Comments on: The F-and-S analysis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/ by Jeff Jarvis Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:48:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: brutal rape http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-351340 brutal rape Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:23:13 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-351340 Hi. It's about game. <a href="http://fantasy-rape.ca.cx/" rel="nofollow"> cartoon rape </a> [url=http://fantasy-rape.ca.cx/] cartoon rape [/url] [link http://fantasy-rape.ca.cx/] cartoon rape [/link] roleplayingam.com Hi. It’s about game.
cartoon rape [url=http://fantasy-rape.ca.cx/] cartoon rape [/url] [link http://fantasy-rape.ca.cx/ cartoon rape [/link]

roleplayingam.com

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » In defense of bullshit http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-34564 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » In defense of bullshit Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:03:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-34564 [...] By declaring them profane, the FCC rules these words are “certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” Nuisance, in this case, does not mean a dog barking; it means that the community finds this utterance universally disturbing, utterly unacceptable, and even intolerable. The FCC commissioners say that they “reserve that distinction for the most offensive words in the English language.” As I pointed out in an earlier post, even the FCC recognizes the uncomfortable and quite politically incorrect irony that they will not similarly ban racial and religious epithets because they may constitute political speech. Thus, in the offensive view of the FCC, the S-word and F-word are now worse than the N-word and K-word. [...] [...] By declaring them profane, the FCC rules these words are “certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” Nuisance, in this case, does not mean a dog barking; it means that the community finds this utterance universally disturbing, utterly unacceptable, and even intolerable. The FCC commissioners say that they “reserve that distinction for the most offensive words in the English language.” As I pointed out in an earlier post, even the FCC recognizes the uncomfortable and quite politically incorrect irony that they will not similarly ban racial and religious epithets because they may constitute political speech. Thus, in the offensive view of the FCC, the S-word and F-word are now worse than the N-word and K-word. [...]

]]> By: ruth http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32673 ruth Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:54:08 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32673 isn't it the duty of those who would impose a practice, to pay for it? i suggest those who want to establish a standard practrice to pay to research, estblish, prosecute, and carry it out. The bill is in the mail. isn’t it the duty of those who would impose a practice, to pay for it? i suggest those who want to establish a standard practrice to pay to research, estblish, prosecute, and carry it out. The bill is in the mail.

]]> By: Noel Guinane http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32636 Noel Guinane Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:17:56 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32636 I hadn't realized I'd convinced you of anything and it's so disappointing to hear I have. I was really enjoying roasting you over the illicit consumption of danish pastries. Can't you not be so big about this? Couldn't you be just a little bit smaller? As for training me, good luck trying ;-) I hadn’t realized I’d convinced you of anything and it’s so disappointing to hear I have. I was really enjoying roasting you over the illicit consumption of danish pastries. Can’t you not be so big about this? Couldn’t you be just a little bit smaller?

As for training me, good luck trying ;-)

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32635 Jeff Jarvis Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:10:44 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32635 Noel, Oh for God's sake, I was NEVER but NEVER saying that Edelman or any flack should train bloggers or anyone. Now I understand the reaction to the misunderstanding. I was saying that we need to clue in bloggers about sensible transparency (as we also need to clue in journalists!). And, yes, I should have not have used the verb "train." I have already fallen on that sword and twisted said sword so please forgive and forget, friend. Or do I need to train you to do that? ;-) When you and Captious convince me to agree then you need to take the sale, as they say. You each convinced me of the error of my ways, and there's no sense in then continuing to fire. Noel,
Oh for God’s sake, I was NEVER but NEVER saying that Edelman or any flack should train bloggers or anyone. Now I understand the reaction to the misunderstanding. I was saying that we need to clue in bloggers about sensible transparency (as we also need to clue in journalists!). And, yes, I should have not have used the verb “train.” I have already fallen on that sword and twisted said sword so please forgive and forget, friend. Or do I need to train you to do that? ;-)

When you and Captious convince me to agree then you need to take the sale, as they say. You each convinced me of the error of my ways, and there’s no sense in then continuing to fire.

]]> By: Noel Guinane http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32627 Noel Guinane Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:10:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32627 Jeff, I agree with your views on freedom of speech as you know, but just to be difficult, I'd like to ask you that if you believe in good, wholesome, honest free speech, why are you aligning yourself and your blog with a <a href="http://bloodandtreasure.com/Edelman060315.html" rel="nofollow"> spin doctor</a>, on CNN no less? "Train us, Edelman, train us, Edelman, train us, train us, train us, Edelman." Thanks very much, but I don't need 'training'. Do you? Jeff, I agree with your views on freedom of speech as you know, but just to be difficult, I’d like to ask you that if you believe in good, wholesome, honest free speech, why are you aligning yourself and your blog with a spin doctor, on CNN no less?

“Train us, Edelman, train us, Edelman, train us, train us, train us, Edelman.”

Thanks very much, but I don’t need ‘training’. Do you?

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32625 Jeff Jarvis Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:58:41 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32625 You, Captious, restrain your knee. Remember that you already won me over. You, Captious, restrain your knee. Remember that you already won me over.

]]> By: Matth http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32624 Matth Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:56:34 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32624 Jeff - Any idea what the legal status is here? Are the broadcasters going to fight this in court? If so, where do things stand in terms of exhausting the administrative appeals? Jeff - Any idea what the legal status is here? Are the broadcasters going to fight this in court? If so, where do things stand in terms of exhausting the administrative appeals?

]]> By: CaptiousNut http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32615 CaptiousNut Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:11:24 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32615 Jeff, If you are such a free speech advocate, when are you going to weigh in on all of the laws that regulate speech during elections? The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, first and foremost - not profanity. Jeff,

If you are such a free speech advocate, when are you going to weigh in on all of the laws that regulate speech during elections?

The First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, first and foremost - not profanity.

]]> By: ged http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32612 ged Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:55:32 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32612 Well, you <i>almost</i> made it though a piece without bringing up the H----- word. Close, but no cigar. Well, you almost made it though a piece without bringing up the H—– word. Close, but no cigar.

]]> By: Robert Feinman http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32594 Robert Feinman Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:31:31 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32594 This is all part of a policy to control dissent and cower broadcasters. After all, this is the same administration that has punished people for telling the truth about global warming, the size of the new Medicare drug program, the safety of the Plan B pill, and various economic indicators. O'Connor may be worried about a dictatorship arising from control of the courts, but control of the media is also one of the early objectives as well. First it will be "bad" words, then it will be "bad" thoughts. Even the blogosphere is under attack as a way for the <b>people</b> to support a candidate without government intervention. This is all part of a policy to control dissent and cower broadcasters. After all, this is the same administration that has punished people for telling the truth about global warming, the size of the new Medicare drug program, the safety of the Plan B pill, and various economic indicators.

O’Connor may be worried about a dictatorship arising from control of the courts, but control of the media is also one of the early objectives as well.

First it will be “bad” words, then it will be “bad” thoughts. Even the blogosphere is under attack as a way for the people to support a candidate without government intervention.

]]> By: It looks obvious » Blog Archive » The Domino Effect http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32587 It looks obvious » Blog Archive » The Domino Effect Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:15:29 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32587 [...] Recently I wrote about the circular logic used by those who embrace greater government involvement in many aspects of our life. I argued that when you allow government involvement for causes you agree with you open the door for all other set of government activities, most of them against your will.   Example to such unwelcome government involvement can be found in Jeff Jarvis’s critic on the FCC latest decision to take enforcement measures against 50 TV programs. When government regulates speech, it falls onto a slick slope. This is a particularly perilous course these days, when mere cartoons can spawn deadly riots. Now, more than ever, shouldn’t we be demonstrating the power of free speech, the courage to hear anything? Instead, in America, our government is washing our collective mouths out with soap. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission just issued a slew of penalties against American broadcasters for saying bad words or almost showing pixelated, simulated sex. It levied a record $3.6 million fine for a sex scene in a single show, “Without a Trace,” and confirmed a $550,000 fine against CBS over Janet Jackson airing her breast. The commissioners cite the American public’s “growing concern” with TV programming (though I reported on my blog that the supposed outcry is manufactured almost completely by the so-called Parents Television Council and other right-wing religious pressure groups). They say that broadcasters don’t know where to stop. But it’s government that doesn’t know where to stop One might wonder how come such measures limiting the freedom of speech are being taken in the US, a country that is proud at its constitution and the first amendment. The sad answer is that, as always, this is just another step in a process that started with the best intentions. Will Wilkinson describe in his blog this process, arguing about the domino effect of government involvement in wealth redistribution; this domino effect isn’t limited to wealth distribution but to any activity that involve increasing government power. Suppose in round 1 the government is seen as having no power to redistribute income. So very few people devote resources to controlling the government, since government has so little to give. Suppose, though, that a bunch of altruistic social democrats who would like the government to do more downward redistribution take over (so little opposition!). In round 2 the social democrats increase taxes and redistribute the money downward. Social Justice! Yay! But in round 3, people who had their money confiscated will surely notice, and many will be motivated to populate the government with people who will give them their money back. So, suppose in round 4 the government is now populated by tax cutters, and they cut taxes, and cut the redistributive programs. Now, all the people who were benefitting from redistribution, who have come to depend upon it, will say, hey! But, lo and behold, the people with the most money find it easier to control the political process in each subsequent round. Any round that decreases the resources the wealthy have to spend on voice will only increase their motivation to spend their remaining resources on voice in the next round. They may, for a round or two, have a smaller relative advantage, but they will be more motivated to use it to full effect. The key point is: the social democrats’ egalitarian motivation kicked off the process that led to the consolidation of advantages by the powerful. But using the same circular logic we are repeating the same mistake and handing more areas to the political system to govern. How amazingly sad…         FCC, freedom of speech, Government Monopoly, Government Regulations, Libertarianism, The Decency Act [...] [...] Recently I wrote about the circular logic used by those who embrace greater government involvement in many aspects of our life. I argued that when you allow government involvement for causes you agree with you open the door for all other set of government activities, most of them against your will.   Example to such unwelcome government involvement can be found in Jeff Jarvis’s critic on the FCC latest decision to take enforcement measures against 50 TV programs. When government regulates speech, it falls onto a slick slope. This is a particularly perilous course these days, when mere cartoons can spawn deadly riots. Now, more than ever, shouldn’t we be demonstrating the power of free speech, the courage to hear anything? Instead, in America, our government is washing our collective mouths out with soap. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission just issued a slew of penalties against American broadcasters for saying bad words or almost showing pixelated, simulated sex. It levied a record $3.6 million fine for a sex scene in a single show, “Without a Trace,” and confirmed a $550,000 fine against CBS over Janet Jackson airing her breast. The commissioners cite the American public’s “growing concern” with TV programming (though I reported on my blog that the supposed outcry is manufactured almost completely by the so-called Parents Television Council and other right-wing religious pressure groups). They say that broadcasters don’t know where to stop. But it’s government that doesn’t know where to stop One might wonder how come such measures limiting the freedom of speech are being taken in the US, a country that is proud at its constitution and the first amendment. The sad answer is that, as always, this is just another step in a process that started with the best intentions. Will Wilkinson describe in his blog this process, arguing about the domino effect of government involvement in wealth redistribution; this domino effect isn’t limited to wealth distribution but to any activity that involve increasing government power. Suppose in round 1 the government is seen as having no power to redistribute income. So very few people devote resources to controlling the government, since government has so little to give. Suppose, though, that a bunch of altruistic social democrats who would like the government to do more downward redistribution take over (so little opposition!). In round 2 the social democrats increase taxes and redistribute the money downward. Social Justice! Yay! But in round 3, people who had their money confiscated will surely notice, and many will be motivated to populate the government with people who will give them their money back. So, suppose in round 4 the government is now populated by tax cutters, and they cut taxes, and cut the redistributive programs. Now, all the people who were benefitting from redistribution, who have come to depend upon it, will say, hey! But, lo and behold, the people with the most money find it easier to control the political process in each subsequent round. Any round that decreases the resources the wealthy have to spend on voice will only increase their motivation to spend their remaining resources on voice in the next round. They may, for a round or two, have a smaller relative advantage, but they will be more motivated to use it to full effect. The key point is: the social democrats’ egalitarian motivation kicked off the process that led to the consolidation of advantages by the powerful. But using the same circular logic we are repeating the same mistake and handing more areas to the political system to govern. How amazingly sad…         FCC, freedom of speech, Government Monopoly, Government Regulations, Libertarianism, The Decency Act [...]

]]> By: Joe http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32584 Joe Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:06:49 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32584 I would like to nominate George Carlin for FCC Chairman. I would like to nominate George Carlin for FCC Chairman.

]]> By: Rich Drees http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32578 Rich Drees Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:46:13 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32578 Times like this makes me wish that Bill Hicks was still alive... Times like this makes me wish that Bill Hicks was still alive…

]]> By: Trudy W. Schuett http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32576 Trudy W. Schuett Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:45:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32576 The Kos crew is misguided -- they're suggesting e-mails to the Parent's Television Council, which is surely a waste of time. Better to e-mail the FCC and your legislators! I'm wondering where the bloggers are on this -- I've been tracking this since last night, and so far hardly anyone's talking about it! BTW -- I've got a roundup of sorts at my blog, and I'm hoping more bloggers will be talking aboit this during the day. The Kos crew is misguided — they’re suggesting e-mails to the Parent’s Television Council, which is surely a waste of time. Better to e-mail the FCC and your legislators!

I’m wondering where the bloggers are on this — I’ve been tracking this since last night, and so far hardly anyone’s talking about it! BTW — I’ve got a roundup of sorts at my blog, and I’m hoping more bloggers will be talking aboit this during the day.

]]> By: ruth http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32563 ruth Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:09:21 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32563 [got cut off] that usurped the rights of the states to guard the public from unsanitary food, without congressional hearings, during the Dubai Ports World activity. I would rather be protected from unsafe food than from loose language. [got cut off] that usurped the rights of the states to guard the public from unsanitary food, without congressional hearings, during the Dubai Ports World activity. I would rather be protected from unsafe food than from loose language.

]]> By: ruth http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32561 ruth Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:05:55 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32561 What government function is mandated by the Constitution that is carried out by telling the public what it can't watch? The freedom from using the digits to change channels? This government just passed legislation t What government function is mandated by the Constitution that is carried out by telling the public what it can’t watch? The freedom from using the digits to change channels? This government just passed legislation t

]]> By: NotEdwardRMurrow http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32529 NotEdwardRMurrow Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:39:45 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/03/16/the-f-and-s-analysis/#comment-32529 "To sum this up all too bluntly: “nigger” and “kike” are constitutionally protected while “fuck” and “shit” are not." So... izat mean Lenny Bruce will make a comeback? Sounds good to me! “To sum this up all too bluntly: “nigger” and “kike” are constitutionally protected while “fuck” and “shit” are not.”

So… izat mean Lenny Bruce will make a comeback?
Sounds good to me!

]]>