FCC Chairman Powell sides with ABC on use of 'f' word

[lewri]

FCC Chairman Powell sides with ABC on use of ‘f’ word

     Dear lew,

    The children of America and those who love decency need your help.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has asked that no action be taken against the ABC stations that aired over 20 uses of the “f” word and at least 12 “s” words during “Saving Private Ryan,” which shown during prime time last month.

Powell’s reason for taking no action opens the door for broadcasters to show any type programming. He believes there should be no action because the use of the profanity was part of an accurate representation of the events depicted, and this made them acceptable.

Using Powell’s reasoning, a show about the sex life of two homosexuals would be free to show graphic sex because it would be an accurate representation of their sexual activity. There would be no limits regarding what could be shown and the law regarding indecent material would be meaningless. Any program, no matter how indecent, could claim that the material was needed in order to be an accurate representation.

If Powell can get only two other Commissioners to agree with him, then the networks and local broadcasters will be free to show anything. Everything they show, no matter how indecent, could be classified as being an accurate representation. That is what they have been wanting for years. Powell is only two votes away from giving the broadcasters their desire.

We realize it is important for families, especially our children, to recognize the sacrifices made by our loved ones during wartime. However, airing excessively profane language during prime-time television hours is not necessary to convey that sacrifice. We believe ABC should have aired their salute to heroes without violating broadcast decency laws.

The movie could have easily have been edited for TV, but ABC refused. Powell is now defending ABC’s move, making it possible to open Pandora’s box on program content.

TAKE ACTION

Please send an email letter to your Representative and Senators. Ask them to personally tell Chairman Powell to enforce the law, not to destroy it.

Your email will go to your two U.S. Senators, your Representative, Chairman Powell and the other four FCC Commissioners.

Please send your email now. Then forward this to your friends and family.

Send Your Letter Now!

Thanks for caring. Sincerely,
Don

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have a great idea. Stop watching TV. Hard to get offended by what you don’t see or hear.

 

[lewri]

I don’t watch much myself, but that’s not really the issue is it? They could have split the movie into two nights and showed it at later times. There wouldn’t have been nearly as many people who are ticked off.

I suppose you wouldn’t have any problem with ABC streaming live po*no to your computer while you’re 7 year old is on either right? I mean…they are the public airwaves right?

In Christ,
Lew

 

[Servant1]

The f-word and the s-word used by a soldier in the heat of battle, as he and others are subjected to disemboweling and dismemberment is hardly comparable to pornography. It may be obscene - but war is obscene. But it is hardly equivalent to pornography.

Theologically, I’d like someone to show me where in scripture or in catechism or in canon of a competent council that it is declared that one word for a physiological or biological function the theologically holier or more pleasing to God than another word. I understand the SOCIAL implications of the different words. But God’s law nowhere declares that a multisyllabic word for either a sexual or an excretory function is holy while a monosyllabic word is evil in God’s sight.

Hence - if it’s sociologically unacceptable, don’t watch it and don’t let the kids watch. Showing the reprehensible nature of war can only be done if it’s portrayed accurately. That is not the same as showing porn for vicarious and sinful gratification.

I’m amazed at the thought that the obscenity of what is depicted in “Saving Private Ryan” is the use of 2 monosyllabic words rather than the war itself.

 

[lewri]

Servant1:

The f-word and the s-word used by a soldier in the heat of battle, as he and others are subjected to disemboweling and dismemberment is hardly comparable to pornography. It may be obscene - but war is obscene. But it is hardly equivalent to pornography.

As I said, they should have shown it later. I would have liked to watch it again, but I’m not going to subject younger kids to it. I didn’t watch it for EXACTLY those reasons.

But, why is two people on television in love obscene? What if it were two married people who made a movie and ABC wanted to air it. Is it porno or art? It’s the heat of love. Isn’t love better than the heat of battle?

Lew

 

[Servant1]

lewri:

As I said, they should have shown it later. I would have liked to watch it again, but I’m not going to subject younger kids to it. I didn’t watch it for EXACTLY those reasons.

But, why is two people on television in love obscene? What if it were two married people who made a movie and ABC wanted to air it. Is it porno or art? It’s the heat of love. Isn’t love better than the heat of battle?

Lew

Lew - those are two excellent questions! As to showing it later - probably would have been wise. Although - it’s a long movie, and perhaps timing became an issue… but then if it’s OK for Monday Night Football to run local news schedules, why not this?

 

[workinprogress8]

I don’t really get offended at foul language if it is used, as this sounds like it was, appropriatly. If you were ever going to use those words, war would seem the most “appropriate” place to use them. I am far more offended when seemingly benign shows use very “graphic” language or scenes. I think the Saving Private Ryan had a Parental Advisory too, as many of the benign shows I refered to do not.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Ephesians 4:29

Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

James 1:26

If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.

Ephesians 5:4

Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.

Proverbs 13:3

***He who guards his mouth preserves his life; ***

*** he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.***

 

[Servant1]

Let me try to reply, TPJ - with love and respect as well, even if disagreeing.

Ephesians 4:29

Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

Paul here warns against evil talk, without defining it. Does this mean we leave sociological norms to define what is evil talk from a theological standpoint? Could this be speaking evil of someone, rather than naughty words? This scripture, though it speaks of evil talk, does not define the term. It seems left to our own definitions. Your mileage may vary

James 1:26

If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.

Again, bridling the tongue is not defined, but could also mean defamation of character, slander, lying, etc.

Ephesians 5:4

Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this could be taken as an absolute command against joking or humor. Filthiness seems obviously bad, but yet it still does not define such things as why one word for excreting or for copulation is “filthy” and another is “clean” Sociological norms have defined that - and I’m not saying that they shouldn’t, just that nothing I’ve read in the scriptures quoted here equate sociological norms with theological norms as related to a concept. Obviously, sociological norms against such things as killing, stealing, injuring, etc make sense in a theological sense, as well. They are rather much more objective in nature than whether or not one word for something is holy and another word for the same thing is evil.

Proverbs 13:3

***He who guards his mouth preserves his life; ***

Still not specific or instructive as to the topic at hand - e.g. the difference between a “godly” word for excretory functions versus an “ungodly” word for the same. This still doesn’t tell me God has decided which ones are OK and which ones are not. And if God hasn’t decided, then only society has. And if only society has decided rather than God, how are we to pronounce a religous or godly or theological condemnation on those words?

*** he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.***

Not a problem for me to accept Folks do much damage with their words. No doubt. And I am not questioning that fact.

What I am questioning is how do we inform our judgements on the issue of dirty words versus clean words? Note I am not referring to use of God’s name in vain. I’m talking, as I have said, about the judgement that such things as the “s” word are condemned of God but “feces” is approved, when they mean the same thing. I’m saying there is more of sociology than theology in such a conclusion.

Interesting discussion!

 

[TPJCatholic]

servant,

I think when we cut through clever arguments we can reach clear consensus on what is offensive. The truth is, in today’s culture, using the “f” word or the “s” word is considered trash talk. While both of those words refer to perfectly acceptable bodily functions, we all know that those specific words are intended to be curse words, they are intended to be filthy, they are most definitely not intended to represent clean talk. It is the intent of the heart and mind that matters, not the words. However, when people in today’s culture use those words, their heartfelt intent is not clean, it is confrontational and anger filled in nearly all occasions.

As for Saving Private Ryan, one cannot get upset about such language used by soliders facing horrible conditions…yet do we want our children exposed to such language when many of our kids will not be able to make a proper discernment? Do we want our kids hearing the “f” word on TV, just to then go to school and use that word in the classroom? What we make acceptable as adults, kids make acceptable in their lives. If we do not go to Mass, our kids will not go to Mass. If we have little regard for the faith, our kids will have little regard for the faith. If we drink heavily, our kids will think it is fine for them to drink, etc.

Our kids are like giant spounges and we need to take incredible care with what we allow them to take in. TV shows that have such language should be shown at a time when the vast majority of kids are in bed.

There are many more verses that speak about controlling tongues, and many of those I posted have even stronger interpretations in other Bible versions. I feel that point is, God wants us to speak cleanly, and to place a strict control our tongues. Saying “f” this, or “s” that is not a sign of a controlled tongue in today’s culture.

It is an interesting discussion.

 

[Servant1]

TPJCatholic:

servant,
I think when we cut through clever arguments we can reach clear consensus on what is offensive.

I wasn’t meaning to just show off cleverness - and if it came off that way, it wasn’t intended I was/am plumb serious. Offensive - yes, good description. And society has the right to decide what offends it and what does not. I don’t question that.

The truth is, in today’s culture, using the “f” word or the “s” word is considered trash talk. While both of those words refer to perfectly acceptable bodily functions, we all know that those specific words are intended to be curse words, they are intended to be filthy, they are most definitely not intended to represent clean talk. It is the intent of the heart and mind that matters, not the words.

I think so. I’m not sure every time they’re used they’re intended to be filthy, although there isn’t any doubt (in my mind, anyway) that there are times when that is the case.

However, when people in today’s culture use those words, their heartfelt intent is not clean, it is confrontational and anger filled in nearly all occasions.

And for some - whether it offends you or me or not - such words are a part of the evryday use of their culture that, at least in that context, there is no venom or anger associated with them.

As for Saving Private Ryan, one cannot get upset about such language used by soliders facing horrible conditions…yet do we want our children exposed to such language when many of our kids will not be able to make a proper discernment?

Good question. We do need to make that decision.

Do we want our kids hearing the “f” word on TV, just to then go to school and use that word in the classroom?

And that is a very responsible and legitimate question to ask… I don’t think we do want them going to class acting as if it’s OK for them to just fling those things out in their speech every time they open their mouths. In all my questining of this, please don’t think I’m out here promoting that kids (or adults) should wander about blythely throwing these things around in the air

What we make acceptable as adults, kids make acceptable in their lives. If we do not go to Mass, our kids will not go to Mass. If we have little regard for the faith, our kids will have little regard for the faith. If we drink heavily, our kids will think it is fine for them to drink, etc.

Our kids are like giant spounges and we need to take incredible care with what we allow them to take in. TV shows that have such language should be shown at a time when the vast majority of kids are in bed.

There are many more verses that speak about controlling tongues, and many of those I posted have even stronger interpretations in other Bible versions. I feel that point is, God wants us to speak cleanly, and to place a strict control our tongues. Saying “f” this, or “s” that is not a sign of a controlled tongue in today’s culture.

It is an interesting discussion.

It is, and I thank you for allowing disagreement with some of what you say, and providing the example here of how two persons of good will can disagree on a subject, and remain civil while working on an issue.

 

[TPJCatholic]

servant,

Sorry, I was not trying to say you were being “clever.”

Ultimately, I feel that there needs to be a balance between free speech and the rights of citizens to feel “safe” in their own homes. By this I am saying that parents should not have to worry that their children’s minds are being polluted by shows that are broadcast into their homes. I also do not think it is fair (as many people feel) to say that parents should simply turn-off the television. While it is true that parents should control what their kids watch, it is also a sign of a healthy society when it insures that it is protecting the lives of the young. There is no reason for placing Private Ryan on broadcast television during primetime viewing hours–it can always be delayed until a later and more youth free time.

We cannot expect to heal our culture if we do not “try” to heal the culture.

 

[Servant1]

TPJCatholic:

servant,

Sorry, I was not trying to say you were being “clever.”

I didn’t really take it that way - I just wanted to correct the impression if you - or any of the other readers - thought that was my purpose. No apology necessary!

<>

We cannot expect to heal our culture if we do not “try” to heal the culture.

There, my friend, is one place we shall not disagree.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Servant,

Thank you for the robust discussion. I enjoyed it much!

 

[CWard34]

Michael Powel is ruining america. All this censorship and fines by the FCC its really scary what the world is coming to. We should all just walk around in giant innocent protecting orbes…

 

[CWard34]

If he is asking for no action, then its truly a miracle. its about time he did something right…

 

[777]

It’s time we put an end to the 14 words we must never use. Real life or not, Constittution or not, there is such a thing as overdoing it.

 

[Servant1]

777:

It’s time we put an end to the 14 words we must never use. Real life or not, Constittution or not, there is such a thing as overdoing it.

Yep - Hitler had it right, didn’t he? Forget all safeguards of individual rights. Just make sure everybody does what YOU have decided is right, no matter WHAT you have to do to do it!

Kyrie eleison!