Kinda like them telling you not to buy beer for ya 12 yr old? I'm fine with this. If I sent out a .005% beer and said it was a Kiddie drink . . . My problem is with the Labelling I think saying something is a RADIO EDIT that is not passing FCC regs. . . well isn't that false advertising. . . I mean would the radio station buy it if it was not the editted version. If I was the company I would Sue Slim Shady NOTHING should have RADIO EDIT VERSION on it IF IT CANNOT BE PLAYED <leggally> ON THE RADIO Rocket River ------------------
Innuendo??? For God's sake, you better take every Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin song off the air ASAP!!! "Squeeze my lemon 'til the juice runs down my leg," doesn't exactly sound like FCC standards. The thing is that they are so arbitrary anyway. "Who Are You?" by the Who is still allowed in it's orignial version which contains "Who the **** are you?" in it. Most stations still play the "Seemed a harmless little ****" version of Pearl Jam's "Jeremy." Stupid! The whole point of releasing edited versions, which can be extremely costly and a real pain in the ass to artists and labels, is to avoid this in the first place. I guess they can't even call it "rock 'n roll" anymore since that is an old blues saying meaning "having sex." ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited June 14, 2001).]
One: It's not illegal for me to give my own children alcohol. As a matter of fact, people under 21 can drink in restaurants with their parents. Of course, there is absolutely no proof that hearing a bad word (or in this case, not hearing a bad word. The radio edit took out the bad words) harms kids in any way. When the issue is taking away someone's Constitutional right to free speech, there'd better be a good reason behind it. What is the balanced right that abridging the First Amendment requires here? The right to not hear dirty words on the radio? I don't recall that on in the Constitution. And the FCC is doing these things without any evidence to support the contention that such things need to be done. And I don't appreciate the Government saying that I am not a good enough parent to be able to decide what my kids do and do not see and hear. And I don't appreciate the fact that the Government is deciding what I can and cannot see and hear in full defiance of the Bill of Rights on the mistaken impression that hearing a bad word (or implying that there is a bad word that isn't there) is somehow bad for children. Ironically, the FCC wants to censor Free Speech in order to pretect children from hearing something that these kids have a Constitutional right to say themselves. It's not even a consistent decision. If it is so important (important enough to suspend the Constitution) to pretect children from hearing bad words, shouldn't we make it illegal for anyone to say such words? I've been in a restaurant and heard someone say a bad word with children around. Shouldn't there be a $7,000 fine for that? My father used to curse like a sailor when I was a kid. Shouldn't he be fined for saying those words around me? Actually, since the fine is imposed whether a child is actually listening or not, shouldn't we fine anyone who ever says a bad word (or implies one) on the off chance that a child could hear? If hearing a bad word (or hearing such innuendo) is so bad that we must protect our children from hearing them even if it means discarding the Constitution, shouldn't we be consistent and prevent kids from ever hearing those words (even though there is no proof that shows hearing such words is at all harmful)? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Indecency is allowed after 10pm. Obscene is never allowed. By the way, this article is flawed. "Patently Offensive" is the FCC's definition of Obscene, so it can never air. The FCC does not make a ruling on an edited version to play in primetime until after a complaint comes in. Someone has to complain first. My understanding is the only time the FCC makes a ruling without a complaint is when the publishers or bands ask them, so they'll know whether the record can play in primetime. I believe fines are assessed only when a ruling has been made and the stations break it. I would be surprised if that is not the case. The FCC is not a witch hunt. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 14, 2001).]
This is not entirely true nowadays. Edited versions are often just digital mixes done by DJs who want to play the song. They do the edit, burn it, ask the band, then air it and pass it around to other stations. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 14, 2001).]
It just seems silly to me that the FCC would have rules that say a radio edit version of a song is now offensive (when it hasn't been in the past. Those POOR KIDS! who listened to the edited song before the new rules took effect. They're ruined for life, I'm sure). Nobody said the FCC was a witch hunt. We're saying they're rules are stupid. (Speaking of this song, I heard the radio edited version on the radio in Amarillo, Texas just last week. I've heard it many times on the radio, and I didn't know there were new rules that made the edited song taboo. I guess since I familiar with the edited version, I was surprised to hear that a station was fined over it or any other radio edited song, especially since such edited songs were perfectly fine as recently as a couple of months ago). I'm actually kind of glad I know about these new rules now. I plan on complaining about all the Clear Channel stations in my market for every innuendo made on the station. It's my life work to inconvenince Clear Channel. (Not really). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
When I heard the interview with the FCC and one of the stations, they said a grandmother called the FCC and complained. I'm not trying to defend the FCC anymore than I would defend Political Correctness or people that get mad at me for saying "big ass black man" when I'm describing a stereotype that I like. To me it is the same as "jolly fat man". The only difference is the word "black". I'm saying that the FCC rules are to judge cases that are brought to them. How else should they handle indecency complaints compared to how other groups handle racial slurs? They are both freedom of speech issues trying to balance protecting people from objectionable words.
Well one, the FCC is not protecting anyone from hearing objectionable words. The objectionable words were edited out. It's objectionable innuendo they're fining people about now. The problem is that everything will offend someone. It's impossible to balance the right of free speech (an actual right) with the nonexistant right to not be offended. If the FCC fines every station for every act that someone deems objectionable (or potentially objectionable), it will be impossible for broadcasters to broadcast anything. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Does the FCC only regulate the commercial stations? hehehhe. Time to file a complaint. I'm 'offended'. HAHAHAHA. ------------------ When this guy started smoking 40 years ago, people had no idea it was bad for you. People had to guess based on the hacking cough, shortness of breath, and bloody phlegm girl you looks good won't you mock that draft up?!
That isn't the case any longer. There was a huge court case over the removal of words from songs about 10 years ago involving some rappers and a radio station in Florida (no, not Ghetto Boys, it was a local band). The station tried to assert that editing the song and airing it without permission did not constitute copyright infringement. That argument failed. As a result, artists who want their songs to be played on radio but have potentially objectionable words in them are asked by record company monitors to do so prior to release. The single or album is then sent to radio stations in both formats. Radio stations who do edits are not often allowed to play their edited versions on air except at very small independant stations where the artists are usually indie artists who do not have the resources of those on major labels. EQ magazine did a big story on editing song content for radio about a year ago. There are multiple software platforms that now do edits on the fly for songs with curse words. They pointed out in the story that producers and artists are very concerned (with good reason) about radio edits because it removes quality control from their hands, hence the move to do their own censoring. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
The FCC regulates the airwaves, commercial and non-commercial. Apparently, they may also be regulating Voice over IP soon as well. Here's a story for you. So, when I was a DJ for KTRU (Rice Radio), we had a measely 650 watts of power, about a 10 mile radius. Then another station wanted a dial near us, and they wanted over 100,000 watts of power, commercial strength. That was too much bandwidth for little ol' KTRU and was going to knock us out since it was so near to us in frequency. So, in comes my hero's at the FCC laying down the true meaning of Freedom of Speech. They have a rule that one station cannot overpower another (like what the US did to Cuban TV...lol). Think about it, if you could, one station could take over the entire bandwidth of the radio band to control the airwaves. That is heart and sole of Freedom of Speech. So, the FCC ruled that the other station must either lower their wattage requests or pay for upping ours. We now have 50,000 watts, and are the strongest college radio station in the US (at least at that time). You have to take the good with the bad when complaining about the FCC.
Jeff, Maybe we are misunderstanding. I did not say without permission. I know that DJs do edits for reasons of indecency and ask for permsission to air them. It is not necessarily a big expense to the band or label, as you said. That was the only point I was trying make.
How long ago was this? (I ask because Amarillo College's FM90 has been broadcasting at 100,000 watts for awhile now). Of course, regulating bandwidth (which is really what the requirements on signal strength and dial location are) is a far step from regulating the speech (implied or overt) itself. I realize they are empowered by Congress to regulate the content of speech, but I don't have to like it (and I don't have to like the idea that innuendo is now grounds for fines). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
MrPaige So It's not that the FCC in general but their rules that is a problem. I can agree to that. I mean I have an issue that 2 Live Crew cannot talk about things that I can see on a Rate R movie. Rappers cannot say B*tch on a record but Meredith Brooks can. [MTV never bleeps her] The inconsistances are annoy . . .on that we can agree HOWEVER I am not one to allow all things on the radio all the time . . . this is mainly the difference between HBO and NBC. Since HBO is pay tv u know what you getting and if something crazy comes on . . you can remove them from your tv You cannot do that with ya local Radio station. You cannot do that with NBC you can turn the channel but u cannot remove it or barr it from your tv like you can HBO. [You don't pay HBO is gone. . . but NBC will still be there] The happenstance for a child to come across these songs by mistake is greater. I beleive that in the 'Public' sector like this. . . . it should be a bit more restrained but Cable radio [which i had in college] Hell let anything go. Rocket River ------------------
mrpaige, 100,000!! you guys ROCK! I'm fuzzy on that time, since I was a DJ for like 5 yrs spanning 7 yrs. I think it was late '80s, but I could be confusing that with when we got the CD players. When did you guys get that power?
It was at 100,000 Watts as far back as I can remember. But I don't guess I knew it was 100,000 Watts until 1991. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
But if the purpose of these rules is to prevent kids from hearing these dirty words (or innuendo in this case) on the assumption that these words are so horrible that a child should never hear them, shouldn't we also prevent anyone from ever saying these words? If these words are so bad, we should prevent them from ever being said by anyone. Why is it okay for kids to hear these words every place but the radio? If the words are bad, aren't they always bad? Why does pumping them through a radio make them worse? If I don't want my kids to hear bad words on the radio, I'm perfectly capable of not owning a radio. I'm perfectly allowed to not have a television. Why should the government tell me that I cannot listen to people make implications on the radio or TV just because some kid might hear especially when there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that kids are in any way harmed by hearing such words. If there was evidence to support the contention that kids are harmed by hearing bad words, then we should ban them in every instance. Keeping them from the radio while not keeping them from every other aspect of life is stupid. Either ban the words completely or don't ban them at all. If we've decided these words are too bad for kids to hear, then kids should never hear them. But the system we have now allows kids to not only hear those words in any number of situations, it allows them the Constitutional right to say those very words that we've deemed to dangerous for them to hear. And now that we've stepped over the line and into banning innuendo, we're stepping closer and closer to the idea that no one should ever be allowed to say anything. We're working toward a society of Marcel Marceaus where we'll all be walking against the wind forever and ever all in the name of protecting children from something that doesn't even harm them in the first place. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
btw: the "patently offensive" definition for obscene that I heard an FCC spokesperson use to differentiate it from "indecent" is not really the case. Obscene and Indecent are both defined as patently offensive, it is just that obscene has to have two more characteristics as well. Here are the official definitions carved out of a Supreme Court ruling: Anyone want to guess what was broadcast in 1978 that cause such a big stir that the case made it to the Supreme Court. Don't look it up and supply the answer. Someone will guess it.
Then you are disagreeing with the Supreme Court. The case says in black and white that the broadcast mediums are unique in that they can transmit into your house, so their words are not completely covered by the 1st amendment. The FCC did not make this up.
