The law is a bum-bum

[rhu]

I was reading the NYT coverage of the court ruling on "fleeting expletives" (which is delightfully euphonious, no?) and I'm struck by the following:

The court's opinion hinges on the assertion that the use of a "fleeting expletive" clearly does not imply its literal meaning. Thus, “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.” The opinion specifically cites both Pres. Bush's insightful analysis of the power relationship between Syria and Hezbollah and Vice Pres. Cheney's eloquent rebuff of Sen. Leahy.

Does that mean that it's not actually the specific earthy words that are prohibited? Would the FCC slap a fine on a sitcom in which, having slammed his fingers in the door, a character screamed "Oh, fecal matter engaged in copulation! Oedipal fellator!"

Comments

[michelel72.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty confident the FCC wouldn't care about the latter case. The report I read [Workplace warning: dirty words!] specifically quoted the FCC chairman thus (with an adjustment by me to keep your journal family-friendly):

[FCC Chairman Kevin] Martin also believes that the Court is the entity with a tenuous grip on the real world. "The court even says the Commission is 'divorced from reality,'" argues Martin. "It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word 'f[---]' does not invoke a sexual connotation."

He's hung up on the word, not the actual meaning. Bono did not intend to convey that getting an award was "really, really, [copulating] brilliant"; no one with any intelligence would attempt to argue that he did intend any such connotation. Even if he did, that doesn't mean anything!

That's an endemic problem of the current FCC (among so many other agencies!), though. They care about the appearance of propriety. Are they going after Bill O'Reilly for his offensive (if nonsensical) claims that the TB guy is an example of the immorality of "secular progressives"? Have they gone after Falwell or Pat Robertson for their patently offensive diatribes? Of course not. (I want to start a counter-AFA movement to form-letter report those sorts of occurrences to the FCC.)

Meanwhile, I don't watch sitcoms, but one that used your example line might win me over!

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

The words have shock value because of their connotations. If a word has completely lost its original meaning, it's no longer shocking.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Well, my understanding is that the FCC decided not to do anything about the Bono expletive...until pressured to do so by We Love Our Heteronormative Christian Families, or whatever the group might be called.

What's prohibited is, I believe, certain words when used in their obscene senses--or, as George Carlin noted, even in a Disney movie you can say, "We're going to snatch that pussy, put her in a box, and take her on the airplane." (cf. "Roberto Clemente has three balls on him" vs. "I believe he's scratching his balls", ibid.)

So presumably, the court's ruling suggests that the expletive sense of various words, as it doesn't connote the obscenity, merely a strong feeling of some sort, and that's why the FCC can't regulate it. But the FCC doesn't want to slap fines on everything used as an expletive--e.g., they don't fine anyone for "fracking"; just on certain words.

[cellio]

*laugh* If you could get that into a sitcom on broadcast TV, it would be worth the risk of a fine. :-)