<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with federalcommunicationscommission</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/federalcommunicationscommission</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'federalcommunicationscommission' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:06:46 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:06:46 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>FCC trying to ban the word fuck</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/30724/FCC%2Dtrying%2Dto%2Dban%2Dthe%2Dword%2Dfuck</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&amp;amp;storyID=438405&amp;amp;section=news"&gt;Your tax dollars at work.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040113.wubadwords13/BNStory/Front/&quot;&gt;The Republican congress&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;cid=638&amp;e=1&amp;u=/nm/media_indecency_fcc_dc&quot;&gt;the FCC&lt;/a&gt;, who evidently have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.iwantmedia.com/consolidation.html&quot;&gt;nothing&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12451&quot;&gt;better&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.clearchannelsucks.org/&quot;&gt;to&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.janda.org/b20/News%20articles/vastwastland.htm&quot;&gt;do&lt;/a&gt;, want to waste time banning the word &lt;a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fuck&amp;r=67&quot;&gt;fuck&lt;/a&gt; from all radio and broadcast television.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.30724</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:06:46 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>censorship</category>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>federalcommunicationscommission</category>
		<category>fuck</category>
		<dc:creator>johnnydark</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Effing C.C.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/28821/Effing%2DCC</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/07/bono.fcc.ap/"&gt;This is really, really f------ brilliant.&lt;/a&gt; The &lt;a href=&quot;http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3045A1.pdf&quot;&gt;FCC says &lt;/a&gt;the f-word is OK on network TV, as long as it doesn&apos;t refer to the sexual act. Naturally, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.parentstv.org/actionalert/actiongoldenglobes.asp&quot;&gt;some groups &lt;/a&gt; don&apos;t like dirty talk. Is this a sea change in the level of discourse, or is the FCC finally acknowledging that it&apos;s useless to protect kids from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm&quot;&gt;our favorite four-letter word? &lt;/a&gt;
(Second link is a .pdf file.)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.28821</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:37:47 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>airwaves</category>
		<category>broadcast</category>
		<category>fcc</category>
		<category>federalcommunicationscommission</category>
		<category>freespeech</category>
		<category>fuck</category>
		<category>fword</category>
		<category>f-word</category>
		<dc:creator>sixpack</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


