to hear or say in and of themselves, but since kids tend to repeat what they hear and are generally not sophisticated enough to grasp the complex social rules for when profanity is acceptable.

So children who are exposed to profanity on a regular basis will use it at times when most adults would realize it's inappropriate, which elicts negative responses from those who hear it from them. Kids who cuss are going to come across as bratty and disrespectful (whether they intend to or not) and will be treated by others as such. Which leads to a kind of downward spiral as being treated negatively will lead to more negative behavior, etc.

Dan, learning when an when not to use such language is part of normal childhood socialization, and it's going to happen regardless of what escapes from Paris Hilton's mouth on live TV.

The kids figure it out -- just like they figure out grammar and standard vocabulary. They're remarkably perceptive, those tots.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:22am | #

Dan: Do you mean to say you're opposed to the court's decision to strike down the FCC's ruling?

I'm shocked. After all, those judges are part of a government we elected.

Heh. Good one. Although my disagreement with the court's decision is not to be confused with the inability to accept it.

carrick | June 5, 2007, 11:24am | #

Well, you've probably never been harmed by FCC censorship either.

Censorship always hurts someone dan.

The only legitimate limitations on communications are to prevent crime or to avert panics that might lead to injury.

Chris S. | June 5, 2007, 11:26am | #

Censorship always hurts someone dan.

The only legitimate limitations on communications are to prevent crime or to avert panics that might lead to injury.

Besides, I don't want my money wasted by some bored bureaucrat trolling live TV footage for the word "fuck" and bringing complaints on that account.

Hayekian Dreamer | June 5, 2007, 11:27am | #

Sorry, this has to be reposted from the last thread.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:28am | #

Dan, learning when an when not to use such language is part of normal childhood socialization, and it's going to happen regardless of what escapes from Paris Hilton's mouth on live TV.

I would submit that a big part of the reason most kids figure it out is because they are shielded from it during their early development by parents and others in their communities. Even adults who do swear heavily tend to watch their language around children, and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

Rex Rhino | June 5, 2007, 11:32am | #

One could say the same thing for Jesse Walker, et al, who want to protect us from the big bad government that we elected.

No, I don't want to protect you from government. If you want to give half your income to the government, that is fine. If you want to sign up to have the government punish you for every fun and pleasurable activity, that is fine. If you only want to watch TV and movies that have been censored by the government, that is fine. If you want cops to storm your house and shoot you dead because you might have drugs, that is fine.

I have no problem with you being a subservient little slave... that is obviously your choice and what brings you the most fulfillment. I might find it a little freaky, but we Libertarians are a tolerant bunch, and I want you to be happy.

Libertarians only have a problem with you trying to enforce your slave-fetish on us. Understand? If you want someone to point a gun at your head and force you not to eat french-fries, if you want someone to point a gun at your head and threaten you if you say the word "fuck", that is fine! More power to you. Hire someone to do that, or sign a paper giving the government explicit permission to do that to you. We don't want to stop you from having your life micromanaged by power-hungry authority figures, at all.

All we ask is that you be as tolerant towards our lifestyle choices as we are towards yours. Sometimes, we want to watch television programs that contain swear words... especially when I order cable and those programs aren't on public airwaves. Just respect that.

That would be great. I also wonder if we could get rid of all criminal law as well and simply wish real hard that parents would teach their kids not to get involved with crime.

Eliminating criminal laws against concentual acts would be a good thing. I don't really care if your kid smokes pot, or wants to play violent video games 24-7, that is up to you to decide to let him do so or not. As long as he isn't engaging in non-contentual acts (theft, violence, rape, kidnapping, etc.), it is all right by me.

VM | June 5, 2007, 11:34am | #

Dreamer - thank you!

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 11:34am | #

and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

What a broad and willful disregard for the actual points made by others

Jean-Paul Jean-Paul | June 5, 2007, 11:34am | #

Oooooh, look at the cute little bastard! You are mama's little bastard, aren't you?

Oh come on, you son of a bitch. I'm just trying to be friendly.

Cracker's Boy | June 5, 2007, 11:34am | #

Hey Fluffy - "And where's the control group?"

I'd say Irish kids are the control group. Those kids grow up hearing Fuck more than we grow up hearing "huh" or "wow" or "really".

And they seem okay. Compare kids who grow up in Ireland to kids who grow up in a country where the word Fuck is stigmatized, like here.

I'm just sayin'.

Cracker's Boy

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 11:37am | #

Although I'd submit that perhaps you were harmed to some degree by the vices you've particpated in, even if you don't recognize it. If the collective wisdom of centuries of human experience didn't recognize that these things were harmful, nobody would care.

But the best you could come up with above in the case of profane language is that my social peers might think less of me if they heard me use it.

That's a hell of a way to start defining harm.

After all, that means that being black is harmful, being an atheist is harmful, it would have been harmful to stand up to Joe McCarthy in the 50's, etc. Or being gay. Any one of those things could have negative social consequences.

I was hoping to hear a description of a harm that actually existed in the child it's claimed is harmed. If you could show that kids who hear profanity got lower test scores than those that didn't, for example, that would look and sound like a harm to me. But if "impaired social acceptance" is the harm, then I would actually recommend the opposite course of action from what the FCC is doing: if we had no controls at all, the word "fuck" would become so ubiquitous that it no longer would have any social impact.

VM | June 5, 2007, 11:38am | #

LENNY BRUCE!!!!!! (one minute in)

"why is fuck a bad word"

carrick | June 5, 2007, 11:38am | #

and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

You confuse peer pressure used to punish "bad manners" with government censorship and massive civil fines to punish an ouburst (accidental or intentional) on a television show.

You should review those old educational programs like Sesame Street and learn to identify which two things are not like each other.

Chris S. | June 5, 2007, 11:41am | #

I would submit that a big part of the reason most kids figure it out is because they are shielded from it during their early development by parents and others in their communities. Even adults who do swear heavily tend to watch their language around children, and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

Who is shielded, Dan? You're going to have to confront your kids about appropriate language regardless of what the FCC decides to censor. Ask your friends to use respectful language, sure, but words have a tendancy to sneak out. Moreover, I'm sure you've heard of the phenomenons called "the playground" and "the Internet."

Children aren't quite as fragile or stupid as you imagine. They'll hear the word "fuck" a thousand times before their 10th birthday, and they'll figure out standard usage for this term. Honestly, the only reason that this word and others are taboo is that they're not used in polite conversation, so if we ever get the point where TV and Internet usage of these terms become commonplace, they will cease to be rude.

Put simply, "being rude" is social norm, and it's defined by standard word usage and other behavior. Altering the frequency of a word in polite conversation won't alter the frequency of "rudeness," although it may alter social norms regarding that word.

P Brooks | June 5, 2007, 11:41am | #

" do I hear $100.00? "

I have some lutefisk, here; I think it's still good... good as it ever was, anyway.

-------

"... what escapes from Paris Hilton's mouth on live TV."

Gaaaaaah!

Hayekian Dreamer | June 5, 2007, 11:45am | #

VM - You're welcome. Awesome call on Lenny Bruce on your part too.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:46am | #

and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

What a broad and willful disregard for the actual points made by others

Actually, many here are making the exact point that there is no good reason to sheld young children from profanity.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 11:50am | #

and I can't believe that even libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids.

What a broad and willful disregard for the actual points made by others

Actually, many here are making the exact point that there is no good reason to sheld young children from profanity.

Dan, I pray that you've never taken a logic course in your life, and that if you did, you didn't pass it.

"there is no good reason to sheld young children from profanity" =/= "libertarian parents would not be offended if a friend used foul language around their kids"

I mean, are you really that dumb?

carrick | June 5, 2007, 11:52am | #

I mean, are you really that fucking dumb?

Fixed that for you

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 11:53am | #

are you really that dumb?

No, he's really that determined to say anything that'll get a rise out of people. No matter what a given thread is about, Dan will consistently oppose it, even if that means saying the exact opposite of what he said in previous threads.

dhex | June 5, 2007, 11:54am | #

reinmoose, this might help:

"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Identities

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:54am | #

Rein, the point is that people say that profanity doesn't harm young kids but I doubt they really believe it, especially if we're talking about their own children.

Jesse Walker | June 5, 2007, 11:55am | #

How many kids do you have, Dan?

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:56am | #

No, he's really that determined to say anything that'll get a rise out of people. No matter what a given thread is about, Dan will consistently oppose it, even if that means saying the exact opposite of what he said in previous threads.

You folks are too much...arguing that there's no reason not to expose young kids to profane language and then accusing me of being contrarian.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 11:56am | #

carrick, Jennifer, dhex

Thank you. Sometimes I forget myself :)

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:56am | #

How many kids do you have, Dan?

One, or 300 million, depending on your perspective.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 11:57am | #

I'm a libertarian who has forbidden my stepchildren to hang out with kids who use foul language. The language itself offends me to some extent, but I figure that any ten-year old talking that way is probably a bad influence in other regards as well.

This isn't to pretend that my kids don't know or use these words--I'm sure that they do--but they aren't going to learn from me that their use is okay in polite discourse. And the words are my least concern as far as outside influences go. I'm fighting hard to keep them from becoming submissive sheep that look to others for help in all that they do. The bibertarian influence is truly pernicious.

carrick | June 5, 2007, 12:00pm | #

arguing that there's no reason not to expose young kids to profane language

You have not really been paying attention.

The argument is that the federal government should not put in place a system of prior constraints on broadcast media. Nor should they punish an unexpected outburst with six-figure civil fines.

LarryA | June 5, 2007, 12:00pm | #

A federal appeals court has spoken: The FCC can't punish a TV network when someone unexpectedly swears during a live broadcast.

If the FCC thinks we really have to have a law, why not one that punishes the person who swears?

First Amendment? Like the FCC worries about the Constitution.

Since most of the regulars seem to be here this morning, I wonder if there would be any interest in something I've been mulling over for a while. What if we had the capability of creating user profiles that others could access? It could be either H&R run (preferably) or set up independently.

When you make a comment fill in the URL field with your personal website URL. Remember to start with “http://”

Anyone can then click on your name and get whatever you want to share.

Rein, the point is that people say that profanity doesn't harm young kids but I doubt they really believe it, especially if we're talking about their own children.

Given a choice between letting my kids listen to profanity or Dan T, I’d choose profanity.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 12:02pm | #

"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group."

Geez...you guys take this stuff way too seriously. I like Reason because it's a site that's not scared to endorse views that are unpopular and/or unorthodox. And so it's fun and educational to discuss them and get people to defend them. It's true that often I present viewpoints that I don't really believe, but then again the people who really do believe them aren't likely to post here.

If I really upset you guys so much, let me know. I'll find some other board to troll.

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Rein, the point is that people say that profanity doesn't harm young kids but I doubt they really believe it, especially if we're talking about their own children.

I have an infant son, and I do in fact believe it.

If someone delivered an angry, obscenity-filled tirade in front of him [when he's older] I'd be upset by it - but I'd be upset by the anger and the spectacle, and not by the individual curse words.

Frankly, at this point if he sat up and said "Fuck" I'd be absolutely delighted.

And if when he's 10 he wants to watch "Slapshot" with me, he's allowed, and we're watching the uncut version because the cut version is an abomination.

And if when he's 10 I catch him in the library leafing through my copy of Tropic of Cancer I'll hold him a god damn ticker tape parade.

Hollywood | June 5, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Fuck ... Shit.

Ha! Anytime, anywhere.

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 12:05pm | #

Jennifer hurt my feelings. I'm taking my ball and going home. :(

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 12:07pm | #

I don't think Dan is a troll. Just to be on the record here.

Fluffy | June 5, 2007, 12:11pm | #

And Dan, I don't think I'm being contrarian in my argument here.

I just happen to think that there's a lot of unspoken assumptions in the notion that children are harmed by profane language. I also think that most people reflexively accept this "harm" as a truism, but are not really able to quantify the harm when you interrogate them about it. Because IMO when you actually look at it, you end up with circular reasoning, or with reasoning that is extremely vulnerable to the reductio, or with reasoning that is hypocritical, or with reasoning that is consequentialist without ever naming the consequences.

I think I'm making a gadfly argument, but not a contrarian one.

jp | June 5, 2007, 12:13pm | #

Thanks, LarryA. I'll have to get Kenny the intern to help me set up one of those URL thingies.

Seitz | June 5, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Funny, I don't recall voting for Martin or Copps.

Ah yes, Martin and Cop(p)s. Coincidentally, two of the shows on which obscenities were most likely to have been heard.

pigwiggle | June 5, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Hey Dan, I've done my share of commenting on conservative and liberal boards, but I brought well reasoned consistent argument; I added something. When you are playing around in someone else's neighborhood you don't come with the snide one line trollers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Chucklehead | June 5, 2007, 12:24pm | #

I like Reason because it's a site that's not scared to endorse views that are unpopular and/or unorthodox. And so it's fun and educational to discuss them and get people to defend them. It's true that often I present viewpoints that I don't really believe, but then again the people who really do believe them aren't likely to post here.

If this is true Dan, do you detect any irony at all in the fact that you often act like an asshole when you post, yet the topic under discussion in this thread could be considered as a debate on manners?

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 12:31pm | #

I bet GW wasn't exposed to the kind of violence and profanity on television that kids are exposed to today, and look how non-violent and well-liked he is!

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 12:37pm | #

If I really upset you guys so much, let me know. I'll find some other board to troll.

Please do. You're intensely annoying.

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 12:38pm | #

Isn't this link be mandatory on any FCC post?

Eric Idle's FCC Song
AKA "Fuck You Very Much"

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 12:40pm | #

I learning to be writing English as my firstest languages.

CFisher | June 5, 2007, 12:40pm | #

I think the point of contention isn't about whether dirty words can be broadcast on regular TV, I think the point of contention is:

1. Is it fair to impose a fine on a company when it's not their fault that they violated the rules? If some reporter on the street is doing a live feed on a story and some drunken ass walks by and shouts "F***", how it is fair to hold the TV station responsible for the boor's behavior?

2. Who is ultimately responsible for kids?

Ultimately, no one made the parents procreate, and ultimately, they are responsible for the child they create. They should not expect the rest of the world to accomodate them, they should do their best to train their children on how to handle the world in the context of their own moral and social beliefs.

As for my kids, no I wouldn't want an adult swearing in front of them, and if this became a problem, I would not let that person around my kids. In other words, I would handle it myself. If worse comes to worse and broadcast TV becomes a free for all where every show features boobs and swearing, I'd throw the TV out (or at least lock it up in a room they did not have access to.)

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 12:41pm | #

If I really upset you guys so much, let me know. I'll find some other board to troll.


No, please don't. I really find your comments amusing most times. I especially liked how you refrained from your standard "morals" clause in the porn thread yesterday, yet you never to mention morals when it comes to online gambling. So, gambling is a destructive vice and porn is not. Funny, yes! hahhaaha...

stay around...:)

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 12:43pm | #

highnumber,

I see you're doing quite well in Urkobold's® Remedrial Engrish class. Props!

carrick | June 5, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Here Dan, I'll help you out.

There are principled arguments to be made that since the FCC currently regulates over-the-air broadcasts that can be viewed by anyone with an appropriate receiver, that the FCC can then impose broadcast standards on anyone that gets a license from the FCC.

If the FCC issues that license under the conditions that the broadcaster will suppress certain bad words during live broadcasts, then the licensee must adhere to those conditions or risk the consequences.

The broadcaster can implement technology to tape-delay by 10 or so seconds so that bad words can be blipped out of the broadcast. Or the broadcaster can impose restrictions on speakers during the broadcast and take the risk that a bad word slips out (this would result in a subsequent punishment from the FCC).

Now a libertarian will say:

The FCC should not control the airways to start with

The FCC should not control content

The current cult of nannies that run the FCC are running amok

so forth and so on.

So Dan if you want to push the current status of the FCC as being legitimate, then do so. Just show some respect to those that come here to argue against the FCC.

Pirate Jo | June 5, 2007, 12:44pm | #

I don't think exposure to profanity harms children, but I think children who use profanity sound like tacky trash. If anyone is going to shield children from profanity, it should be their parents. The fact that many parents do not shield their children from profanity does not mean anyone else should have to.

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 12:45pm | #

sheesh...

...yet you never fail to mention morals when it comes to online gambling

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 12:50pm | #

I do not want to hear a "You won't have Dan T. to kick around anymore" speech. Dan T., in case anyone hasn't noticed, has actually started to slowly come around. I don't think he is at all like joe, who shares some libertarian values, but has genuine differences with most of us and likes to argue about those differences. Dan T., I believe, is asking questions in his own way. He has doubts, and is asking us to confront those for him. No, as he admits, he does not really believe everything he writes, but he is not quite sure about the libertarian response.
Dan T. may end his journey as an anarcho-capitalist. Who knows?

In other words, I'm with jimmydageek!
(in class, as well as regarding Dan T.)

jp | June 5, 2007, 12:50pm | #

If worse comes to worse and broadcast TV becomes a free for all where every show features boobs and swearing, I'd throw the TV out (or at least lock it up in a room they did not have access to.)

I'd turn down the volume and watch a lot more TV.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 12:51pm | #

The only bad thing about this recent ruling is that it destroys my plan to bring down Fox News by running onscreen next time they do live coverage, and screaming "Fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck!"

And if I did this while wearing a T-shirt imprinted with naughty words, so much the better. Until now.

Objective Observer | June 5, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 12:37pm | #

If I really upset you guys so much, let me know. I'll find some other board to troll.

Please do. You're intensely annoying.

Jennifer,
I am a long time reader of these boards.
You are as intensely annoying as anyone who has ever dared post here.

Please refrain from future posting on these boards.

;^)

Wow, the power is like a drug. Who else can I banish?

Sean Connery | June 5, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Lass, your plan has merit, but I dinna think a t-shirt is the right answer. Dispense with the shirt and write yon words on your mammary glands. Ah, now that's speech.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Dispense with the shirt and write yon words on your mammary glands. Ah, now that's speech.

But they'd be too hard to read that way. Bouncy bouncy.

Objective Observer | June 5, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Damned.
My power has been challenged and I am impotent to enforce my will...

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 1:07pm | #

Jennifer:
that shirt should also have a large picture of George Bush shaking hands with Jesus

Urkobold® | June 5, 2007, 1:09pm | #

UNREGULATED TELEVISION, BEING NECESSARY TO THE LIBERTY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BARE THEIR BOUNCY BOSOMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

URKOBOLD ASSERTS THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE BOSOMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Objective Observer | June 5, 2007, 1:11pm | #

It must be Urkobold that emboldens my enemies.

Objective Observer | June 5, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Aresen,

"In that case, we'll have to revoke your '00' designation."

Am I demoted from OO===D to 8-> ?

JW | June 5, 2007, 1:14pm | #

URKOBOLD ASSERTS THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE BOSOMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

And God Bless America, I'll fight to the last to uphold this right!

Urkobold® | June 5, 2007, 1:19pm | #

AS THE GREAT JAMES MADISON SAID WHEN HE PENNED THIS PAEAN TO FREEDOM, "BOUNCY, BOUNCY!"

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 1:21pm | #

that shirt should also have a large picture of George Bush shaking hands with Jesus

No, the purpose is to offend Fox News viewers. I'm thinking George Bush snorting cocaine off of Jesus' bare ass.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 1:23pm | #

And it would be a bare ass, not a hairy one. As any lisping Sunday-school teacher can tell you, Jesus shaves.

Minion of URKOBOLD | June 5, 2007, 1:26pm | #

*pipes in the ear-pleasing tunes of "Men at Work"

ed | June 5, 2007, 1:29pm | #

I'm thinking George Bush snorting cocaine off of Jesus' bare ass.

A Jesus penis-straw would be better.

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 1:30pm | #

But Jennifer, my suggestion was to make it seem as though you were some god-fearing republican making these clearly contrary statements. Otherwise, they can just look at you and be like "see, this already confirms our thoughts about those who reject Jesus's love"

Minion of URKOBOLD | June 5, 2007, 1:37pm | #

*turns up volume

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 1:40pm | #

So the verdict is unclear, although I still get the feeling that opposing views are not welcome here at the home of Free Minds.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 1:48pm | #

my suggestion was to make it seem as though you were some god-fearing republican making these clearly contrary statements.

As far as the FCC's concerned, it doesn't matter what thoughts a person has; what matters is, is somebody says "fuck" during a live TV broadcast, the broadcasters, but not the people who actually said it, will be in shitloads of trouble.

When I did my radio interview about phone sex a few weeks ago, I was already nervous enough about it being my first interview, but I was extra-paranoid (given the subject matter) for fear I'd accidentally say a naughty word and get the DJ fired. If I were a DJ, meanwhile, I'd be constantly stressed that somebody would call in and say "shit" just to get my license revoked.

Jadagul | June 5, 2007, 1:54pm | #

Dan, opposing views are welcome. Saying things just to provoke a response, less so. Sometimes you come through, and say something sensible and make an interesting argument. But the majority of the time, your comments don't look like you want a serious answer; they look like you're trying to find out how many people you can piss off (the answer, incidentally, is 'lots and lots.' Congratulations). As an example, this:

I don't know if it's that commonsense of a decision - doesn't it basically mean that as long as a broadcast is live, anybody can say or do anything, as long as it's "unexpected"?

Granted, I'm sure many here would be fine with that, but as part-owner of the nation's airwaves it seems as though we're better off restricted adult language to adult programming.

Is potentially productive and can lead to a useful conversation, even though—or perhaps because—most of us will disagree with you (as you pointed out). Whereas this:

And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

To hell with the well-being of children - they're only the future of our society. Our desire to watch trash on TV is much more important!

Just sounds like you're trying to piss us off. More of the former, and less of the latter, and people might start actually responding to what you say...

And a random comment for everyone else: I don't think I knew the word 'fuck' until I hit high school. I didn't use it until I was a junior (that damn calculus test; I cursed so much during that there wasn't much point in refraining after). I don't think curse words are harmful; I do think that reserving them for special occasions makes them much more powerful and useful.

Objective Observer | June 5, 2007, 1:56pm | #

* [sees that Jennifer has continued to post. Places fingers in ears]

LALALALALALAL...

Damned I can still read when I do that. And this time it is an annoying story about her personal life, again....

Dan T.
Reason will ban you if you are unwelcome. Until that time you should feel welcome to post your questions.

But Jennifer is intensely annoying and should not feel comfortable posting.

Bouncy bouncy (shivers)... she almost makes me ashamed to be a former sex worker.

WLM | June 5, 2007, 1:58pm | #

What would happen to a broadcaster who let a news anchor read FCC chief Kevin Martin's statement (which includes the words "fuck" and "shit") on the air?

Reinmoose | June 5, 2007, 2:02pm | #

Oh, I missed the motive of the assault on Fox News. Good plan though.

Dan,
You seem to fail to recognize that not all libertarians share ALL of the same values. Funny how that works, because the values that they do tend to share are the ones where we don't fuck with others' lives because their moral opinions are different.

There is nothing contradictory about Pro Lib and Fluffy agreeing that the FCC shouldn't regulate swearing on TV but yet differing on whether or not they'd let their children watch said swearing.

Just because Fluffy doesn't think that swear words are harmful to children doesn't mean that's a value shared by all libertarians, nor does it need to be in order for libertarianism to "work."

Yet you try to lump everyone together, chaining us all to each other's comments on all topics (especially those that have nothing to do with libertarianism or political identity, such as whether or not "fuck" is harmful for children to hear). That's part of why people get so mad at you Dan. You are either extremely thick and don't get the difference, or an asshole.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 2:04pm | #

I don't think curse words are harmful; I do think that reserving them for special occasions makes them much more powerful and useful.

Lewis Black said something about how there's no such thing as "bad" words, but there are words that adults use to express adult frustrations and the government has no business banning them. If a guy loses his job and his pension after 30 years, he's damned well not going to say "Oh, poopyfeathers!" to express his frustration.

Meanwhile, the idea that certain syllables pronounced in a certain order are inherently harmful smacks of superstitious magic. Saying the word "cuff" won't hurt anybody, and neither will saying it backwards.

Hayekian Dreamer | June 5, 2007, 2:10pm | #

highnumber - personally I prefer the Family Guy "Freakin' FCC" song I posted earlier.

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 2:13pm | #

And fuck you very much, too, Hayekian Dreamer! ;)

Hayekian Dreamer | June 5, 2007, 2:14pm | #

lol, fuck you too highnumber, fuck you too ;)

Grotius | June 5, 2007, 2:20pm | #

This is a pretty good example of clashing ideologies - e.g., what is the nature of man, etc.

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 2:20pm | #

And a very merry fucking Christmas to all!

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 2:23pm | #

Reinmoose,

Precisely. If Fluffy wants to allow his children to see Paul Newman curse, it's none of my business. I'm not a total anarchist here, either, because I don't mind some limits on Fluffy's power--say, if he decided to beat his child to the edge of death with a hockey stick, it's okay if the collective we stop him. It's conflating death with bad influences or the merely distasteful that leads the bibertarians astray, I think.

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Um, I want to fuck each and every one of you?
Wait, no, that's not right.
Aw, Jesus, fuck me!

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Cuff! Tish! Chib!

Chris S. | June 5, 2007, 2:26pm | #

If a guy loses his job and his pension after 30 years, he's damned well not going to say "Oh, poopyfeathers!" to express his frustration.

Why did you have to dis "poopyfeathers"? Fucker...

Cletus Junior | June 5, 2007, 2:29pm | #

I'm gonna fuck all y'all

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Fuck! This thread has gone to shit really fucking fast!

Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Dan, opposing views are welcome. Saying things just to provoke a response, less so. Sometimes you come through, and say something sensible and make an interesting argument. But the majority of the time, your comments don't look like you want a serious answer; they look like you're trying to find out how many people you can piss off (the answer, incidentally, is 'lots and lots.' Congratulations). As an example, this:
I don't know if it's that commonsense of a decision - doesn't it basically mean that as long as a broadcast is live, anybody can say or do anything, as long as it's "unexpected"?

Granted, I'm sure many here would be fine with that, but as part-owner of the nation's airwaves it seems as though we're better off restricted adult language to adult programming.
Is potentially productive and can lead to a useful conversation, even though—or perhaps because—most of us will disagree with you (as you pointed out). Whereas this:
And didn't we all know that this would quickly become one of those telling threads that illustrate why there are no libertarians who are also mothers?

To hell with the well-being of children - they're only the future of our society. Our desire to watch trash on TV is much more important!
Just sounds like you're trying to piss us off. More of the former, and less of the latter, and people might start actually responding to what you say...

Point taken.

As an experiment, I'll try to keep a little more on-topic and less confrontational. We'll see what happens.

Cletus Senior | June 5, 2007, 2:34pm | #

THAT'S MY BOY!

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 2:52pm | #

I assume that I can still get off topic, since I'm not Dan T.

Does anybody else, when you are in a big time hurry, like when you are racing to the bathroom because you are about to shit your shorts, get this stuck in your head to the tune of "Frosty the Snowman":

"Fuckity fuck fuck
Fuckity fuck fuck
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
Fuckity fuck fuck
Fuckity fuck fuck
Fuckity fuck fuck fuck..."?

jimmydageek | June 5, 2007, 2:56pm | #

highnumber,

No! Weirdo.

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Hey, jimmy!

VM | June 5, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Nevermind that - the important thing is:

afterwards, do you look?

BTW: Hier is pic of HIGHNUMBER doing just that

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 3:07pm | #

Fuck you! Of course I look. Katie Couric taught me that.

And stop following me into the john!
Or at least stop bringing the sketchpad.

Pro Libertate | June 5, 2007, 3:11pm | #

I'm not letting my children read this thread. Though I acknowledge Fluffy's right to force his children to do so.

nothing goin' on hier... nufin. | June 5, 2007, 3:12pm | #

That's not all Katie taught you...

(sneaks etch-a-sketch into bathroom)

Mr. Steven Crane | June 5, 2007, 3:27pm | #

yo.

i happen to like Dan T. most of the time, anyway. we'll say 70%.

Chucklehead | June 5, 2007, 3:37pm | #

The last bit of this thread almost reads like a Tarantino script.

Nigga!


Now, it does.

thoreau | June 5, 2007, 4:40pm | #

As an experiment, I'll try to keep a little more on-topic and less confrontational. We'll see what happens.

And in return, I promise not to post my "You know, it's better to just ignore" schtick in the next thread I see you in.

But if you keep on provoking the "OMG! Did he really just say that?" response again and again, my promise will be revoked.

highnumber | June 5, 2007, 4:47pm | #

Well, isn't this just fucking lovely?

R C Dean | June 5, 2007, 4:55pm | #

URKOBOLD ASSERTS THAT THE RIGHT TO BARE BOSOMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

So, is this one of those "pry them from my cold dead hands" kind of rights?

tarran | June 5, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Lutefisk? Lutefisk!

Listen, only when enough people are using Lutefisk as money to make it worth my time will I use it too.

I want coin!

Urkobold® | June 5, 2007, 5:02pm | #

URKOBOLD DOES NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH NECROPHILIC PRACTICES, MR. DEAN, BUT THE ANSWER MUST BE YES. URKOBOLD WOULD KILL FOR BARE BOSOMS.

Jennifer | June 5, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Hands off, boys, or I'll poke your damned eyes out. And I won't need my hands to do it, either.

Urkobold® | June 5, 2007, 9:33pm | #

URKOBOLD FIRMLY SUPPORTS JENNIFER'S AMPLY STATED POSITION.

KHater | June 5, 2007, 9:38pm | #

If we expose children to swearing more often, then they'll just get bored with it. I mean, what's the point of cursing if you're not going to get a reaction out of someone? If the FCC keeps censoring everything, than we'll be cranking out wussy children who don't know anything.

The Fake Dan T. | June 5, 2007, 11:11pm | #

"Just curious, but does your filter scrub fake trolls as well? So if someone claims Dan T. status, then they are non-persons as well?"

Don't talk about scrubbing trolls, especially around The Children, who might get all wet and sticky in their private parts imagining that. Oh, and I should use the actual word "fuck" in a post arguing against exposing the word "fuck" to The Children in a website thread that any intertubes-savvy child can access and read -- all without the slightest comprehension of the irony.

Robert | June 5, 2007, 11:28pm | #

Mother & Daddy tried to keep us from learning words that could be deprecatory, such as "stupid", "moron", "idiot", "stinky", "gimpy", etc. My sister & I responded by giving those deprecatory words we did know expanded meaning; for instance, "crooked" was a big one with my sister.

jh (aka The Fake Dan T.) | June 5, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Dan T. is welcome to hang around here, if he's able to handle the return fire. I'm fine with people posting moronic statist B.S. we can all take a swing at. And I enjoy having someone to mock.

But, dude, if you're gonna do a Borat on us, stay in fucking character at all times. And if you really do believe all the crap you're spewing, being exposed to the perspective of people who believe in liberty is pr