Posted on 08/28/2006 7:22:45 PM PDT by Pyro7480
This has got to be a troll trap.
so social conservatives are considered trolls now. Is that it?
Oh God, no.
Just you.
whatever you say. I don't really care.
I understand that people would be concerned about certain words being on the television.
I am concerned myself, of course, with what my children watch..and monitor it VERY closely.
That being said...
By the time my child is OLD enough to see this documentary..he will already know the word F*&K and any other word that is spoken on the film.
It will probably be the first time we listen to those kind of words together....and I am sure hearing the F-Word will be the LAST thing on our minds.
You don't know how much I cried that day and for weeks after, or how I still cringe inside when I think of those who knew they were going to die, who were terrified and helpless, not to mention all the loved ones and even the 911 operators who surely must still hear those anguished voices. Nor do you know how angry I get when so many focus on the Towers and somehow forget the people in the Pentagon and those on the planes.
I'm sickened by anyone who wants to use the events of September 11th for their own advantage, and that includes CBS.
Contrary to what you apparently think, I wasn't using "filmmakers" and "program" perjoratively. I don't care for September 11th being abbreviated to 9/11; it seems a little off-hand to me, but it's not important enough on which to base wild accusations.
CBS is using this for their advantage? Is it not airing the program commercial free? They would give up how many hours of commercial time because they just love the F word so much?????
Come. on.
TV Gnatzi's with their panties in a bunch. There's nothing decent about 3,000 American's losing their life. To have 9/11 sanitized is tantamount to shading the truth.
They're nothing but a pain in the <censored by the AFA>.
The FCC dealt with complaints then, and didn't fine CBS because the film was historically accurate.
ABC showed Pearl Harbor a few years ago, uncut and commercial free, and a bunch of TV Gnatzi's complained and the FCC also said that the movie was historically accurate.
I find that "figure" hard to believe.
:-)
I remember. NBC had disclaimers in their promotional ads for the movie as well as before the movie began and at the end of each commercial break, and not a single complaint was lobbed toward NBC, General Electric or the FCC.
Those who aren't owned by CBS itself will have the option to pre-empt it. Those stations who are owned by CBS will have to show it, regardless.
Of course this documentary about a national tragedy is just that -- a public document. And just as the trial, e.g., of the Scottsboro Boys in our grandfathers' time was amazing in its frankness in dealing with sexual issues and biological evidence, so nobody who deals with the public business should be looking the other way or scrunching his eyes shut and generally playing sissy.
That said, I think it's a good argument, that CBS is using this essential public document and all the dramatic power in it, to push a vendetta against the idea of community standards, prurience, and what constitutes acceptable family programming. CBS is vindictively trying to reverse the well-deserved slapping-around they got after the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident, and to take back the initiative from the FCC on public decency.
CBS's position is, we will decide what "community standards" are! (And we'll use money as our metric, but that's another matter......) And public policy is just the opposite: No, the networks and licensees do not decide, the public decides.
CBS deserves to lose this issue, because they're punks, and this scam proves it.
That all said, how would I handle the documentary? I'd put it on later at night, when all the kids are in bed anyway, and I'd go ahead and run the warnings about uncut footage and soundtracks, and show the documentary intact.
And then, I'd have the chairman of the FCC pull the president of CBS aside and rip his face off for about 15 minutes for having tried to be a punk, and I'd leave him with absolutely no doubt about who was in charge of the question of community standards, and if he ever tried to screw with the FCC again, it'd cost his network $50,000,000 just for trying, plus whatever else I decided to tack on for his having been a punk again after I told him to knock it off.
I recall two (count 'em) episodes of naughty language on the DVD of "9/11." The first is a collective "Oh, S###!" uttered by everyone as the first plane hits. The second is a police officer yelling at the cameraman to move on: "This ain't F###ing Disneyland!"
If the profanity in it offends you, deal with it. Life sucks, wear a helmet.
Really. Although I no longer swear as much as I used to (my late wife housebroke me) I do notice when it is not being used. A movie scene with men in hard combat saying “Oh gosh”, or a hard core criminal saying “Gee wiz” just doesn’t sound right.
Dang! You're right.
That's a philosophical question. The more important question is, why would it be OK for the government to force CBS to edit profanity out of a factual account of the most important event of our lifetime?
If/when that happens, can we expect Jim Robinson to allow a word for dirty-word tanscript here at Free Republic?
Ask him. His site, his rules. Exercising control over your own publication isn't censorship -- it's called editing.
Any child who is too young/not mature enough to handle hearing the f-bomb shouldn't be watching graphic footage of real-life violence, including people jumping to their deaths. That's where the parental discretion part comes in.
Contrary to popular belief (and George Carlin), the FCC has never maintained a list of words that are universally verboten. Obscenity depends on the use and meaning of the word -- if it addresses a sex act or bodily function, it's more suspect than the same word used in a figurative or general sense. So you're more lilkely to get away with saying that you're p---ed off than that you've been p---ed on.
It would take a stretch that would make a yoga master wince to claim that the wordy dirds in the 9/11 documentary are meant to titillate, or could have that effect. I don't think there's any room to argue that the acts documented are orders of magnitude more obscene than any words blurted in reaction could ever be.
If you wish to shield children from obscenity -- and I don't blame you for doing so until they're old enough to absorb and understand what happened on that awful day -- the words are the least of the concerns. It's like letting your kids watch someone being mauled to death by a lion but being concerned that the bloody victim might be naked at some point.
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.