Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

  |  

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

News Fuck That Shit

Posted by on Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:13 AM

WaPo:

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Tuesday in favor of a government policy that threatens broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television, yet stopped short of deciding whether the policy violates the Constitution.

Um... I thought deciding whether or not shit violates the Constitution was the Supreme Court's job. Isn't that the reason people appeal to the Supreme Court?

The Washington Post notes that under the Bush administration the FCC changed its "one-free-expletive rule," which had allowed broadcasters to get away with an unscripted "shit" or "fuck" during, say, an awards show or some other live broadcast. Bush's FCC concluded that airwaves had to be kept expletive-free to protect "children... likely to be watching television." Maybe. But there's no excuse for the Washington Post to use constructions like "the F-word" and "the S-word" in place of "fuck" and "shit." Children may be watching television, WaPo, but children are not reading news stories about Supreme Court decisions—and adults don't need to be protected from "fuck" and "shit" and resent being treated like children by the Washington Post.

 

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
now, now Danny-
run along and play and let adults run the country...
Posted by but don't make us wash your mouth out with soap- on April 28, 2009 at 9:22 AM
2
No Dan, actually that is not the point. Also many people think the point of SCOTUS is judicial review of legislation but that is actually something that was never really intended but we now find useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_vs.…
Posted by anon on April 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM
3
Blame the defense of the lawyers. Their arguments wasn't regarding the constitutionality of fleeting expletives, it was about whether the FCC had sufficient framework to change their policy. The court could only rule in that regard because that was the case in front of them. We will have to wait for another case to frame the constitutionality question.
Posted by My Name Here on April 28, 2009 at 9:26 AM
4
Kids spend five times in front of the computer than watching "broadcast" tv.

Unreal Tournament III has soldiers cussing all the time, and it's played by 80 to 8 year olds.
Posted by FCC Spokesmodel on April 28, 2009 at 9:30 AM
5
It's not as crazy as the day they decided that the Potomac River belongs to Maryland but not the water in it. (Virginia wanted to suck more of the water out to support the very development that is polluting the river. The Virginial / Maryland border is the Virginia bank of the Potomac.)

Give the Post a break. The polite fiction that it's a "family newspaper" is a part of its identity and charm.
Posted by Baltimoron on April 28, 2009 at 9:32 AM
6
I blame Janet Jackson's revolting tit for this.

What's the point of keeping kids from hearing swear words? It obviously doesn't prevent them from using them when they grow up.
What's. The. Point?
Posted by Urgutha Forka on April 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM
7
Studies have shown that kids as young as 4 or 5 not only know most of the words you can't say on TV, but also know that they're "bad" words (and most kids believe that they should stay "bad" words, because if they became "good" words, then people would just have to make up some new "bad" ones). Little kids GET the concept of taboo vocabulary a lot better than some adults.
Posted by Matt in PDX on April 28, 2009 at 10:34 AM
8
Censoring kids speech to not include swear words is an idiot mistake parents have been making with their kids since before the 50's. Makes more sense to let them swear and teach them the proper times and situations when swearing is appropriate then to simply ban it entirely, effectively forcing them to learn such behaviors from their peers. Guess I shouldn't be surprised tho..... thats how parents teach their kids about sex so....
Posted by drone5969 on April 28, 2009 at 11:03 AM
9
@2,

Can't get over 200 years of precedent, huh?
Posted by keshmeshi on April 28, 2009 at 11:03 AM
10
I recognize the style guide for The Stranger advocates using fuck & shit as often as possible, but it normally doesn't make the writing any better. In fact, it often comes across as a lame way to jazz up uninspired writing. Why not worry about your own paper, not the WaPo?
Posted by Drew on April 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM
11
@ 10 - What do you expect from a paper run by an immature whiner with Catholic damage?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on April 28, 2009 at 12:03 PM
12
10
It's really tough.
Because brownbacking just conditions you to have this Pavlovian association;
fuck=shit.
Posted by god made me this way on April 28, 2009 at 12:05 PM
13
Actually, The Post using phrases like "F-word" is not as ridiculous as the New York Times referring to the head of al-Qaeda as "Mr. bin Laden."
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on April 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM
14
@ 12 - "Brownbacking"? I haven't heard that before. Is that saddlebacking where there's santorum?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on April 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM
15
Most kids already hear those words because their parents say them.
Posted by very bad homo on April 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM
16
Um, how is the second paragraph from "But there's no excuse . . ." relevant to the message of the post? It does make sense, but I'm not sure how it relates to the airwaves, which is what the SC was ruling on. Just confused, that's all.
Posted by whatevs yo on April 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM
17
Now, if only people would defy it in mass. We have to get control of those papists assholes on the Supreme Court. Let's refer to the court as "those assholes" from now on as a protest.
Posted by Vince on April 28, 2009 at 1:14 PM
18
Not completely true. At least in CA they make you bring in newspaper articles for your stupid public schooling to share with the class. So kids are periodically forced to read the newspapers. Here's hoping to them by now being 'forced' to the internets! I would like to see that specific post on the guy arrested for adverting on craigslist for someone to kill being read in a classroom!!
Posted by subwlf on April 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM
19
14
Brownbacking: anal sans enema. very messy and brown (unless it's green).
Posted by You can use it in a column, Dan on April 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM
20
In the era of the V-chip, the very concept of needing to protect the children from foul language is defunct.

If parents don't want their kids hearing the F word, set it up so that shows with a language rating are blocked.

not to mention the free speech issue.
Posted by guy on April 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy