My email response from the FCC regarding Rush saying "Nayger"

[Horse with no Name]

Ms. xxxxxx,

Please see the attached on freedom of speech.

Thank you for contacting the FCC Consumer Center.



(unable to copy attachment)

So racial slurs are okay. What have we come to as a society.:shrug:

[izzybeans]

1. I'd email the Southern Poverty Law Center and compare the two

responses. IMO.

[ecstatic]

2. gee, but Howard Stern wasn't granted that same freedom? nt

[KingFlorez]

3. They are okay under this administration

As far as I know you can't use racially offensive slurs on the airwaves.

[Horse with no Name]

5. Well Rush did

And they don't care...

[formerrepuke]

4. Sure its ok...just don't say 'breasts" or "intercourse."

[rkc3]

13. Or poop - if you listened to Howard Stern this morning.

[jim3775]

6. Yep

The FCC is essentially the sex squad, you can say whatever you want unless you describe a sex act or mention a sexual organ or mention one of the seven dirty words. "Penis" and "vagina" are unacceptable in the context of sex.

[Orrex]

7. What if

Suppose Rush had accidentally called him "Mayor Hugecock" instead. Would the FCC have asserted his freedom of speech in that case?

Sickening, regressive, and infantile hypocrisy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Was that a document for "Freedom of speech

FOR REPUBLICANS ONLY?" The FCC along with every other MAJOR agency within our government has been hijacked by these bastards. We are so screwed. :cry:

[jim3775]

9. The standing policy of the reich wing: IOKIYR

It's OK if you're republican.

[vptpt]

11. R could also stand for Rich

[Horse with no Name]

10. I found this on their website--it's close to what they sent pdf.

http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.htm

What Is the FCC's Responsibility?

The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Excuse me if I am wrong...but trying to incite racial tensions and violence IS an expression of views that involves a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil".

It just goes to show you the priorities of THIS administration.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACKS!

[JDPriestly]

12. But there is no freedom of speech for the F-word,

although used to express anger rather than to describe what some consider an obscene act. By the way, why do we consider sex to be obscene? It is necessary in order to ensure the survival of the species. I can understand saying that it is an intimate or private act, like other bodily functions, but why do we consider it to be obscene? Why do we consider the other bodily functions to be obscene also? I suppose that primitive man was repulsed by his own wastes and feared them because they are dangerous if ingested, but still, why are the acts that produce them considered to be obscene? Maybe primitive humans preferred to perform certain bodily functions in private because he or she was vulnerable to attack while performing them. But how would that have developed into the idea that such acts are obscene.

Why don't we consider eating food, which is also a bodily function, not to be obscene? I have never been able to figure this out. Why are we ashamed of some bodily functions, but not others? By what logic does the FCC enforce rules about what language is OK and what is not when they are based on ideas attitudes that don't make the slightest bit of sense if you think about them.

Any anthropologists out there?

[lectrobyte]

14. It's pure puritanism. Or part of a bigger plot to have everyone paying

for HBO to see shows like NYPD Blue instead of watching it on broadcast TV for free. I haven't watched NYPD Blue in a few years, but I bet it's much tamer than it used to be, or is it?