NSFW?
December 19, 2003 11:10 AM   Subscribe

 
These are the same ones.
posted by jon_kill at 11:17 AM on December 19, 2003


Dick still legal in America. Film at eleven.
posted by jmccorm at 11:17 AM on December 19, 2003


Tits isn't there anymore! My bad!

Awesome!
posted by jon_kill at 11:19 AM on December 19, 2003


Piss is going to be a hard sell.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:29 AM on December 19, 2003


Yeah, and NYPD Blue is all over "asshole" already.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:31 AM on December 19, 2003


On the news a couple nights ago, they said both "little faggot" and "bullshit."
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:33 AM on December 19, 2003


Why were they covering Robert Fisk? [sorry, lacked the character to resist.]
posted by mojohand at 11:39 AM on December 19, 2003


i can't believe I could call someone a "twatface," "dickhead," "pussyfart," "slutbag," or "cockmaster" on tv and they wouldn't be allowed to say that that "pisses them off" or retort with a simple "asshole." also, am i the only one who finds the ban on "mother fucker" to be redundant, seeing as they already banned "fuck"?
posted by rorycberger at 11:47 AM on December 19, 2003


This is too funny. Specific words to legislate against? If they were really serious about it, they would open it up to include equally vulgar synonyms of these terms. What's to stop them from saying "snatch", "cock" or "fisting" on the next episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond"?
posted by psmealey at 11:49 AM on December 19, 2003


What's to stop them from saying "snatch", "cock" or "fisting" on the next episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond"?

Hey, then I might actually watch!
posted by fizgig at 12:00 PM on December 19, 2003


Too bad they didn't ban "bush" and "dick" too. Would make it much easier to stomach the news ;)
posted by terrapin at 12:05 PM on December 19, 2003


Why is there both "asshole" and "ass hole"? I don't get that. Laws are weird.
posted by elvissinatra at 12:15 PM on December 19, 2003


Surely this is a hoax? Right?
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:25 PM on December 19, 2003


I wish elvissinatra hadn't pointed that one out to me. My brain is now generating cognitive dissonance with an unpleasant smell.

*tries to get back to work*
posted by kozad at 12:26 PM on December 19, 2003


Suck banned, still no cure for cancer
posted by elpapacito at 12:37 PM on December 19, 2003


Hooray for free speech!
posted by PigAlien at 12:39 PM on December 19, 2003


The FCC dismissed complaints about Bono using "fucking" in a live tv broadcast earlier this year, since he wasn't using the term in a, erm, biological sense. So presumably there's some leeway with these rules.
posted by John Shaft at 12:43 PM on December 19, 2003


Will someone explain to me why they bleep (or mute) the "God" out of "Goddamn" in movies on regular tv and cable? That always pisses me off. There's no law against it, right?

I remember as a kid they didn't used to bleep that stuff.
posted by beth at 12:46 PM on December 19, 2003


The only good thing about banning these words is when they show an edited version of a movie and they have to find some combinations of words that match lip movements and scene situations without using the words. Nothing funnier than seeing Samuel Jackson angrily call somebody a "mellow farmer."
posted by vito90 at 12:50 PM on December 19, 2003


John Shaft -- actually Bono's fucking speech is what has caused this legislation. This legislation is closing the fucking loophole.

This law, if passed, will not stop the words from being used. It will just mean more bleeping and editing. The truly silly part of it is anyone over the age of 4 knows what word they are saying.

For shows on after the kids should be in bed, using language adult language on TV should be better. I agree wth the FCC's application of the old rule in Bono's case [or if John Kerry's 'fuck it up' line were broadcast -- or Bush/Cheney's 'asshole' line].

Don't want to hear bad words? Turn on your V-chip and let the rest of us assholes hear the words.
posted by birdherder at 12:54 PM on December 19, 2003


Wow. Too weird. In the land of the First Amendment they can make specific words illegal? Nevermind, if you can't say m*therf*cker you can always try "mammy fecker" in a nice irish accent. Works a treat :)
posted by kaemaril at 12:55 PM on December 19, 2003


...they have to find some combinations of words that match lip movements and scene situations without using the words.

It was preciely that sort of editing done to a broadcast of "Goodfellas" that introduced my household to our alltime favorite pseudo-expletive: Micky Ficky.
posted by spilon at 1:16 PM on December 19, 2003


I loved how in the Lord of the Rings, they had everyone say 'Minas Tirith' instead of 'Mother Fucker'.
posted by PigAlien at 1:17 PM on December 19, 2003


Will someone explain to me why they bleep (or mute) the "God" out of "Goddamn" in movies on regular tv and cable? That always pisses me off. There's no law against it, right?
Though I hate to admit to watching it, MTV does even worse things to rap videos. Even the vaguest references to guns or drugs are edited, including words like "blunt," "smoke," and "nine," none of which are profane at all.

The only good thing about banning these words is when they show an edited version of a movie and they have to find some combinations of words that match lip movements and scene situations without using the words.

For one of the greatest examples of this, watch for the FX version of Mallrats, which Kevin Smith himself pointed out as being funnier than the original.
posted by rorycberger at 1:36 PM on December 19, 2003


Wow. Too weird. In the land of the First Amendment they can make specific words illegal?

Of course, because those broadcasts are transmitted to everyone whether they like it or not, and as we all know it's impossible to tune them out.

...yeah.
posted by punishinglemur at 1:48 PM on December 19, 2003


I presume "ass hole" and "asshole" are included are because neither "ass" nor "hole" are prohibited as discrete words. Scripts could simply include lines like "You are such an ass... *sigh...* hole." I would have loved to have seen that delelopment, alas, they have closed the loophole.
posted by 4easypayments at 1:57 PM on December 19, 2003


Surely this is a hoax? Right?

Unfortunately not. Putting this in some context:
The Salt Lake Tribune explains how HR 3687 came about.
posted by beagle at 1:58 PM on December 19, 2003


So, "asshole" is banned, but how about a proper British "Arsehole"? It sounds much more offensive, anyway.
posted by Jimbob at 2:01 PM on December 19, 2003


so when comedy central replays the south park episode where the word "shit" is used 142 times, there's going to have to bleep out every time it's use? who's going to be able to understand that?
posted by Stynxno at 2:02 PM on December 19, 2003


What
The
(This section deleted under amended section 1464 of title 18 of United States Code)
Matt!
posted by planetkyoto at 2:06 PM on December 19, 2003


Anyone ever watch "Blazing Saddles" on TV, and they even silence the farts in the fart scene. What's up with that. It's not even a word on the list, and yet the SOUND is edited? SHHEEEEEEEEESH. I feel sooooooo much safer knowing I am protected from these words and sounds.....
posted by Eekacat at 2:13 PM on December 19, 2003


Here's a novel idea - and so ridiculously liberal sounding - how bout we let the MARKET DECIDE! That's right, different stations/networks can experiment with different levels of censorship, and consumers can choose which kind of network they prefer. You know, competition. Market forces. Consumer choice. Standard conservative values.
posted by yesster at 2:21 PM on December 19, 2003


You all do realize this is a bill and not a law, right?
posted by angry modem at 2:42 PM on December 19, 2003


For those of us outside the US, the difference is... ?
posted by John Shaft at 3:04 PM on December 19, 2003


JS, it means that it hasn't been passed yet, though i'd guess it will pass. dunno. it's stupid.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:13 PM on December 19, 2003


and here's the current law that this bill will amend.

it's an asinine law in the first place, b/c the old farts get to decide what's so motherfucking obscene.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:18 PM on December 19, 2003


Even when I watch the DVD version of the Blues Brothers -
I still can't get the TV version that I taped as a kid out of my head.

"I guess you're really up [pause] the [pause] Creek."

Doesn't read as funny, but man does it sound weird.
posted by milovoo at 3:21 PM on December 19, 2003


I seriously doubt this bill will have too much opposition considering I don't think any elected official wants the American Family Assoc or Christian Coalition to tell its members that Senator so-and-so voted against keeping dirty words off TV.

Conan O'Brien the other night had Billy Bob Thorton and a few words were bleeped. Conan said the difference between saying "ass" and "ass-bleep" is you can talk about putting something on one's ass, but you couldn't putting something in one's ass.

He complained it made him sound stupid when talking about suppositories. Since everyone knows you don't put it on your ass.

Regarding MTV's editing and other's editing of Goddamn. These are decisions made at the network level so as not to put off advertisers who might not want to advertise when there is language about violence or 'using the Lord's name in vain'.
posted by birdherder at 3:24 PM on December 19, 2003


so when comedy central replays the south park episode where the word "shit" is used 142 times, there's going to have to bleep out every time it's use? who's going to be able to understand that?

I don't think Comedy Central has anything to worry about (besides its advertisers, and its own Standards and Practices office) -- FCC content restrictions affect broadcast TV and radio.
posted by Guy Smiley at 4:06 PM on December 19, 2003


I always wondered what word f(beep)k was. Now, my innocence has been destroyed. Thank you Mefi.
posted by fatbobsmith at 4:28 PM on December 19, 2003


This is an excellent use of the our Congressmen's time and our tax dollars. Muthafuckers.
posted by moonbiter at 4:44 PM on December 19, 2003


MetaFilter: Shit piss fuck cunt, asshole: Cock sucker, mother! Fucker ass hole?
posted by quonsar at 4:51 PM on December 19, 2003


I suppose that makes this show illegal then, huh?

(Apologies to non-USians).
posted by shepd at 5:15 PM on December 19, 2003


Thats weird, shepd - why do they block us from that?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:36 PM on December 19, 2003


why they bleep (or mute) the "God" out of "Goddamn"
They do not want to offend us atheists.
posted by mischief at 6:19 PM on December 19, 2003


Yippie kay ay, Mr Falcon.
posted by CrayDrygu at 6:26 PM on December 19, 2003


Here's a novel idea - and so ridiculously liberal sounding - how bout we let the MARKET DECIDE! That's right, different stations/networks can experiment with different levels of censorship, and consumers can choose which kind of network they prefer. You know, competition. Market forces. Consumer choice. Standard conservative values.

Because the scheme you're talking about does not, in fact, reflect conservative values. Those would be libertarian. Libertarians, unfortunately, also believe in letting people do whatever they want short of infringing on others property rights (and to some extent, personal safety), which is definitely not in the conservative gameplan. And, some would say, neither is a real level economic playing field.

Also, because markets, like most other tools, can't actually be used to solve every problem.
posted by namespan at 6:29 PM on December 19, 2003


One word: watershed.

Here's an article that talks about both naughty words and the watershed (the latter is 4 paragraphs from the bottom).
posted by yellowcandy at 7:29 PM on December 19, 2003




dash-slot, it was covered here, commented on by me (of course!). :-) It's just an anti-piracy measure really, nothing to worry about.
posted by shepd at 12:43 AM on December 20, 2003


Kiss my knee muddy funster
posted by nthdegx at 3:32 AM on December 20, 2003


yesster spake: Here's a novel idea - and so ridiculously liberal sounding - how bout we let the MARKET DECIDE! That's right, different stations/networks can experiment with different levels of censorship, and consumers can choose which kind of network they prefer. You know, competition. Market forces. Consumer choice. Standard conservative values.

Enough with your "logic" and "rights" argument. You must put those aside and think of the chillldrennnn.

<bleep>, man.
posted by wdpeck at 3:40 AM on December 20, 2003


from yellowcandy's link: In research, 50% or more people said the words that should never be broadcast are cunt, motherfucker, nigger, Paki and spastic.

spastic??? does that mean something different accross the pond? here in the states it just means to be having spasms, or to be excited/clumsy as if one were having spasms. I guess it's not the kindest thing to say about someone, but top 5?
posted by rorycberger at 5:53 PM on December 20, 2003


i think it's slang for some medical condition - cerebral palsy? actually, there used to be a spastics society, when i was a kid, so i guess it's an ancient medical term that's slipped into abuse.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:06 AM on December 21, 2003


It is indeed Cerebral Palsy. The world outside the uk doesn't seem to have a problem, but spastic (and spaz) became such a common playground insult that, the Spastic Society changed it's name to something so incredibly generic that I can't remember it's name. Sounds like a drug, or a power company though...

Ah yes, Scope.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:09 PM on December 21, 2003


« Older Snake in the Grass?   |   Dr. Strangelove is alive and well Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments