"I want to see Janet Jackson's nipples." So much so that I wrote the FCC and told them
(http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/fcc475B.cfm); at the end of this essay is the actual complaint I filed on 5-8-09. Feel free to copy and paste if you want to make your own complaint!). It's not so much a sexual or Freudian thing. Instead, if enough Americans complain that they want nudity and profanity on daytime TV (during the blatantly unconstitutional but somehow constitutional "safe haven")--enough people to outnumber those who are offended by a 9/16th-second glimpse of a female areola (which got a broadcaster a $550,000 fine; that's almost $1-million per nipple-second)--then the "Community Standards" principle on which censorship is based will truly be more in line with actual community standards. The FCC will have no choice but to allow "obscenity" on TV. If it doesn't, we will see the truth about the FCC: it is really less about community standards and more about control of information and cushy jobs for bureaucrats.
Women, tell the FCC you want to see male full-frontal nudity in the afternoon; what better way to raise the ratings of the failing soap operas? Lesbian? That's okay, just say you want female full-frontal nudity (on that we can agree). Hell, I'd even stand for seeing a few penises if it meant we could actually be a free country (let us not forget that all totalitarian countries control their media; the dissemination of information is paramount to a free country and anathema to dictatorships). I've already seen "The Reader," "Watchmen" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," so it's not like I haven't seen my share of swinging dicks and bare male asses; I even glance at my own penis on occasion.
As for those who complain that their children might see the human form in all its ungodly beauty, too bad. The United States Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, does not carve out an exception for peoples' demon-spawn and their delicate sensibilities, unless of course Justice Antonin Scalia is interpreting the Constitution: “And we held [in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (438 US 726)] that the First Amendment allowed [George] Carlin’s monologue to be banned in light of the ‘uniquely pervasive presence’ of the medium and the fact that broadcast programming is ‘uniquely accessible to children’” (Fox v. FCC; emphasis added).
The First Amendment reads (in part): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (emphasis added). The First Amendment mentions neither Carlin nor allowable bans. How Scalia, an alleged strict constructionalist (one who sticks to the exact text of the constitution) can reconcile the precedent in Pacifica--and his subsequent decision in Fox based on said precedent--with the First Amendment is nothing short of Orwellian doublespeak. When it comes to the separation of church and state, Scalia has no trouble being a constructionalist: he has stated that the government can do anything it wants to promote and fund religion just short of Congress establishing a religion by law (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.). In Hein, Scalia goes so far as to argue that Congress and the President could conspire to spend money on establishing a religion, but as long as Congress doesn't expressly state this in the appropriations (spending) bill, the subsequent spending of American tax dollars on the President's and Congress' religion of choice would not be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Yet when it comes to speech, Scalia sees exceptions to a strict interpretation of the First Amendment. Scalia, the author of Fox, betrays his puritanical sensibilities in his writing, refusing in a legal document to even spell out entirely the words in question, instead writing fuck and shit as the “f-word” and the “s-word,” respectively. When Scalia refers to the “foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood,” one can only conclude that his decision in Fox is based less on the U.S. Constitution and more on Scalia's constitution.
The world is rated X; the sooner the kids realize it, the better. (and what pre-pubescent boy didn't like the glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast? You know they TiVo'd the shit out of that one!) As a kid I had posters on my wall of Heather Thomas (from the "Fall Guy"). Countless times I studied those posters hoping to see a little something taboo (to no avail, even when I used a magnifying glass). It was like when I would rifle through our freezer every twenty minutes to see if there were any Eskimo Pies I missed; I kept expecting something delicious to magically appear.
In the oral arguments for Fox, Solicitor General Garre admitted that, although the utterance of “fuck” and “shit” by Nicole Ritchie during an awards broadcast could warrant a fine for the broadcaster, a news story quoting Ritchie verbatim would not be subject to the same fine (presumably because the news show would be broadcast after the “safe haven” for children that runs between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m). But what if it was a prime-time news show? And why should the context make any difference? What if the kids are taking advantage of the babysitter by staying up late? More importantly, what about the Jonny Punchclock who works nights and can only afford broadcast television? Why should he be stuck with the likes of "The Price is Right" and "One Life to Live?" What if he wants something a little spicier? After all, he, not the children, is the taxpayer. Too bad, say the Black Robes of the United States Government. We have to protect the children.
What's even more absurd than Scalia's equivocation on the First Amendment is how sex is verboten, but this country has no issue with glorifying violence (every other movie billboard shows someone pointing a gun; the U.S. military runs propaganda trailers before some movies in theatres; our nation bombs and kills lots of innocent non-Americans). When I went to see The Watchmen, a man and his pre-teen son came into the theatre late, well into the movie (I am fairly certain they were killing time until their movie of choice started; i.e., they didn't pay for Watchmen). They sit through a scene where two dogs play tug-of-war with the severed leg of a murdered little girl; they continue to view as Rorschach repeatedly whacks the murderer's head with a meat cleaver, blood splattering everywhere. Later, though, when Silk Specter II is riding Night Owl II, the man grabs his kid and they scurry out of the theatre like startled cockroaches. Carving a canoe into a man's cranium is acceptable for the father, but Malin Ackerman's bare ass in a simulated sex act triggers a flight response.
My complaint to FCC:
I want to register my disgust with the FCC for its blatantly obscene, profane and indecent censorship of U.S. broadcasters. Furthermore, I want to go on record as saying I want to see Janet Jackson's nipples on daytime television between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm (and also hear expletives, especially those referring to sexual and excretory acts). I have scoured the 1st amendment and have found no exceptions, limitations or "safe havens." In fact, I have scoured the entire constitution and see no justification for an FCC or any other administrative agency, Article I, section 8.18 notwithstanding. What I do see is a 1st amendment that states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I also see Articles I, section I and Articles II, section I that respectively state "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress..." and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." (emphasis added). The constitution leaves no room for an agency that has both law-making and executive powers. But because violating the constitution has become a treasured pastime for politicians, judges and unelected administrative-agency bureaucrats, I must use a different avenue to get back my constitutional rights. I therefor have concluded that if enough people say they want "obscenity" (whatever that is) on TV--enough people to outnumber the vocal (likely religious) minority that is so offended by the human body and by mere words--then the FCC will have to reconsider what it deems as "Community Standards," the standards by which the government justifies censorship. Please do all Americans a favor and redirect our very finite resources (our tax dollars) to something more patriotic and constitutional. I don't know--maybe like finding Osama bin Laden.
Sincerely,
A. Patriotic American
Here is how I filled in the required fields on the complaint form:
*(1) Date of Program (use MM/DD/YYYY format): 07/04/1776
*(2) Time of Program (use HH:MM AM/PM format): 06:00am
*(3) Network: usa
*(4) Call Sign, Channel OR Frequency of the station on which you viewed/heard the material: 1st amendment
*(5) City and State Where Program Was Viewed/Heard: Washington DC
*(6) Name of Program or DJ/Personality/Song/Film: U.S. Constitution
(http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgb/fcc475B.cfm); at the end of this essay is the actual complaint I filed on 5-8-09. Feel free to copy and paste if you want to make your own complaint!). It's not so much a sexual or Freudian thing. Instead, if enough Americans complain that they want nudity and profanity on daytime TV (during the blatantly unconstitutional but somehow constitutional "safe haven")--enough people to outnumber those who are offended by a 9/16th-second glimpse of a female areola (which got a broadcaster a $550,000 fine; that's almost $1-million per nipple-second)--then the "Community Standards" principle on which censorship is based will truly be more in line with actual community standards. The FCC will have no choice but to allow "obscenity" on TV. If it doesn't, we will see the truth about the FCC: it is really less about community standards and more about control of information and cushy jobs for bureaucrats.
Women, tell the FCC you want to see male full-frontal nudity in the afternoon; what better way to raise the ratings of the failing soap operas? Lesbian? That's okay, just say you want female full-frontal nudity (on that we can agree). Hell, I'd even stand for seeing a few penises if it meant we could actually be a free country (let us not forget that all totalitarian countries control their media; the dissemination of information is paramount to a free country and anathema to dictatorships). I've already seen "The Reader," "Watchmen" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," so it's not like I haven't seen my share of swinging dicks and bare male asses; I even glance at my own penis on occasion.
As for those who complain that their children might see the human form in all its ungodly beauty, too bad. The United States Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, does not carve out an exception for peoples' demon-spawn and their delicate sensibilities, unless of course Justice Antonin Scalia is interpreting the Constitution: “And we held [in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (438 US 726)] that the First Amendment allowed [George] Carlin’s monologue to be banned in light of the ‘uniquely pervasive presence’ of the medium and the fact that broadcast programming is ‘uniquely accessible to children’” (Fox v. FCC; emphasis added).
The First Amendment reads (in part): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (emphasis added). The First Amendment mentions neither Carlin nor allowable bans. How Scalia, an alleged strict constructionalist (one who sticks to the exact text of the constitution) can reconcile the precedent in Pacifica--and his subsequent decision in Fox based on said precedent--with the First Amendment is nothing short of Orwellian doublespeak. When it comes to the separation of church and state, Scalia has no trouble being a constructionalist: he has stated that the government can do anything it wants to promote and fund religion just short of Congress establishing a religion by law (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.). In Hein, Scalia goes so far as to argue that Congress and the President could conspire to spend money on establishing a religion, but as long as Congress doesn't expressly state this in the appropriations (spending) bill, the subsequent spending of American tax dollars on the President's and Congress' religion of choice would not be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Yet when it comes to speech, Scalia sees exceptions to a strict interpretation of the First Amendment. Scalia, the author of Fox, betrays his puritanical sensibilities in his writing, refusing in a legal document to even spell out entirely the words in question, instead writing fuck and shit as the “f-word” and the “s-word,” respectively. When Scalia refers to the “foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood,” one can only conclude that his decision in Fox is based less on the U.S. Constitution and more on Scalia's constitution.
The world is rated X; the sooner the kids realize it, the better. (and what pre-pubescent boy didn't like the glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast? You know they TiVo'd the shit out of that one!) As a kid I had posters on my wall of Heather Thomas (from the "Fall Guy"). Countless times I studied those posters hoping to see a little something taboo (to no avail, even when I used a magnifying glass). It was like when I would rifle through our freezer every twenty minutes to see if there were any Eskimo Pies I missed; I kept expecting something delicious to magically appear.
In the oral arguments for Fox, Solicitor General Garre admitted that, although the utterance of “fuck” and “shit” by Nicole Ritchie during an awards broadcast could warrant a fine for the broadcaster, a news story quoting Ritchie verbatim would not be subject to the same fine (presumably because the news show would be broadcast after the “safe haven” for children that runs between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m). But what if it was a prime-time news show? And why should the context make any difference? What if the kids are taking advantage of the babysitter by staying up late? More importantly, what about the Jonny Punchclock who works nights and can only afford broadcast television? Why should he be stuck with the likes of "The Price is Right" and "One Life to Live?" What if he wants something a little spicier? After all, he, not the children, is the taxpayer. Too bad, say the Black Robes of the United States Government. We have to protect the children.
What's even more absurd than Scalia's equivocation on the First Amendment is how sex is verboten, but this country has no issue with glorifying violence (every other movie billboard shows someone pointing a gun; the U.S. military runs propaganda trailers before some movies in theatres; our nation bombs and kills lots of innocent non-Americans). When I went to see The Watchmen, a man and his pre-teen son came into the theatre late, well into the movie (I am fairly certain they were killing time until their movie of choice started; i.e., they didn't pay for Watchmen). They sit through a scene where two dogs play tug-of-war with the severed leg of a murdered little girl; they continue to view as Rorschach repeatedly whacks the murderer's head with a meat cleaver, blood splattering everywhere. Later, though, when Silk Specter II is riding Night Owl II, the man grabs his kid and they scurry out of the theatre like startled cockroaches. Carving a canoe into a man's cranium is acceptable for the father, but Malin Ackerman's bare ass in a simulated sex act triggers a flight response.
My complaint to FCC:
I want to register my disgust with the FCC for its blatantly obscene, profane and indecent censorship of U.S. broadcasters. Furthermore, I want to go on record as saying I want to see Janet Jackson's nipples on daytime television between the hours of 6:00am and 10:00pm (and also hear expletives, especially those referring to sexual and excretory acts). I have scoured the 1st amendment and have found no exceptions, limitations or "safe havens." In fact, I have scoured the entire constitution and see no justification for an FCC or any other administrative agency, Article I, section 8.18 notwithstanding. What I do see is a 1st amendment that states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." I also see Articles I, section I and Articles II, section I that respectively state "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress..." and "The executive Power shall be vested in a President..." (emphasis added). The constitution leaves no room for an agency that has both law-making and executive powers. But because violating the constitution has become a treasured pastime for politicians, judges and unelected administrative-agency bureaucrats, I must use a different avenue to get back my constitutional rights. I therefor have concluded that if enough people say they want "obscenity" (whatever that is) on TV--enough people to outnumber the vocal (likely religious) minority that is so offended by the human body and by mere words--then the FCC will have to reconsider what it deems as "Community Standards," the standards by which the government justifies censorship. Please do all Americans a favor and redirect our very finite resources (our tax dollars) to something more patriotic and constitutional. I don't know--maybe like finding Osama bin Laden.
Sincerely,
A. Patriotic American
Here is how I filled in the required fields on the complaint form:
*(1) Date of Program (use MM/DD/YYYY format): 07/04/1776
*(2) Time of Program (use HH:MM AM/PM format): 06:00am
*(3) Network: usa
*(4) Call Sign, Channel OR Frequency of the station on which you viewed/heard the material: 1st amendment
*(5) City and State Where Program Was Viewed/Heard: Washington DC
*(6) Name of Program or DJ/Personality/Song/Film: U.S. Constitution
No comments:
Post a Comment