To quote the article:
"David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today's Red Sox game," outgoing FCC head Julius Genachowski tweeted. "I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston."
According to Genachowski, it's okay to swear on live TV if it "comes from the heart", but in other circumstances, cursing is not okay. This points out just how silly censorship is. Why is an acceptable word "fuck" acceptable sometimes, but offensive others? In our language, all words have a defined meaning, but the FCC thinks that some words are so offensive that they should never be allowed on air... well, in most situations. Then when is it okay to swear? Should we set guidelines on when words "come from the heart'? It seems ridiculous that the word"fuck" is okay in Ortiz's situation, but it automatically becomes dirty when talking about two consenting adults consummating their lust. This reminds me of some observations made by the great George Carlin.
5 comments:
Interesting topic Brandon. Censorship is so suggestive because it varies on what is offensive. However what is offensive to one isn't offensive to someone else. Also like you pointed out it isn't consistantly applied
I was extremley surprised when I watched this live and realized that the word wasnt bleeped out and wondered the same thing of why not. I believe that double standards cannot be tolerated even if he was "Speaking from the Heart", who in the future is going to determine the next time someone is or isnt "Speaking from the Heart"?
I also was very surprised that in this particular situation this type of vulgarity was allowed. Makes you wonder who is censoring the censorship.
I love that this is being brought up, I wonder if you have ever looked into who actually runs the FCC and who funnels money into it, I have and I think you may be surprised, as a theatre minor I think censorship is crap all around, and giving power to a word is like Vodamort in Harry Potter, just silly.
Post a Comment