.jpg)
Dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street?
Categories: In The News, Media
What is it about swearing that is just so hilariously funny? Because it is funny, you know. At least, that's what one Supreme Court Justice said last week, when considering a case regarding obscene language on television.
The case in question was prompted by an increase in foul words uttered during live television broadcasts, and the Federal Communications Commission's role in regulating such "fleeting expletives." Remember Bono's famous slip-up?
Justice John Paul Stevens joked that the standard of judgment for such slip-ups should be the funny factor. He posed the question if is ever reasonable to consider "whether the particular remark was really hilarious -- very, very funny?"
In all seriousness, the question of regulating salty language on TV gets to a core value of American society -- the right to free speech. No one wants to hear Big Bird dropping the F-bomb, as the New York Times put it, but when is it appropriate to broadcast the "seven dirty words?"
Or is it ever?
Lawyers for the FCC pointed out that viewers who find such expletives funny could tune into any cable station or website to get a healthy dose of dirty words. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appeared to agree, stating that words with sexual or scatological connotations are, by nature, forceful words, meant to shock.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, and said that's why folks prefer the F-bomb to "gollywaddles."
I don't know -- gollywaddles has a certain je ne sais quoi, don't you think?
The case has yet to be decided, and the court may not limit it's scope to the narrow field of assessing the commission's actions, but may also investigate the issue of whether regulation of indecent speech on pubic airwaves can and should be justified in light of the First Amendment.
I agree with Justice Stevens -- swearing can be hilariously funny, as long as it isn't used as hate speech. But I'm not so sure I want my daughter to hear Steve from "Blue's Clues" using the F-word. How about you?
Recent Posts
- Reviews: What's New This Week (11/06/2009)
- Jim Carrey's "A Christmas Carol" Creepy in a Good Way (11/06/2009)
- Twitter Follow Friday on ParentDish! (11/06/2009)
- Babies Pick Up Mothers' Accents In The Womb (11/06/2009)
- Recall: Adventure Playsets (11/06/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
homework923 11-07-2008 @ 2:36PM
Seriously, lets not infringe on anyone, just get infringed on ourself. I can't say I never use the F-bomb, but on TV where my daugher can hear it is not acceptable. Personally I am tired of "not infringing" on everyone, yet they are infringing on my right to NOT hear those things
Reply
James 11-07-2008 @ 5:50PM
You don't actually have a right to not hear anything. If you don't like what's being said on a certain program or channel, don't watch them. I hardly think Nick or the Cartoon Network are going to start using curse words during children's programming, and there will always be stations that cater to prudish people such as yourself. So, you'll always find something that you'll like. But, the main thing is, there is such a thing as Freedom of Speech, but no such thing as Freedom From Speech.
Karen 11-07-2008 @ 6:13PM
So, would you also be ok with your child's teacher tell them to F-off, or even for them to use the word with a co-worker even in a funny way? Afterall, you could always pull them out and place them in private school or homeschool them.
I agree that you don't have a right to "not be offended" but a society does have the ability to set standards. We have standards of acceptable behaviors (community standards) that we can enforce.
We all choose to use certain types of language in certain situations. While you might drop the f-bomb with friends, you don't use it in a job interview, or other situations were you want respect.
I think it is reasonable to regulate the airwaves. There are other options, and I think we can say as a community that we don't want certain words or images to come into our home over the free airwaves (that are owned by all).
Lacy 11-07-2008 @ 6:24PM
James-
Actually, Nickelodeon owns a channel called TheN that is marketed towards tweens and teens. They show reruns of "That 70's Show", (which was never meant for tweens or teens- it was meant for adults) and a few other original shows- "Degrassi" and "South of Nowhere" that feature sex, drug references, homosexuality, suicide, etc. Now, Nickelodeon may never drop the F Bomb, but I guarantee you that Cartoon Network's Adult Swim would... and I know that some parents don't monitor their children's viewing habits enough to know that those shows are horrible for children.
Lacy
JoJo 11-07-2008 @ 3:04PM
Last night I made the mistake of leaving the channel on FOX and not paying too much attention to what was on TV when I glance up and this couple having sex pretty graphic sex considering FOX is not a cable channel and the time slot. Found out that the show was called Testees.
It's pretty obvious that the quality of writing has gone so far downhill in this country that all the writer's can write is "sex scene here" and the f-bomb.
Yeah, yeah, I guess I can CHANGE the channel, but why are MY choices either turn the channel, or lower my standards? This is definately a case of the tail wagging the dog, just like the ACLU jamming its communist point of view down everyone's throat.
Enough already.
Reply
yahoo 11-07-2008 @ 3:11PM
That show comes on the cable channel FX, not the broadcast channel FOX.
Mort selub 11-07-2008 @ 6:32PM
In response to JOJO
So you think that the ACLU's defense of our basic civil rights (as guaranteed by our Constitution) is communistic? The ACLU defends the rights of people of the Left, the Right and the Center. They defend the right of people to hold unpopular opinions. That's democracy in action, not communism.
When the ACLU defends the rights of the KKK to march, it offends liberals; when the ACLU defends the rights of Gays and Lesbians, it offends the religious right; when it defends the rights of students to abstain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, it offends conservatives; when it fights for the separaion of church and state it offends some religious people. In every case, the ACLU defends the Constitutional rights of Americans. And that's democracy, NOT communism.
CLM 11-07-2008 @ 3:22PM
To my mind, cursing generally indicates laziness, a lack of imagination and/or a lack of vocabulary (and I've been guilty of at least the first two). To this day, Bill Cosby's routines ("dentist", "chocolate cake") can make me weep with laughter, and I don't think that he ever used a curse word.
Reply
snowstorm8888 11-08-2008 @ 8:06PM
WHY WOULD FOUL LANGUAGE BE O.K. ON A KIDS SHOW? I THINK THE COURT SHOULD WISE UP. THIS WILL CATCH UP TO OUR NEXT GENERATION JUST LIKE SEX ON TELEVISION HAS BEEN RECENTLY TOLD TO US IN CURRENT TEEN PREGNANCY.
Reply
gking3n10 11-07-2008 @ 3:17PM
Crude language is usually the result of people not having enough intelligence to use appropriate language. It is not an infringement of our 1st Amendment rights - it is using common sense and responsible behaviour. If Hollywood wants to stay in the gutter, let them have it on a py for view network and spare us the angst of their rude behaviour.
Reply
Ironmaan 11-07-2008 @ 3:43PM
Thank You!!! A voice of reason. The liberals who want to run this country are out of touch with mainstream USA. Most of the voters who blew this election was based on an intangible message and a referendum on the current economic situation, not on liberal ideaology. Your comments were dead on the money!!!!
SKL 11-07-2008 @ 3:19PM
I had a high school English teacher who had that theory that if people were just mature they could handle hearing swear words. Well, the point is, we're not talking about mature people. We're talking about kids.
The minute you start saying "it depends on ___," you open it up to never-ending lawsuits. Just have a clear line - you can say __, you can't say ___ and leave it at that. If writers are too stupid to come up with alternative language that is still entertaining, they need to pursue another line of work.
I personally am old enough to hear any word, but foul language offends me. It's true that I "can turn it off." Well, is that what the industry wants - people like me to stop buying TVs and subscribing to cable because that's the only way we can avoid being offended? OK, keep pushing. See how much good it does you.
Reply
jen 11-07-2008 @ 3:54PM
SKL - I never, never, NEVER agree with you...until now. "If writers are too stupid to come up with alternative language that is still entertaining, they need to pursue another line of work."
We should be able to let our kids watch mainstream TV or listen to the car radio, without constantly having to explain what certain words/sexual innuendos etc. mean.
aerospacemajor 11-07-2008 @ 3:33PM
You know, the FCC won't care one way or the other what I want on TV . . . but I have been disgusted with the language and behavior on TV for a long time now. That's why I don't watch it any more (just old shows on DVD that I have bought). Even though I don't watch, I STILL think that this country needs to return to and embrace DECENCY. There is no need for filthiness in speech or behavior on TV, in the movies, on the radio, in songs, on the Internet, etc. The sooner we all agree on that point, the faster we will return to the Americans that we once were and the ones our founding fathers would be pleased with. I am so happy to see that the majority of the poll respondents agree with me that filthy language (condemned in the Bible, by the way) is disgusting and crude.
Reply
nene2009 11-07-2008 @ 5:43PM
Parents could and should use Vchips to control what their children are watching or which is better watching tv as a family as I did as child (in the 90's no less) The founding fathers where not the "good old days" for any one who looks like me. Also your comments would end the vast majority of all creativity and put America back to a time where the government was in our households and bedrooms
charli 11-07-2008 @ 4:21PM
1. As a parent each of us has a right to decide what is right for our
children. I think we can all agree with that. the problem is that some folks (a few of them here even) think that they have the right to say what is right for all children -- infringing on others parental
rights. you think Harry Potter is evil and foul etc. Fine. don't let
your kids read the books or see the movies. I happen to disagree and I will not only let my kids read them I will read the books with them so we can talk about the lessons in the books (they aren't old enough for them yet)
2. just because the FCC loosens the rules on some shows doesn't mean that they would allow a show clearly created for children to apply the same rules. and even if they did, doesn't mean the shows will.
3. don't get me started on all the reasons the Bible should be banned as fifth, cause believe me there are dozens
4. in my opinion, TV is bad for kids for a number of reasons
including the dumbing down of their minds and the expanding of their little baby fat covered tushes. that's why in my house TV is the last choice. and there are no video games other than a wii and then only games that require the kids to be up and moving their feet
5. and in my house, on occasions when we watch it, we don't watch regular tv when the kids are up (daddy and I have to watch it cause we work in that industry but we tivo and do it when the kids are asleep or at school since we work for home a lot). we made that choice because restricting them to prescreened DVDs and tapes is the only way we can be certain they don't see anything we find foul or distasteful or inappropriate for their ages. its really not that hard to control.
Reply
b-evans 11-07-2008 @ 4:06PM
Alas, those in the entertainment today lack creativity, good taste and the intelligence to bring the public fun entertainment. No, because they believe everyone is as boorish and tasteless as they, they believe that is the only way they can make a living. Of course, absent the creative quality that America had in the true Golden Age of Entertainment, most Americans give up and watch whatever rubbish available.
Reply
emsideas 11-07-2008 @ 4:19PM
My household has been without cable TV for almost ten years now. At first it was because of a tight budget and it was one of the more obvious costs to cut. However, as time went on we realized how much more time our family was spending together "talking and enjoying each others company, showing an interest in each others lives".....a novel concept don't you think?
Most folks think we are a little "strange" for not having TV but I would challenge each of you to make one day a week "TV FREE" and get to know those that share your home (or spend the night visiting someone who would enjoy a real caring human visit).
Reply
Sarah 11-07-2008 @ 7:01PM
I agree with your statement. However, how do you keep up with current events if you have no television? Yes, you can read the paper but, I'm talking world economics here. I watch tv specificy for that and nothing more. Without it, you would have no knowledge of the world around you!
Jenni 11-07-2008 @ 7:00PM
Sarah,
Radio, newspapers, internet, etc... pick one. I haven't had a television in my home since 2000 and somehow I managed to find out about 9/11 moments after it happened. I actually find that I am MORE informed than I was with a television in my house.
Try it out for a month. It'll drive you crazy for a week, you'll be uncomfortable for another week, then you will really like thing after that. You'll not turn back!