Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WWII documentary may incur indecency fines
Reuters ^ | 07-27-06 | WestVirginiaRebel

Posted on 07/26/2006 11:54:02 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel

LOS ANGELES (Reuters)-The U.S. government's crackdown on media indecency could prevent World War Two veterans from sharing their stories in an upcoming TV documentary series by Ken Burns, the head of the Public Broadcasting Service said on Wednesday.

Noted filmaker Burns' highly anticipated seven-part series "The War" features salty language used by servicemen and others. If the explecitives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offencing stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.

(Excerpt) Read more at today.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: censorship; fcc; fufcc; govwatch; kenburns; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
The Law of Unintended Consequences at work again.
1 posted on 07/26/2006 11:54:03 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Of course this is from Al-Reuters with the obligatory Bush mention....I'm sure bleeping some freaking words would ruin, just ruin the entire program.


2 posted on 07/27/2006 12:01:00 AM PDT by Uriah_lost (http://www.wingercomics.com/d/20051205.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
you know what i like. the fact that we have more freedom and a smaller less intrusive government under bush with a repub senate and congress then we did under clinton with a dem controlled congress and senate. yep it does my heart good to see it

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

3 posted on 07/27/2006 12:02:54 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost
....I'm sure bleeping some freaking words would ruin, just ruin the entire program.

You beat me to it.

4 posted on 07/27/2006 12:03:29 AM PDT by carumba (The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

possible nanny state ping


5 posted on 07/27/2006 12:04:12 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Hate to admit it, but the facts don't lie.


6 posted on 07/27/2006 12:10:16 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (http://www.savethesoldiers.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost
I'm sure bleeping some freaking words would ruin, just ruin the entire program.

Or just have them use words like caca, doodoo and poopoo!
.
7 posted on 07/27/2006 12:15:44 AM PDT by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost

Regardless of the source, I think it could be argued that one man's defender of morality is another man's Christian Socialist Nannystater...


8 posted on 07/27/2006 12:15:52 AM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost

exactly. They can tell the story without resorting to foul language. I for one am glad we have people in office who are finally standing up for morality and decencey.


9 posted on 07/27/2006 12:23:04 AM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I think the question should be posed to Ken Burns as to whether he wants our children to be able to watch this documentary.


10 posted on 07/27/2006 12:28:07 AM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
They should just show it on cable or another pay to play service.

The pols are just gonna legislate them mean old dirty words away.

11 posted on 07/27/2006 12:28:40 AM PDT by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

I bet they get around this.


12 posted on 07/27/2006 12:33:19 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3
They can tell the story without resorting to foul language.

But the point is, they didn't do that--this is a documentary, and that's what happened.

Is someone who's watching a documentary about our brave soldiers who fought a guy who tossed people into ovens going to be harmed by the F word?

13 posted on 07/27/2006 12:41:49 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (http://www.savethesoldiers.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NoCurrentFreeperByThatName

"They should just show it on cable or another pay to play service.
The pols are just gonna legislate them mean old dirty words away."

This is going to destroy non-cable tv.

Not that it's a bad thing.

This is a confusing time. We want the media to stop censoring the pictures and video of 9-11, to not sanitize it, yet we want to stop Johnny from hearing a couple salty words.

Very confusing.


14 posted on 07/27/2006 12:42:12 AM PDT by ByDesign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

One of my most vivid childhood memories is that of being told by Mom, "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you!" She made it a point to teach my sister and me that letting someone else's words be a source of offense was giving them a power over you that they could get only if you gave it to them. Her approach was that all through life we would encounter people who would try to upset us with their language and the only sure way to avoid that trap was to understand that it's the listener that decides what effect someone else's speech will have on their feelings.


15 posted on 07/27/2006 12:47:05 AM PDT by jwparkerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: balch3

Yeah, 'cause we all know sailors, soldiers and Marines never, ever cussed in real life!


16 posted on 07/27/2006 12:48:53 AM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel (Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr
My mom did the same and I reach that to our children - just don't repeat the words.

My lad said, "heck dad", said my son, " I hear worse in the schoolyard everyday".

wise kid, - you cannot censor life.
17 posted on 07/27/2006 12:57:10 AM PDT by vimto (Blighty Awaken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Yeah, 'cause we all know sailors, soldiers and Marines never, ever cussed in real life!

This is kinda silly. We've watched any number of classic war documentaries without four-letter words and swearing. Some of the classic movies were made without the use of in-your-face expletives. I understand that soldiers also go to the bathroom, utilize the local whorehouses and splatter both guts and brains with bullets and bayonets. Should the camera follow them there? You may swear and curse on a reflexive basis in front of your wife, your kids, your parents and your friends. Not everyone does. And not everyone wants to hear it.
18 posted on 07/27/2006 12:57:17 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

"And not everyone wants to hear it."

So don't watch it.

And as for the "Would Ken Burns want our children watching it?" question posed by another poster - given the subject matter...probably not. If a kid hasn't heard the F-bomb before, he's too young to watch what an A-Bomb does. That's not an anti-nuke sentiment, btw...just common sense.


19 posted on 07/27/2006 1:16:59 AM PDT by sbelew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sbelew
So don't watch it.

These are public airwaves. Ken Burns has no more of a right to pollute the public airwaves with expletives any more than he has a right to show X-rated clips of soldiers patronizing prostitutes, bashing the enemies' brains out with their butt stocks or crapping in a hole in the ground. If the lack of these depictions on the public airwaves offends you, I recommend that you avoid watching it - there's always cable.
20 posted on 07/27/2006 1:34:29 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I stand up for morality and decency every single day, in my own home.

If you don't want to see or hear the smut on tv yourself, make use of the power switch.


21 posted on 07/27/2006 1:41:50 AM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

The "public" airwaves are a problem unto themselves. I certainly have no love for government monopolies.

The "public" airwaves should have been privatized eons ago.


22 posted on 07/27/2006 1:44:21 AM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: sbelew
And as for the "Would Ken Burns want our children watching it?" question posed by another poster - given the subject matter...probably not. If a kid hasn't heard the F-bomb before, he's too young to watch what an A-Bomb does. That's not an anti-nuke sentiment, btw...just common sense.

First off, I don't want to see it on the public airwaves, any more than I want to be subjected to sights of people crapping in public or running naked through the streets.

Second, the children angle has to do with trying to avoid having kids pick up bad habits. The average parent doesn't want kids having sex at age 7, so he gets ticked off if television broadcasts get too sexual. He doesn't want kids cursing from an early age, so he doesn't want TV broadcasts full of expletives. (Note that the average parent really doesn't have to worry about his child taking up the bad habit of dropping atomic bombs. At least in this reality).

This is really about democracy vs the marketplace. There are probably enough consumers like you who want to watch dreck to fill the airwaves with it. At the same time, a majority of the people want the dreck to be filtered out - if the consumers who like this kind of stuff really want it, they can get a cable subscription and watch it on A&E.
23 posted on 07/27/2006 1:49:51 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I stand up for morality and decency every single day, in my own home. If you don't want to see or hear the smut on tv yourself, make use of the power switch.

I do - every day - by turning the TV on. As far as I'm concerned, people who have to see and hear smut every day can turn on their DVD player and pop in the latest rental. If you really, really have to see and hear it on broadcast TV, I recommend that you vote in a politician who shares your preference for smut.
24 posted on 07/27/2006 1:59:24 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Uriah_lost
"I'm sure bleeping some freaking words would ruin, just ruin the entire program."

It sure would sound stupid

25 posted on 07/27/2006 2:16:40 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Agree or disagree, the rules about colorful language have been in effect for, what, fifty years? Ken Burns knew this, left it in anyway, and now the real question is how many PBS stations will not be showing this series due to fear about fines.

Personally, I'd flip the bird to Burns, delay it by an hour, edit out the words and play the series, and let Burn's lawyers make a very interesting court case out of it. But that's just me. Colorful language doesn't harm me, it certainly wouldn't shock anyone in my household, but the honest truth is that so much of Burn's work recently has absolutely bored me that I'll probably just record it and fast forward through a lot of it.

Which is unfortunate.
26 posted on 07/27/2006 2:18:24 AM PDT by kingu (Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

I'll vote for the politician who believes in small government and personal responsibility.

I don't want to see our hear it on tv either, but I don't need the nanny-state to come in and make decisions for me or others.


27 posted on 07/27/2006 2:33:38 AM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I'll vote for the politician who believes in small government and personal responsibility. I don't want to see our hear it on tv either, but I don't need the nanny-state to come in and make decisions for me or others.

This is about personal responsibility. If someone wants to see smut, he should have to rent a video to do so. The politician isn't making a decision for me. I am making the decision that he should keep this stuff off the airwaves. Or I'll vote for somebody else. It's no different from laws preventing people from crapping on the sidewalk or exposing their privates to me. I could simply avert my eyes, but I'd prefer it if they could be arrested for doing so.
28 posted on 07/27/2006 3:06:08 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
Or just have them use words like caca, doodoo and poopoo!

To quote the late comedian, Redd Foxx: "Yes, I said $hit! So what? I'm 46, I feel like a damned fool saying 'doodoo'."

29 posted on 07/27/2006 3:09:41 AM PDT by dirtbiker (I've tried to see the liberal point of view, but I couldn't get my head that far up my a$$....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
I don't know of any President who ended a term with less government, and fewer laws. Do you?

The kids at Waco might think freedom of religion is better observed today. Americans who wanted to buy a bayonet mount for their rifle in 95 probably appreciate the end of the AWB. People who were promised a middle class tax cut but received an increase could argue that monetary freedom is a fundamental freedom with which most other freedoms become fully functional.

And on the one over-riding issue of today...the survival of America from islamic terror, there is no comparison. Clinton gutted the military and spent the money on socialism. He wasted expensive missiles and other resources in a war against Christians in Yugoslavia. He didn't trust our soldiers to carry bullets in Mogadishu. He loathed the military and it showed in the way he treated our defenders. I do believe Clinton looked forward to Osama's attacks to divert attention from the corruption and scandal...some people seem to forget what a scumbag Clinton was and like him as a politician. Not me, and I'm very thankful Dubya has brought honor and dignity to the Whitehouse. Have you noticed how none of the adminstration has pardoned terrorists, blamed Rush Limbaugh for the actions of a mass murderer in OK, accepted Chinese donations, rented the Lincoln bedroom, committed suicide, jerked off on their secretaries or even recommended masterbation education? Those don't fall into the context of freedoms but they count for something.

Many of governments intrusions have been because of judicial activism. The positive effects of the Roberts court will be felt for generations. Again no contest.

It is debatable whether America was stronger and better in 1992,2000, or today. What is indisputable in my opinion is President Bush is far superior to President Gore or Kerry.

After Libertarian candidate Badnarik received 0.34% of the vote in 04, he bravely fought for the freedom of Ohio taxpayers to shell out 1.5 million for a recount. Even though John Kerry rejected a recount Michael Badnarik teamed up with freedom champion and Green Party candidate David Cobb. When asked why he pushed for the recount he said he got "about two dozen passionate requests to do so from Libertarians in various states."...well then I guess that would be just about all of his base.

30 posted on 07/27/2006 3:09:49 AM PDT by Once-Ler (The rat 06 election platform will be a promise to impeach the President if they win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Some clever editing by the PC crowd can make this palatable for even the most delicate pantywaists in today's society.

Consider the following:

Original Sound bite:

Bataan Death March Surviver:"They gave us shit to eat. Some rancid gruel made from rice and crawling with cockroaches. The Jap bastards were slowly starving us.".

Edited for wimps:

WWII Anglo Aggressor:"They prepared us meals of rice, with an innovative source of added protein. Our Asian hosts, though being of questionable parental origin, closely rationed our portions in an effort to prevent obesity, a condition which inflicts one in three Americans.".

31 posted on 07/27/2006 3:53:07 AM PDT by Yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Okay. There have been rules since...forever...about language on broadcast television, right? When have networks ever been allowed to use curse words liberally on the air? Never, right? There have been allowances in context (Saving Private Ryan, etc.)

Personally, I am glad that there are limits on this.

If networks were given free reign to broadcast any language or content they wanted to, network television would be unwatchable (oh, wait...they already are unwatchable...) in a short period of time. They would make all content as salacious as possible in order to boost ratings.

I'm sorry. The networks are like children, and must be treated as such. They cannot be trusted to police themselves, "nanny state" labels by people notwithstanding.


32 posted on 07/27/2006 3:59:27 AM PDT by rlmorel (Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yankee

Very good!


33 posted on 07/27/2006 4:00:26 AM PDT by dakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: balch3
I not so sure I want a bowdlerized version of World War II.
34 posted on 07/27/2006 4:05:55 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

And if your scenario played out a vaccum would form from the disaffected viewers and new stations or programs would emerge to serve this audience.

A free market solves its own problems.


35 posted on 07/27/2006 4:09:40 AM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
If the explecitives make it to air, they could lead to crippling fines for the offencing stations as a result of a new law signed last month by President George W. Bush.

Something is wrong here. These typos and the fact that the link isn't working are unsettling. I have reason to question the veracity of the story. This is supposed to be the product of "professional" journalists who don't make these types of mistakes, NOT the pajamahadeen.
36 posted on 07/27/2006 4:12:08 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Gosh, all the way to the 2nd paragraph before blaming Bush. Sigh.

The overall language is so bad that my wife pointed out that they frequently bleep out words on her favorite channel...The Cooking Channel (Food Network)!


37 posted on 07/27/2006 4:27:00 AM PDT by libertylover (If it's good and decent, you can be sure the Democrat Party leaders are against it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

What idiot parent actually thinks Little Johnnie and Janie hasn't been exposed to and regularly uses the 'f' bomb?


38 posted on 07/27/2006 4:28:02 AM PDT by lawdude (To Colmes - It ain't rocket surgery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Search Google News, its true.To me this is just another government sideshow.They've all-and I mean ALL-spent almost five years now trying to distract us from their failure at Job 1 by doing a lot with the lesser jobs.


39 posted on 07/27/2006 4:36:09 AM PDT by John W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Ask the FCC to screen it and find out if they need to change the dialog, would it be acceptable if shown after 9:00 with a warning about foul language?

I think this is just an attempt by PBS to bring up how (They feel) the guidelines are blurry and the FCC's actions have been inconsistent.

Remember Schlindler's list?

40 posted on 07/27/2006 4:45:14 AM PDT by #1CTYankee (That's right, I have no proof. So what of it??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdude

Laugh at me if you want to, but yesterday I was watching a program about raising goats on the RFD channel. I was amazed to hear a livestock expert from Texas A&M refer to "teets" on a female goat. When I was a kid, cows and goats had "t*ts" and that's what everybody called them. Was this another example of misdirected TV censorship or does the science of animal husbandry use different terminoligy these days?


41 posted on 07/27/2006 4:46:04 AM PDT by 19th LA Inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Wrong, there is not one bit of foul language that can not be replaced with decent language.

In many courtrooms, every lawyer that comes before that court knows that unnecessary profanity will not be tolerated. It is their responsibility to make their clients understand that.

Burns, as a professional film maker should know as well, if he chooses to ignore the law and include filth in his documentary, than let it lie on the cutting room floor, he has no one to blame but himself.

Burns knows the rules or at the very least he should. Go break the rules of your work place, see how long you are allowed to get away with it. Why should Burns be allowed to spit on the rules of common decency?

42 posted on 07/27/2006 4:47:58 AM PDT by thiscouldbemoreconfusing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman
I think the question should be posed to Ken Burns as to whether he wants our children to be able to watch this documentary

If I were Ken burns, I would show the documentary uncut and let the FCC look like monkeys for censoring the words of Gen. Patton. Your tax dollars at shirk once again.

43 posted on 07/27/2006 4:54:54 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 19th LA Inf
"Was this another example of misdirected TV censorship or does the science of animal husbandry use different terminoligy these days?"

I believe the word 'teets' is correct. Tits is a euphemism thereof.
44 posted on 07/27/2006 5:07:36 AM PDT by lawdude (To Colmes - It ain't rocket surgery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: thiscouldbemoreconfusing

"Why should Burns be allowed to spit on the rules of common decency?"

Why should you be allowed to alter factual history?

If a soldier used the "F" word while being shelled, it would be disingenuous to change it.


45 posted on 07/27/2006 5:10:46 AM PDT by lawdude (To Colmes - It ain't rocket surgery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman

Most kids know all of those words by second grade. That's how it's always been. Only Brent Bozell thinks otherwise.


46 posted on 07/27/2006 5:13:57 AM PDT by Ace of Spades (Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
"The Law of Unintended Consequences at work again.

As if this congress gave a damn about unintended consequences unless the consequences can provide more political fluff.

I am about as disgusted with congress as I have ever been. Has congress done anything meaningful this year at all? Has congress accomplished anything this year except debate fluff political issues for November?

47 posted on 07/27/2006 5:18:52 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
"Or just have them use words like caca, doodoo and poopoo!"

I wouldn't be surprised to find those words prohibited. Congress probably thinks it can get 1 or 2 more votes in November if they go all the way in banning words.

48 posted on 07/27/2006 5:20:53 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Just bleep it out. My father was surrounded for six days by Chinese during the Korean War and he can still describe it without using profanity; ditto Jeremiah Denton speaking about his time in North Vietnam; ditto Joe Foss, CMO winner. If these guys can't do it without using the profanity, strike it up to class (or lack of it), bleep out the swearing and I doubt it will detract from the message.


49 posted on 07/27/2006 5:23:59 AM PDT by Jimnorwellwarren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 19th LA Inf

Referring to animals, the word has always been "teats" AFAIK, but regional pronunciation has varied between "teets" and "tihts".


50 posted on 07/27/2006 5:26:03 AM PDT by Eepsy (Hocus pocus alamagocus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson