South Park--End of censorship?

I was just watching the South Park marathon on Comedy Central, and they're playing the movie now. Cartman just said "Dude, this is f***ing weak" on a basic cable station. It wasn't bleeped our or anything. It would appear that censorship has just gone out the window.

Any thoughts, either for or against this?

[Edited on 1-1-2004 by junglejake]

Well that's interesting... I'd think MORE censorship would be enacted now, not less. Are you sure they didn't mute out part of the word? That could be a BIG problem for them if someone calls in and informs them they missed a swear. See if you can hear other swears in that same movie? Also, is there anything at all bleeped? Maybe they just missed one!

I dunno, I just popped downstairs for a smoke, and heard that when Kyle's mom announced Tarance and Phillip would be executed for having potty mouths. And no, nothing was bleeped or blanked out in that.

I personally think it's horrible. Tonight of all nights, kids will be up at this hour. I'll go watch more to let you know, but this is a troubling way to herald in the new year...

I agree that it is going too far its one thing to show people getting cut apart by chain saws and being choped up by axes but its another thing altogather to say F**k on tv

They don't have to edit it since it is on at 1:00 in the morning. They would have to edit it in the day.

The name of the movie is Bigger longer and uncut so I guess they wouldn't edited it...since it is Uncut...

And come on...the kids are going to grow up and hear those words anyway...let them get used to them while they're young...after the obligatory "Cussword" at age five or so they're parents will tell them to stop saying that and then all will be good....So who the heck cares if cencorship is kaput? that is if they just played the un bleeped verson of it...who about any of the shows that they have shown? were they bleeped?

Wait... I didn't know that censorship had a curfew. So censorship doesn't apply to any program shown on public television after 1 am? Is that true or did you make that up? o_O

Also, it's not that I personally care what kids hear since you're right, they will probably hear their parents swear and others around them... it's the real world so why lie to your kids and put them into a blissful illusion from the beginning. I just was wondering wouldn't the station get in trouble for not censoring it, unless the law explicitly states something about curfew.

Originally posted by Amuk
I agree that it is going too far its one thing to show people getting cut apart by chain saws and being choped up by axes but its another thing altogather to say F**k on tv

lol Dude, read your U2Us.

Censorship doesn't protect anyone from anything. If kids parents don't want them to be exposed to it, they can turn the damn tv off. I guarantee you they have heard those words by now anyway.

Most 'censorship' is self policing.

Traditional broadcast (free public owned airwaves) have the most real censorship still in effect.

Cable is different. You pay for it. Invite it in your home. Can block channels you don't want, etc.

But the "censors" remain largely self enforced. Even broadcast shows a butt or partial boob once in a while. And yes, they use prime time as the indicator. If your kids aren't in bed by 10 or 11...tough titties. You're the bad influence, not TV.

If anyone believes there's truly a "war on thier sensibilities" being waged they should stop paying for cable, and turn off their TV. I'm not speaking to anyone in particular here, more Bill O'Really.

y'all are right. What right do parents have to choose how to raise their children? That's public television's job. The media gets to choose how to raise our children today, we have no say, what are we?

You know, there was a time when married couples on TV had to sleep in seporate beds. Now you can say # on television. You see, it starts out small, and continues to build up.

Let's change this up a little. Let's say it becomes sanctioned to perform torture by the government, legally, for extreme cases, like terrorists or kidnappers where the person kidnapped hasn't been found yet. Massive public outcry like there was when it was allowed to say damn on TV. But people get used to it.

As soon as they get used to it, it's another stipulation is added. Now people suspected of murder can be tortured to find out what they did with their victims. Now you can say ass on TV.

Well, hell, this has been working so well! We've been finding all of these kidnapping victims, terrorists, and dead bodies! Our TV ratings have never been higher! Let's expand this more!

And the cycle continues. Pretty soon, your 5 year old daughter will be watching Springer when you throw in another load of laundry, and she'll be seeing some guy # a girl on camera. It'll get ratings, so it'll be legalized, unless we stop it somewhere. It could get to the point that you go to watch the news, and the commentator will be saying "And those #ing terriors, I tell ya, they just keep #ting on peoples lawns". You won't be able to watch TV with your children in the house, and will have to lock it out from them.

We are in the midst of a downward spiral. It needs to stop somewhere, or TV will dictate how we raise our kids, not ourselves.

Your 'slippery slope' is showing.

Originally posted by RANT
Your 'slippery slope' is showing.

Explanation?

Wait a minute: Let�s be reasonable here! Will censorship be defeated when our children hear the F word coming out of Barney and Sesame Street? (Well, are there any other parents like me that would like to see Barney censored? or more appropriately have Barney die in a terrible, horrific car �accident�?? lol)

Off my tangent, point being, is not having to hear the F word censorship, per se?


[Edited on 1-1-2004 by Bob88]

Sorry. You're ascribing to a slippery slope argument. Which is fine. Basically saying, if we allow X then Y will happen.

It's a causation arguement assuming that the absurd (or whatever universally objectionable occurance) follows as a given to whatever you are arguing against.

For decades Conservatives have fought the ACLU on the basis that they use a slippery slope argument for everything... If you don't let the Klan have a voice, then Christians won't have a voice, etc.

Bill O'Reilly (my example) still does this frequently...THEN turns around and asserts the EXACT same slippery slope on his behalf.

Again, nothing wrong with it. BUT, I was just saying, your arguments don't follow as NECESSARY implications. But are fine, as a cautionary statement.

Bob: "Off my tangent, point being, is not having to hear the F word censorship, per se?"

I don't think so Bob, because you don't have to subscribe to cable, not block Comedy Central and not stay up all night watching a South Park marathon.

In fact, it's quite easy to be a chaste person these days (if you really try).

Censorship was just thrown out the window? South park and those types of shows aren't supposed to be watched by kids, its the parents responsibility to watch there kids to make sure they aren't watching the wrong thing, not the TV stations. Some people say 'well you can't watch your kids all the time'... which I totally agree with, but I guarantee you that I heard f*ck on a show or on a movie when I was little, and I didn't turn out to kill people, do drugs, drop out of school... like I said before, TV doesn't raise a kid, the parents do... just curious if you also think they should ban violent video games as well?

hahah omfg i hjust heard him say
# cock # butt #er hahah ofmg

i love it
w000t # censorship!!!!


lol lol ol!

PARTY ON! WYANE HAHAHA

Rant:
I agree with you about the slippery slope statement, now that you've described what you ment. (BTW, I can't stand O'Reiley, especially now that he's gotten so arrogant and become such a hypocrate)

This is, however, what I've been noticing. I'm only 24, but it seems faster and faster that the media is allowing things to make the air waves. More and more is becoming allowed on more and more public stations. I've just found the trend disturbing, and when I heard # on basic cable, I was shocked, but more disturbed, because the trend I'd seen was continuing.

From www.fcc.gov...

Indecent Broadcasts Restricted to 10 P.M. - 6 A.M.

The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. For a complete summary of the Commission's case law regarding the indecency standard, see Industry Guidance On the Commission's Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. � 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd 7999 (2001).

This has been in effect for awhile, it's just that stations don't usually do it because they are scared of losing sponsers. On that link they show companies that have been fined and how much. One company was fined over 350 thousand dollars. Click on the stations name and you'll find that the Catholic League was complaining about a show doing a sex in dangerous places skit.