Okie dokey, the federal government is crossing the line now. A $500,000 fine for indecency that is not even defined by the FCC? Hey Bush, Cheney, and everyone in public office across the board, repub or demo, congress-person, senate-person: FUCK YOU ALL. Suckers of Satans' cock- each and every one of you. You spineless turdy worms. Why are you bozos running the country? What the fuck is happening to America? Can anyone help me here, I'm feeling a little lost. Here we go kids, here's the basic rundown as I see it:

1. Please note : THEY STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED EXACTLY WHAT *IS* "INDECENCY.
The thing that's really stupid about this is they won't even clarify what the rules for indecency actually are. It's more of a "you know what's indecent, we shouldn't have to tell you, and if you do it we're going to fine the shit out of you". That's why Stern can't play the sound of someone passing gas on the air anymore, even though there is no rule anywhere that actually prevents him from doing so and radio and telivision stations all over play the exact same noises. Awesome; we will go all out to prevent your kids from hearing a fart but they can watch shows about people getting murdered to their hearts content.
That's why so-called decency laws are a farce. They fail, at best, one of the 8 criteria for a valid law - that a law can't be vague.
I'm sorry, but the "I can't define indecency, but I know it when I see it" angle is about the shakiest damned foundation for legislation ever. What is to prevent the FCC from finding your protestations concerning their policies "indecent"? Remember, there's no where to appeal such a decision. The standard for what constitutes obscenity isn't well-defined; some people find dropping the f-bomb or flashing a boob obscene, whereas I find Jerry Falwell blaming feminists and homosexuals for September 11th equally tasteless. That isn't to say I support fining Falwell for expressing his opinion; I'm merely pointing out that one person's obscenity is another's source of entertainment or enlightenment. Most hate speech should be protected, and it usually is. As I mentioned above, Falwell is guilty of hate speech. He's doing quite well for himself by it, too.

2. FCC DOES NOT have the right to regulate broadcast content to ensure it's in the best interest of Americans.
The FCC's role is to regulate usage, not restrict content. Radio wave broadcasts use a finite resource. The FCC is tasked with making sure that resource is made available for all in an orderly fashion. The FCC does not inherit any authority from Congress to supersede any part of the Constitution, because Congress itself does not have that power. Congress cannot pass a LEGAL law abridging the right to free speech, or allowing the FCC to do so, because they are explicitly restricted from doing so by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the Executive and Judicial branches both continue to prove themselves incapable of obeying, protecting, and defending the Constitution. Just because they're not ALLOWED to fine or imprison you for modulating an RF carrier with the word fuck doesn't mean they CAN'T or WON'T. The result is the exact effect that the First Amendment is supposed to prevent: a chill on potentially indecent speech, out of fear that the FCC will arbitrarily punish the speaker for it. The Supreme Court is made up of human beings, who are fallible, who get things WRONG. Something's got to be wrong with you if you're down with supporting one branch of the government in the violation of human rights just because they're wearing black robes. The Supreme Court is still the government. Just because the people currently making up the government all agree on something, it doesn't mean ANY of them are necessarily correct. This type of abridgment of the freedom of speech is the ultimate example of where the government as a whole is bypassing those pesky Constitutional limits - and yet there are still these morons who think it's a GOOD thing. The only thing "special" about RF communications is that it uses a finite resource. Which words or which ideas can be expressed are not within the FCC's or Congress' scope of power to control. Just because they ARE controlling words and ideas, doesn't mean it is legal, or that they should be allowed to continue.
The question is, how far will we let them go? And when we do decide to stop them, will we be capable of doing anything at all?

3. Who determines what profanity is?
Maybe you think Howard Stern is profane, but what if your public radio station decided to broadcast a night of spoken-word performance, which can be highly politically charged and may contain the occasional n- and f-bomb? (And for those of you who say this wouldn't happen, the CBC does this quite often.) Public radio may be the only medium left willing to broadcast such an event, since it's not that commercially profitable. Don't you think it's important to protect the public airwaves from people arbitrarily deciding that such content is "obscene," especially when the people to decide would likely have little clue regarding the context in which the "obscene" words were spoken?
You have to protect the airwaves from government interference, especially in this era of media consolidation, otherwise our media will consist exclusively of that which corporations deem interesting (i.e., profitable). The FCC reacts to complaints that they receive from one particular group. 99.8% of complaints originate from that group. The new law ends up awarding this one group (a minority of citizens) the power to shell out a $500,000 fine if they don't appreciate a show.
This creates a sense of fear in networks who now feel that showing movies like Saving Private Ryan may not be worth it. This is odd. The government who has no second thoughts about sending young men and women to war in Iraq, do feel it is inappropriate to show images of war on TV.
I'm so glad that the neocons are in charge. They'll do so much good for right wing, fundamentalist America for a change. Lord Jesus knows how much they've suffered under the threat of libery and justice for all.
Yet Dick Cheney can drop the F-word on the Senate floor... Thank you again, Congress. Your tireless efforts to strengthen America are the epitome of selfless altruism. We all know that no conservative would say such foul things, ain't that Right Mr. Cheney? Fucking assholes. What about the fines for saying asshole ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONGRESS??? Talk about inappropriate.
hypocrites are not worthy of your votes.
"A little revolution is a good thing every now and then" -Thomas Jefferson.
Perhaps Dubya should extend his efforts against frivolous lawsuits to fining legislators who present frivolous legislation.

4. How Far Will this Go?
The FCC is allowed to impose fines because of the legal fiction that a fine is not a fine if the government calls it a "civil penalty" or "administrative forfeiture." It's the same principle that makes parking tickets work, or speeding tickets in most states. When these offenses were criminal you had the right to a jury trial and the government had to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The legislature changed the word "criminal" to "civil" and you lost almost all your rights when accused of the same offense with the same punishment.
The courts have said that the right of government to decriminalize offenses is not without bound. If the fine is so great that even a hardened judge has to admit it is punitive, then the defendant has the right to a criminal trial.
Wake up and smell the fucking coffee. The FCC has stated in the recent past that they think cable, Sirius and other broadcast media are probably under their venue as well, and Congress hasn't so much as offered a peep of resistance. How about a fine for politicians who lie to us on the air (WMD) or for fake white house reporters i.e. (Jeff Gannon and the Light Loafer infantry)? The rest of the world is either laughing at us or thinking that we have gone totally insane. Americans have turned into a bunch of fragile puritans with guns. They are also incredible hypocrites. They want to punish people for saying the same words as the Vice President used on the Senate floor without punishment. The party that claimed it wanted to get "government off our back" now wants control of every orifice. Meanwhile, downloading a song from the internet is far worse then stealing two or three CDs from the store. Hooray for common sense!

The Weimar Government, which existed just before the National Socialists came to power, had worked to protect freedom of speech. The Nazis eroded that protection through censorship, and support for propaganda outlets that came to replace traditional news sources.
Der Sturmer, for example, was offered to workers in factories and posted on highly visible bulletin boards for public consumption. Hitler's government actively backed this news source even while positioning it as a largely independent entity interested in reporting the facts. On the other hand, that government censored legitimate news sources, sometimes for indecency or for endangering national security.
A parallel of sorts can be drawn between those practices of old and what the US Government is doing now: The FCC may levy massive fines against whatever outlet it wishes, based upon vague indecency standards that aren't evenly applied. On the flip side, "Christian" or "conservative" entertainers and newscasters seem to get a free pass for their broadcasts (no matter how profane GenecoughScottcoughcough or coughcoughhairraisinganti-muslimrhetoriccough).

99% of the complaints received by the FCC are fielded by a single organization - the Parents Television Council - that has a clearly defined political agenda. That isn't regulation; it's engineering - and the US Government approves. It represents the enslavement of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES to one man, this man: Brent Bozell, Founder and President of the Media Research Center.
Does anyone else reading this LIKE THIS or APPROVE OF ALL THIS CENSORSHIP POWER GIVEN TO *ONE* UNELECTED MAN?!?
Most sane nations would slaughter a man given that much power.
Do I have to quote Martin "First they came for the Communists" Niemoller every fucking time one of you "relax, it won't happen to me" assholes speaks without thinking? Where does this fine money go? 1/2 a million a pop is a lot of money, plus whatever individual fines are issued.
Don't even say this doesn't matter! -That we can watch whatever we want on cable or satellite. Colin Powell's son (big asshole) is leaving as FCC commish, but the guy favored (by Bush) to take over is an even bigger friggin asshole. This guy has said he wants to bring cable and satellite into the jurisdiction of the FCC. So this indecency bill is really just the beginning. There is also no way this bill should have made it this far (past Senate) without there being some perks in it for all those assholes who passed it. They tried sneaking into a military spending bill (as a rider) last year, but someone in Congress picked up on that and it was voted down. Apparently, now all senators and congressmen who vote for it will get free HBO and Showtime.
You can not say erection, you can not say penis, vulva?
I might say it is against public interest for some clown on PBS to be saying, "I fucked a goat in its fat tight pussy because it is excessively vulgar. However, when you take my right to say, "I preformed sexual intercourse on a goat" away there is a bit of a problem!!
The concern on this bill is that it may do just that. Cialas and Viagra can not even tell you what their medication is for, isn't that ridiculous?!
And the PUBLIC airwaves are owned by the people, the people supported licensing because otherwise it would have been near impossible to watch anything. If the government is going to regulate our broadcasting in the interest of the people then it needs to be bound to every restriction placed forth by the constitution.
Maybe they'll set up a free speech zone like at the re-elect scrub-ya rallies.
If you speak up, some neo-con knuckle dragging squad will have you arrested for trespassing.
It's mind blowing, what people will believe if they want to, or if they are told to do so for long enough. The concept is called "Auto-Suggestion" and works very well. Once schools have the same curriculum, teach our kids to rat on their parents, share everything, pay without thinking, we will have our mindless society with the few 'outcasts' being in power in the government.

...in other news: you can be jailed indefinitely if the government decides it is in the interests of Homeland Security.
...in further news: these two issues are connected.

The whole problem with politics is the fact that problems on a societal scale are complex, they require a degree of proficiency to understand that the general public often doesn't have. So you're left with a choice of spending time to discuss the problem and edify the population. To which people often take offense to being taught anything. It's seen as "being talked down to." Or to completely lose one's self in criminal deceit and make up disingenuous solutions to problems that either don't exist or wouldn't be solved by the proposed methods. Keep the message simple, build a "belief," get people to repeat it to each other so they take it as truth.

THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE : THE GERMANS 1933 - 45
By: Milton Mayer

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, 'everyone' is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, 'It's not so bad' or 'You're seeing things' or 'You're an alarmist.'
"And you ARE an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh- pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have."
"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to---to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait."
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worse act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked---if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43 had come immediately after the 'German Firm' stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."


In the end, what it means when a government can punish people for exercising their right to freedom of speech is that there *IS* no freedom of speech. When the government controls what people say and hear, based on some ethereal and subjective personal preference, all media become governmental propaganda machines.
Here's a question for all you "Brilliant" fuckers out there. Does this new FCC doctrine violate the 8th Amendment?

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Notice the part about excessive fines. Does one word "Fuck" warrant a $500,000 fine? If the FCC varies in its application of said fine, does that not violate the 5th Amendment?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Notice the due process of law part)

Tell me what you think, I feel a little better after posting, bye.