FCC

The FCC Isn't Singling Out Stephen Colbert for his "Cock Holster" Crack at Trump…

It's only doing what it *has* to do, by Congress' mandate, which is to investigate *all* complaints. BTW, f*ck the FCC!

|

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown showed in her thorough debunking of the widespread claim that congressional Republicans had passed legislation defining rape as a pre-existing condition no longer covered under federal health-care law, the American press is characterized by groupthink and agenda-setting. The speed with which the absolutely false statement about the American Healtch Care Act (AHCA) and rape showed up in all sorts of outlets is testament to media credulity, or maybe just plain old-fashioned media bias.

Something similar has happened with one of the other big stories of last week. In an anti-Donald Trump monologue, The Late Show's Stephen Colbert said, among many other things:

"You talk like a sign-language gorilla who got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's cock holster."

You can watch the whole monologue below (the cock-holster line, which was bleeped both during the broadcast and remains bleeped even at the Late Show's official YouTube feed, appears around 11.10 minutes).

In the wake of the comments, a "Fire Colbert" hashtag is making the rounds on Twitter, arguing that his comments are homophobic. Given Colbert's public support for marriage equality and his obvious comfort level not only with gays and lesbians but affectionately parodying them in shows such as Strangers with Candy (in which he played a closeted teacher who was having an affair with a male colleague) and "The Ambiguously Gay Duo," a Saturday Night Live animated series about superheroes who may or may not be gay, the attacks on Colbert are nothing more than right-wing concern trolling.

Folks have also complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with maintaining content regulation for broadcast radio and television programming (for a variety of reasons, the FCC doesn't have the same mandate for cable and internet content). By law, the FCC must investigate claims that networks have aired "indecent" material (like obscenity, indecency is an utterly made-up, extra-constitutional definition of supposedly illegal speech). The agency, which is headed up Ajit Pai, a vocal and principled opponent of Net Neutrality and government regulation of speech, is doing nothing out of the ordinary here. As Pai's chief of staff, Matthew Berry, tweeted on Saturday:

But like the "Republican reclassified rape as a pre-existing condition and dropped coverage of it" meme, the FCC's requaction is being taken as prima facie evidence that the Trump administration is cracking down on critics via the very administrative state that adviser Steve Bannon promised to deconstruct. From New York magazine (which published and then corrected one of the most breathless and incorrect early stories on the AHCA) comes this from the head of the Writers Guild of America (WGA):

"As presidents of the Writers Guilds of America, East and West, we were appalled to read recent remarks by Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai," WGA East boss Michael Winship and WGA West chief Howard Rodman told Deadline. "He said the FCC would investigate a joke about Donald Trump by Writers Guild member Stephen Colbert, 'apply the law' and 'take appropriate action' if the joke were found to be 'obscene.'"

"Pai's remarks are just the latest in a series of statements by the current administration indicating a willful disregard of the First Amendment. Colbert was poking fun at authority, a time-honored American tradition and an essential principle of democracy."

Well, sure, whatevs. Except for the fact that the FCC is simply following its standard-operating procedure.

So we arrive at a place where right-wingers are concern-trolling a liberal comedian as homophobic and where progressives are trolling a government bureaucracy for doing its job (double-plus-good irony: The FCC is the very agency which left-leaners believe should have the right to control all ISPs and thus the Internet via expansive Net Neutrality rules).

The solution from a libertarian perspective is pretty clear, simple, elegant—and in this case at least, hopelessly utopian: Abolish the FCC or, at the very least, decommission its role in any form of content regulation.

Indeed, it's far from clear that we've ever needed any sort of FCC to hash out technical issues and interference claims, the least-objectionable rationale for its existence. As longtime Reason contributor, Clemson professor, and former chief economist at the FCC Thomas W. Hazlett shows in his brilliant new history, The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Technology, from Herbert Hoover To the Smartphone, the basic story used to justify the FCC's predecessor (the Federal Radio Comission) in the 1920s is bullshit. Legend has it that larger stations were drowning out and interfering with smaller stations' signals, ushering in period of chaos that only federal control could sort out. All sorts of ad hoc and legal redress "Regulators," contends Hazlett convincingly, "blocked competition at the behest of incumbent interests and, for nearly a century, have suppressed innovation while quashing out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints."

Beyond technical questions of spectrum allocation and related issues, it should be clear to all but the most censorious and backward-looking that there is simply no role for government to be in a position to police speech simply because it is sent via broadcast signals rather than cable, print, or the Internet. As former FCC head Michael Powell said nearly 20 years ago, "The time has come to move forward toward a single standard of First Amendment analysis that recognizes the reality of the media marketplace and respects the intelligence of American consumers." Powell was confident that if Americans were forced to choose between the First Amendment and free expression on the one hand and censorship and nanny-statism on the other, they'd push to have all media protected by the Constitution.

You can like or dislike Stephen Colbert (I'm a liker) and you can like or dislike the "cock holster" gag (I don't think it's funny and the bleeping is just sad). But in a world that is blessed with hot and cold running culture—from free porn to free Proust—the last thing any of us should give a shit about is granting the government the right to police speech. But that would require a change in law, which would require Congress to do something worth a damn. And it would help if we had a press that was capable of reality-based reporting, rather than glomming on to whatever faux outrage of the moment slides past journos' social-media feeds.

I sat down recently with Ajit Pai to talk about Net Neutrality, innovation, and freedom of expression. Here's the video of our conversation. Go here for full transcript of same.

Advertisement

NEXT: Welfare Reform Paved Trail For Obamacare Repeal

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. Report abuses.

  1. So we arrive at a place where right-wingers are concern-trolling a liberal comedian as homophobic and where progressives are trolling a government bureaucracy for doing its job…

    What’s not to love about the Trump Era?

    1. Holding the Left to the standards they set for everyone else is amusing.

      1. Left minus right still equals zero

        1. Directions do not equal numbers.

          1. They aren’t directions. And the logic is elementary algebra.

            In the political context, right and left derive from — let’s say relative placement to each other, which is literally the origin of the terms. See the French Revolution for context. A location is not a direction.

            It’s been a libertarian slogan and principle for at least 40 years now. Millions of Americans have seen the slogan, mostly at OPH booth during that period, They understood the meaning instantly, just on elementary algebra.
            If x – y = zero, the x and y are necessarily equal
            If z -t = zero, then z and t are necessarily equal.
            If blah – puck = zero then blah and puck are necessarily equal, Right?
            And if left – right = zero, then they are necessarily equal.

            Millions of Americans have visited OPH booths, which often feature the slogan. on or near the largest graphic. which is a Nolan Chart, also tied to a 50-year slogan “left and right are obsolete” I’ve probably worked enough booths, personally, to deal with a thousand or more visitors. Don’t recall a single question. Do recall many chuckles.
            .
            Sorry, I should never assume that everyone on a libertarian website is a libertarian, or familiar with our fundamental traditions.

            1. I’ve worked a booth as well. Nolan chart is a convenient simplification, but even the Nolan chart is not a number line. Left – right = centrist. It’s as likely to equal authoritarianism as liberty.

              In addition, left is no longer left, and right is no longer right. The left is now very comfortable with infringing civil liberties, and the right is now very comfortable infringing on economic liberty.

              1. Now very comfortable?

                1. Now very comfortable?

                  He may have been drunk. or high (lol)
                  But probably the software malfunction

              2. but even the Nolan chart is not a number line

                I never said it was. You must have replied to somebody else

                Left – right = centrist. It’s as likely to equal authoritarianism as liberty.

                Relevance? It’s never been part of the slogan because it has no relevance of purpose,

                Good luck correcting this.

              3. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

                This is what I do,.,.,.,,…. http://www.webcash10.com

    2. Trump?

      1. Definitely. This controversy about the rule of law furthers one of the key goals of his presidency???to distract the public from developments in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case. See the documentation at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    3. We’d be remiss not to add “and libertarians are defending the FCC.”

      1. Aside from the article saying to abolish it? You putz

      2. I think the R word you are looking for is retarded as in “We (read that Tony) would be retarded to add that libertarians are defending the FCC”. This is especially true in an article that calls for abolishing the FEC.

        There is a difference between pointing out the lefts retarded fantasies about this being political suppression and actually defending the agency. If you want to join the author and call for abolishing this regulatory agency good for you. If not that’s cool too. Someone has to be in the bottom 20% intellectually among ditch diggers.

        1. the lefts retarded fantasies

          It would be unconstitutional, but I occasionally fantasize about locking the left retards in a room with the right retards, and giving them enough weapons to destroy each other.

          the bottom 20% intellectually among ditch diggers.

          20% is close to the far-left and far-right combined. So we may agree!

          1. I guess that depends on what you mean by far left and far right. If you mean your typical socon yep they are as dumb as a box of rocks. If you mean classical liberals or libertarians who are often categorized as the far right then no. I would enjoy seeing a bunch of socons and social justice warriors feasting on the flesh of the living if we could quarantine them in a giant pen together with the weapons of their choice.

            1. Agreed.

              I’ve been a libertarian since the very day the movement began. It was September of 1960. The student protests were originally 100% anti-authority. Civil rights and Vietnam piggy-backed (which was good) That evolved into Young Americans For Freedom, then through the Goldwater campaign, and eventually harnessed by David Nolan. Objectivists came in from the side and merged.

              That was the pro-liberty libertarians (minarchists). The anti-government ones evolved out of the anarchists (who were NOT anti-government, knowing they had to evolve through minarchy)

              1. Now if you just had a non-assenine way of conveying your views you might have actually gained support or won an election!

                But alas, youd rather troll people with your “wisdom” than actually communicate. Its the problem with both intellectual libertarians and liberals. People don’t dislike you for what you say, it’s how you say it.

                1. Do you have any content, or just childish insults, rage and aggression?

          2. I came up with a similar plan for elections, after a couple of local campaigns turned out even nastier and more interminable than usual. Fit each candidate with a wireless heart rate monitor, give each a knife, and then shut them all in one big room together, with only one eixt. The door would have (C-1) electronic locks, where (C) is the total number of candidates. Every time a monitor flat-lines, one lock releases. When the door opens, whoever walks out gets the job.

            Since this system can accommodate multiple candidates, there’s no need for separate primaries or run-off elections, getting the whole process over and done in one fell swoop. This would also eliminate the endless commercials, as well as the need for polling, voter outreach, etc. With the cost of campaigning reduced to almost nil, this should effectively end the controversy over campaign finance, as well.

            And seriously, could this possibly produce results much worse than the way we’re doing it now?

            1. And seriously, could this possibly produce results much worse than the way we’re doing it now?

              Hard to say, but you have a definite future in satire.

      3. Tony no read words to good.

        1. Don; be so quick to judge. I had just corrected your own severe misreading here:
          https://reason.com/blog/2017/05…..nt_6839177

          And it may have been partially my fault for assuming everyone on a libertarian website is a libertarian, and/or familiar with our core traditions for the past 40-50 years. And, frankly, I don’t recall ever seeing anyone who does not understand how left and right are used in a political context

          1. Hint for the severely autistic among us: Quoting your own posts is a sure giveaway to your condition.

            1. Hint for the mentally retarded. If one is linking to proof then the location is irrelevant!!!
              And how many names will you stalk me with this time?

              I’ll again remind you that’s it’s kinda stupid when you do them all at the same time of day — with similar aggressions. But bullies gotta hate,

              1. Well then. Touche. And a hint for the humorless, mentally retarded, dead thread fucking troll-tard fucks that hate everything and love nothing. I can dead-thread fuck the shit out of your dead thread fucking shit. But only out of self defense. Because of all of the bullying and aggression I have had to endure by coming here again and again and constantly having to re-defend myself. Bullying and aggression are bad. Self defense is good. And I think we can all agree that the LAST person to copy-paste-insert-assertion in a thread is TECHNICALLY the winner. amirite? (Snicker) So I suppose we both will have to agree there is absolutely no point in debating or discussing things. The last dead-pool winning dead-thread-fucking motherfucker left standing takes all. And please for the love of God, don’t try coming back after this SELF DEFENSIVE DTFing, that I only do out of necessity and self defense and re-engage in more of your predictable BULLYING AND AGGRESSION! Don’t do it…

          2. Aww, Mike being Tony’s white night. You guys would make a great commercial for the special Olympics.

            1. Aww, Mike being Tony’s white night.

              By linking to you making an ass of yourself?????

    4. Drumpf in it

    5. Drumpf in it

    6. Drumpf in it

  2. They should investigate the fact that these hacks are not funny. They stopped being funny right about 2008 when the world decided to give a pass to the SLW.

    1. They should investigate the fact that these hacks are not funny.

      Should they be imprisoned or put to death?

      right about 2008 when the world decided to give a pass to the SLW.

      It’s difficult for me to keep track of all the satanic conspiracies on the left. Plus Trump’s on the pseudo-right,

      1. If you think the left and right are somehow equivalent, then you’re doing it wrong. We’ve seen what happens when the left gets full control throughout the 20th century. Over a hundred million people died because of it. Unfettered, the right does some brain dead shit (like proposing that porn license for internet devices), but degrees of magnitude more benign in comparison.

        I would rather see the left suddenly spontaneously combust and then change the conflict to one of traditionalism (SoCons), versus libertarianism. That seems much healthier for society.

        1. I would rather see the left suddenly spontaneously combust

          (shudder) Such raging hatred proves my point!

          and then change the conflict to one of traditionalism (SoCons), versus libertarianism.

          Only if one is an extreme socon, which is fascism NOT traditionalism,

          Libertarians have always opposed BOTH fiscal liberals AND social conservatives, because BOTH (in the extreme) seek to impose their values through force of law. Since most Americans would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the extreme socons and the econlibs COMBINED are a minority. They’re done.

          Extreme socons are manipulated with:
          1) “The founders didn’t intend Separation, because those words aren’t in the Constitution.” As if they had to be! (lol)

          2) “Life is superior to all other rights”, which violates the concept of unalienable rights. There are MANY unalienable rights which can NEVER be denied or disparaged ? so they’re precisely co-equal! But extreme socons REFUSE to accept so obvious a truth, just as econlibs REFUSE to accept equally obvious truths..

          So extreme socons will NEVER accept that mandating pro-life by law is a MASSIVE moral contradiction. The woman had God-given rights at conception too! When did God change His mind?

          1. I just had to comment on these two points of yours.

            Extreme socons are manipulated with:

            1) “The founders didn’t intend Separation, because those words aren’t in the Constitution.” As if they had to be! (lol)

            I have literally never heard anyone on the far right side of social conservatism say this. Probably because if they did they would be easily shut up by simply pointing at the Bill of Rights which covers this very point.

            2) “Life is superior to all other rights”, which violates the concept of unalienable rights. There are MANY unalienable rights which can NEVER be denied or disparaged ? so they’re precisely co-equal! But extreme socons REFUSE to accept so obvious a truth, just as econlibs REFUSE to accept equally obvious truths..

            Natural Rights can be in conflict, and when that happens I’m curious what you think the redress is. RE: A persons right to their own body vs. the right of their unborn child that resides therein. Coequal does not necessarily mean that they can’t be legislated upon since the conflict must be resolved.

            One thing that I do know for a fact is that Hihn somehow manages to be more elitist than a far-left Liberal while also being more condescending than a far-right Social Conservative. It’s the worst combination of both, rather than the ‘best’ that Libertarianism is often sold as. It’s sort of ironic, really.

            1. Boldface because personal insults and aggression

              1) “The founders didn’t intend Separation, because those words aren’t in the Constitution.” As if they had to be! (lol)

              I have literally never heard anyone on the far right side of social conservatism say this.

              Here’s 5 million entries for the claim, from a search.

              Probably because if they did they would be easily shut up by simply pointing at the Bill of Rights which covers this very point.

              The words are NOT in the Bill of Rights, nor do they have to be.

              Natural Rights can be in conflict, and when that happens I’m curious what you think the redress is.

              It”s NOT what I THINK. They can ONLY be resolved by the Judiciary. For “Your right to swing your fist ends at the top of my nose.” The nose tip is the boundary between two conflicting rights. Only the court may establish the boundary and it must best protect BOTH rights ….. BECAUSE they are equal

              RE: A persons right to their own body vs. the right of their unborn child that resides therein. Co-equal does not necessarily mean that they can’t be legislated upon

              ONLY If constitutional.

              I’ll ignore your insults, and await your proof that the words “Separation of Church and State” are in the Bill of Rights.

  3. RE: The FCC Isn’t Singling Out Stephen Colbert for his “Cock Holster” Crack at Trump…
    It’s only doing what it *has* to do, by Congress’ mandate, which is to investigate *all* complaints. BTW, f*ck the FCC!

    Can someone help me out here?
    Why does the USA need the FCC again, I mean besides employing statist control of information and paying a bunch of needless bureaucrats a shitload of money and benefits?

    1. As longtime Reason contributor, Clemson professor, and former chief economist at the FCC Thomas W. Hazlett shows in his brilliant new history, The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Technology, from Herbert Hoover To the Smartphone, the basic story used to justify the FCC’s predecessor (the Federal Radio Comission) in the 1920s is bullshit. Legend has it that larger stations were drowning out and interfering with smaller stations’ signals, ushering in period of chaos that only federal control could sort out. All sorts of ad hoc and legal redress “Regulators,” contends Hazlett convincingly, “blocked competition at the behest of incumbent interests and, for nearly a century, have suppressed innovation while quashing out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints.”

    2. One station over powering other stations was their original job and should be their only job

      1. They don’t even need that. The power required to overpower other stations costs proportionally more than any benefit, offends more listeners with increased static, and the additional listeners are farther and farther away, lessening their appeal to advertisers. And if they persist out of spite, it’s not hard to embarrass businesses which behave badly, as we have seen with airlines recently.

        1. And yet, 50,000 watt class A stations exist

    3. The FCC used to regulate commercial volume. Yes, this is not something the government should be doing, but I miss the results of that overreach.

    4. Can someone help me out here?

      I’d love to help you out. How did you get in? 🙂

      Why does the USA need the FCC again,

      Who said we did? Clearly not Nick.

  4. So… *rubbing my temples* the fcc IS investigating Colbert, but only because they have to investigate every complaint. So… this is really nothing like the rape-as-preexisting-condition story. This story is true, but because they have Orwellian powers over everyone equally, the details are irrelevant?

    1. “..isn’t singling out…”

      The similarity is in how the media has portrayed both situations inaccurately because the inaccuracy makes the republicans look bad. Which I find bizarre because it’s not like they need any help.

    2. I think the unstated assumption is that, while they have to investigate, nothing is actually going to happen.

  5. You can like or dislike Stephen Colbert (I’m a liker)

    He is a very talented comedian who has morphed into a whiney political stooge.

    and you can like or dislike the “cock holster” gag (I don’t think it’s funny and the bleeping is just sad).

    It isn’t funny, and the rant was meh, and Mike Huckabee can go away.

    1. Agreed. And skinheads don’t want Rogaine- they shave their heads. It’s ironic that some of Colbert’s worst work is the reason that he is suddenly being lauded.
      I used to love him, and feel like I have lost an old friend. Plus, his band sucks.

      1. I don’t know what it is about comedians who get too political– especially when they swing left, but I think it’s the accolades. They tend to become unfunny, but that’s replaced by so much serious praise from the media sphere, that I think that’s what begins to drive them. They don’t have to be funny any more, so they can just do political monologues with a few scattered jokes.

        1. And worst of all it’s dull and predictable.

        2. Some other examples: David Cross, Patton Oswald. They are terrible now.

          1. We are society’s vanguard against big government!

            Fuck all those people who make a living criticizing the government (as long as it’s a Republican one)!

            1. It’s odd that you would point out their hypocrisy. Or was that not your intent?

              1. Your bigotry is showing

            2. 1) Something about seeing the plank in your own eye comes to mind.

              2) We’re not all humorless apoplectic little twats who obsess about politics like you; some of us would like to be entertained occasionally without some sanctimonious douche bag trying to proselytize his idiotic opinions.

              1. Says the raging bigot … because I tore him a new asshole here
                https://reason.com/blog/2017/05…..nt_6839177

                We’re not all humorless apoplectic little twats who obsess about politics like you

                Potty-mouth is damning me for being smarter than him on the issue of politics. Which is confirmed at that link. (among many others since he began stalking,me)

                would like to be entertained occasionally without some sanctimonious douche bag trying to proselytize his idiotic opinions.

                says the sanctimonious is douchebag who proselytized a HUGELY FUCKING STUPID opinion at that link ,,, also based on his political ignorance. Readers are GUARANTEED a laugh at that link. I just (snicker) at 12-year-old potty mouths. BOOGA BOOGA

                1. Does this mean I’m still on your list, Hihny? I just need to know because I put it on my CV.

                  1. Does this mean I’m still on your list, Hihny?

                    (no response to childish aggression)

          2. DAVID CROSS WENT LEFT….NOOOOOOO!

            Jesus.

            What the in the fuck is wrong with these guys?

            Colbert…meh The offense for me was that it was predictable and unfunny.

            Now fuck off slaver comedians.

            1. So you’re now the FCC? Thanks for the update, Rufus.

          3. There was a time when Bill Maher was funny. Right, guys?

            1. That’s as INSANE as the asshole liberals who think Barbra Streisand is a good singer or ever made a good movie.
              /sarc

        3. Poor Twump. Waah wahh. Poor poor Twump.

          You guys don’t even realize when you’re doing this do you?

          1. The only people mentioning trump are you and Colbert.

            1. Your bigotry is showing.

        4. I don’t know what it is about comedians who get too political– especially when they swing left

          Colbert didn’t “get” political, his own show was 100% political. And he didn’t “swing left” — because he satirized the political right mercilessly — but with far better humor than now,

          Trump has created his own swarm of enemies, which is what his core base (racists/birthers/misogynists) wants him to do. It’s far from one-sided to the majority of us independents.

  6. You can like or dislike Stephen Colbert

    Not a fan. Even 20 years ago, when I had considerably more sympathy for the political left than I do now, I found him mean-spirited, reductive and hypocritical.

    you can like or dislike the “cock holster” gag

    I think it’s generous to call it a “gag.” It’s a politically calculated barb meant to help his audience feel smug and to keep the Trump-Putin non-story in something like currency.

    it would help if we had a press that was capable of reality-based reporting, rather than glomming on to whatever faux outrage of the moment slides past journos’ social-media feeds.

    And Gillespie nails it.

    1. Colbert’s rant was a great example of what happens when people constantly kiss your ass about how awesome you are, your political ideology is your religion, and real life doesn’t conform to your wishes.

      His election night show is a great example of this too, just on the depressive rather than the manic side.

    2. He would do it again!

      Such courageous actions from the celebrity class.

      Bah.

      Faux self-righteous horse shit.

  7. “Given Colbert’s public support for marriage equality and his obvious comfort level not only with gays and lesbians but affectionately parodying them in shows such as Strangers with Candy (in which he played a closeted teacher who was having an affair with a male colleague) and “The Ambiguously Gay Duo,” a Saturday Night Live animated series about superheroes who may or may not be gay”

    This is like a person who made a racist comment saying “but I have black friends so I can say that”

    It was homophobic. Giving negative connotation to a homosexual sex act is homophobia.

    1. But it wasn’t a joke about homosexuals having sex. It was about one straight guy sucking off another straight guy. There can’t be any homophobia in a joke that didn’t refer to any homosexuals.

      1. WHo are you to make assumptions about a persons sexual orientation ?

        1. WHo are you to make assumptions about a persons sexual orientation

          FUNNY! (Like Nick did?)

      2. So, if I discuss, say, Empire and make a lot of references to fried chicken and watermelon, wouldn’t be racist at all, right?

        1. Are you suggesting that the Trump administration has a gay context?

          1. Well he did wave that rainbow flag around that everyone forgot about so they could indulge their vicarious persecution complexes by pretending he was going to gas the gays.

      3. Tony-

        If I refer to Obama as an “African stumpjumper” and Michelle as a “Wookiee”, there’s no racism in that statement because he was born in Hawaii and Michelle wasn’t born on Kashyyyk?

        1. Exactly.

          Also Chewbacca has brown hair, in contrast to Michelle Obama who has black hair.

          But what’s a stump jumper? I dunno… sounds kinda racist with the jumping. Cartoon frogs recently got outed as Nazis so you might want to avoid topics like jumping and lily pads for a while.

        2. African is a synonymy for darkie, both only a half-step up from “nigger.”

          And racism as nothing to do with where you’re born, which is nationality and/or ethnicity.

      4. If that were the point, when people wanted to insult a gay man, they would say he had heterosexual sex with a lesbian.

        Can’t say I’ve ever heard that kind of insult.

      5. It was a joke about a homosexual sex act. If someone were to call a group of short haired women all “dykes”, it’s a homophobic comment even if none of them turn out to be lesbians.

        Colbert is implying a male sucking another males dick is a bad thing, and even implies the physical positions of the men during the act determines authority in the relationship.

        He deserves the backlash.

    2. Exactly. If a conservative celebrity had made that joke about a Democrat, advertisers would be trampling each other to pull ads from him.

      1. “It’s different when we do it.”

      2. Picture the reaction to the whole quote, including the gorilla part, used against Obama.
        I wouldn’t be surprised if that reaction escalated to rioting or even possibly murder.

  8. One Colbert is crude, rude, and socially unacceptable. I do not believe that it should be criminal for someone to use vulgarity on air, but I do think it is cause to be thrown off the job, by the company or the government.

    1. BY THE GOVERNMENT!
      FUCK YOU FASCIST.

    2. Imagine the hue and cry in the MSM and on twatter and facebooger if a conservative TV personality (say the Duck Dynasty guy) made a joke on TV about Obama sucking the Ayotollah’s cock, in reference to the sweetheart Iran nuke deal.

      And yet advertisers will still stuff money into CBS’ coffers to keep the vitriol going.

      1. Infantile tribalism is wrong from BOTH sides. Including your 12-year-old-kid hysteria.

        Your denial is blatantly obvious if you equate the two — based on the bullshit from Fox on the Iran deal. He gave them back their own money!!! (Ignore the fucking lies on that) Seizing their assets was aggression. Similar to FDR’s aggression which caused Pearl Harbor. You want another 9/11? Sweet..

        Other than “HE STARTED IT, MOMMY” how does that equate with Trump’s fawning admiration for every dictator on the planet? Did Obama publicly praise and suck up to Khomeini? I didn’t think so.

        Check with Ron Paul for our history of aggression in the middle east. Just as deadly as our taking sides in the war between Japan and China — which also contributed to Pearl Harbor.

        And YOU stop recruiting for ISIS. Have you ever realized that the fucking hawks want us to commit our military to guaranteeing Israel has the only nukes in the area?. Can you not see how TOTALLY fucking stupid that is!!! Is nobody else is allowed to have nukes … wait for it .,.. why would Israel need ANY nukes, except to launch MORE aggression? The goobers ridiculed Hillary for saying we help ISIS recruiters, What part of this is rocket science?

        1. Your denial is blatantly obvious if you equate the two — based on the bullshit from Fox on the Iran deal. He gave them back their own money!!!

          The same money that didn’t go to the families of the victims of the Iranians? The Iranians VIOLATED THE LAW. They INVADED US TERRITORY. You don’t get your assets back.

          Other than “HE STARTED IT, MOMMY” how does that equate with Trump’s fawning admiration for every dictator on the planet?

          He isn’t terribly fond of the mullahs running the most dictatorial country out there. He doesn’t seem to love Maduro, who is doing the same. Doesn’t like Assad. Hasn’t expressed any actual fondness for most political leaders.

          And YOU stop recruiting for ISIS. Have you ever realized that the fucking hawks want us to commit our military to guaranteeing Israel has the only nukes in the area?.

          Keep forgetting. ALL of the problems in the ME are because of TEH JOOOS.

          All of them.

          Sure, Israel is a tiny state without a ton of natural resources that is, somehow, not a shithole like their neighbors. That must be JOO MAJICKS!!!

          Can you not see how TOTALLY fucking stupid that is!!! Is nobody else is allowed to have nukes … wait for it .,.. why would Israel need ANY nukes, except to launch MORE aggression?

          …outside of their neighbors feeling they have to right to exist? Yup, they got nothing to worry about. The idea of Islamists being violent is a myth.

          1. You admit it’s their own money, thus Fox and others lied.

            When did Iran invade US territory?

            Correction — why does Trump fawn over his fellow authoritarians:
            Saddam Hussein, Iraq?
            Vladimir Putin, Russia?
            Kim Jong Un, North Korea?
            Bashar al-Assad , Syria?
            Muammar Gaddafi, Libya?

            Added and repeatedly shit on the Constitution?

            Can you not see how TOTALLY fucking stupid that is!!! Is nobody else is allowed to have nukes … wait for it .,.. why would Israel need ANY nukes, except to launch MORE aggression?

            …outside of their neighbors feeling they have to right to exist?

            (He can’t see it) How does that justify military aggression?

            The idea of Islamists being violent is a myth

            Umm, ISIS is not a state,

  9. One Colbert is crude, rude, and socially unacceptable. I do not believe that it should be criminal for someone to use vulgarity on air, but I do think it is cause to be thrown off the job, by the company. CBS has agreed to enforce this just by getting its license to be on air. Colbert should be off the air, at least for a limited time.

    1. One Colbert is crude, rude, and socially unacceptable.

      Did you only vote for Trump, or were you also a campaign volunteer?

      CBS has agreed to enforce this just by getting its license to be on air. Colbert should be off the air, at least for a limited time.

      Trump is quite a magnet for the authoritarian mind. Analogies the Hitler’s Brownshirts are overblown. But understandable. The Brownshirts didn’t get triggered in safe zones like the snowflakes of the left and right today.

  10. Is Nick Gillespie always this laughably biased?

    1. Sometimes more.

      1. I see this one as a new low. He has to lie about the culture wars being ECONOMIC … to hide his asskissing of Ron Paul’;s extreme socon fascists

        And, I fully expect him to say some day that the sun coming up this morning PROVES a libertarian moment!

    2. I’m not laughing.

  11. A lot of furor over a hopelessly unfunny joke.

    1. His audience laughed like hell, But why assume it was a joke?

      1. His audience also tends to eat crayons.

        1. You may win the trophy for Bigot of the Week!.

          1. I’ve read comments on a few articles this evening and it seems like Michael Hihn is the king of calling everyone a bigot he disagrees with.

            1. Harry Jones doesn’t know what a bigot is. And I may have triggered him by violating his Safe Zone.

              Re: Colbert

              A lot of furor over a hopelessly unfunny joke.

              His audience laughed like hell,

              His audience also tends to eat crayons.

              That’s bigotry Harry. Twice. I’ll score yours as merely questionable for now.

              The topic seems to have unleashed several dozen …. we call them Tribal Republicans now, knee-jerk Republicans in the past.

              Combine the knee-jerk Republicans and the knee-jerk Democrats and we get a minority of the electorate combined. …. the reason a growing majority of Americans now reject partisan loyalty to both tribes.

              And it’s gonna get worse. As more non-fanatics abandon the parties, the fanatics and zealots get an increasingly louder voice …. which drives away more haters. So both parties are now in a death spiral. Let’s hope and pray they both crash soon.

              1. Harry Jones doesn’t know what a bigot is. And I may have triggered him by violating his Safe Zone.

                Says the loser who whines about mean words.

  12. A lot of furor over a hopelessly unfunny joke.

    1. His audience laughed like hell, But why assume it was a joke?

  13. Colbert has never been funny doing anything other than mimicking stupid people, which is the lowest form of comedy. He was a one-trick pony even back in his Daily Show days, before turning it into an entire show with the Colbert Report.

    1. Wong tribe tor you? How many viewers would YOU get?

      1. Probably a lot, but tough to know for sure.

        The Chip Your Own Pets show wouldn’t have the late night demographic, but it would have a unique Cesar Milan meets Mythbusters crossover appeal.

        English language comedy doesn’t translate very well, but I’ve seen both Cesar Milan and Mythbusters on TV in at least 10 non-English speaking countries in the last 5-6 years.

        In the USA, Colbert probably pulls a bigger audience, but Chip Your Own Pets likely has an easy win for the global audience.

        1. So, we get two knee-jerks in a single thread.

          1. And one colossal jerk with Michael “STOP BEING MEAN TO ME” Hihnsanity.

            (Twirls away cackling)

  14. Not singling him out?

    Ajit Pai is going out of his way to exceed FCC regulations.

    https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/ obscenity-indecency-profanity-faq

    6 am to 10 pm. Read that.

    Nick Gillespie is Pai’s cock holster. First make it sound as if such is routine, then blame the regulations which appare5no one has discretion (stickler to the law), and finally call the FCC unwarranted

  15. Enjoyed Steven’s humor and slate on things for a long time.

    But of late his “humor” has turned into a four letter word of harsh, undignified for remarks. Vote for whom ever you choose, think your own thoughts, but when they get as cutting and disgusting as his have, I’m out of here.

    My simple reasoning for me, regardless of how I feel about someone, I can review and or criticize them without such tasteless remarks. It’s called character, which I have and SC does not.

    So SC is no longer a program I watch. Which filters down to No “Buick” commercials or purchases.
    RW

  16. One of the few things the LP has gotten right is the constant reminder of “You wanted more government. THIS is more government”.

    1. Totally fucking useless with no platform and not even one credible policy proposal.
      As proven by the total debacle last November 8th.

      Americans are open to even radical change. We’ve had 50 years to prepare, but we had … nothing.
      And 91% of libertarians refuse to be called libertarians. (Cato)
      Libertarian Moment or Eve of Destruction.

  17. I’ll defend to the death Colbert’s freedow to spew whatever the comedian wants, including even his recent fighting words about Trump.

    But let’s do a bit of gender consciousness-raising. Let’s put what the liberal comedian said in a gender-political perspective. Suppose Hillary had won in November. Suppose a conservative comedian had said to her, “In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c?k holster.”

    1. What would have happened?
    2. How soon?

    Think about that gender perspective very carefully. It goes, I think, to the heart of gender politics and double standards that scorn sexism against women but far less against men.

    Don’t fire Colbert. He has helped create this:

    “The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.” http://www.vox.com/policy-and-…..ile-rubble

  18. “a “Fire Colbert” hashtag is making the rounds on Twitter, arguing that his comments are homophobic. Given Colbert’s public support for marriage equality and his obvious comfort level not only with gays and lesbians but affectionately parodying them in shows such as Strangers with Candy (in which he played a closeted teacher who was having an affair with a male colleague) and “The Ambiguously Gay Duo,” a Saturday Night Live animated series about superheroes who may or may not be gay, the attacks on Colbert are nothing more than right-wing concern trolling.

    So then it would be OK for Rachel Dolezal to insult people by calling them “nigger?”

  19. The constitution doesn’t forbid the government from regulating speech in some public settings.

    Seriously, If Colbert said “Obama is a N—–” on a public late night TV show he should be heavily fined and deserve whatever condemenation he would earn from the left. It would hardly matter that he supported Obama.

  20. They should investigate the fact that these hacks are not funny. They stopped being funny right about 2008 when the world decided to give a pass to the SLW.
    Sent from from Authority Review Site

  21. I get paid 99.00 bucks every hour for work at home on my laptop. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my good friend HUe is earning 22.00k /monthly by doing this job and she showed me how. Try it out on following website

    …… http://www.Prowage20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.