Experiment

Before I request you to do a certain kind of experiment, should you be willing to put the lives of one or more children in danger, I request that you read the following quotes about the Supreme Court and the FCC.


Supreme Court Rules that Government Can Fine for 'Fleeting Expletives'

By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 29, 2009

The Supreme Court said yesterday that the Federal Communications Commission may penalize even the occasional use of certain expletives on the airwaves but left for another day the question of whether such a policy is constitutional.

The court's narrow ruling said the FCC -- prompted by Cher's use of the F-word during a 2002 live broadcast and similar remarks by what Justice Antonin Scalia called "foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood" -- was justified in changing its policy in 2004 to fine broadcasters up to $325,000 every time certain words are allowed on the air.

"The commission could reasonably conclude that the pervasiveness of foul language, and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media such as cable, justify more stringent regulation of broadcast programs so as to give conscientious parents a relatively safe haven for their children," Scalia wrote for the five-member conservative majority.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 07-582. Argued November 4, 2008--Decided April 28, 2009

Federal law bans the broadcasting of "any ... indecent ... language," 18 U. S. C. §1464, which includes references to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726. Having first defined the prohibited speech in 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a cautious, but gradually expanding, approach to enforcing the statutory prohibition. In 2004, the FCC's Golden Globes Order declared for the first time that an expletive (nonliteral) use of the F-Word or the S-Word could be actionably indecent, even when the word is used only once.


Now that you have read these quotes, here is the experiment I wish you to participate in, should you be a person of 18 years of age or older:

If you are 18 years of age or older, I want you to find a child who is 17 years and 364 days or younger all they way to just born. One will do, but you can find more if you like. Now, take this person who is legally described as a child and say a few words and phrases to them. The words and phrases I suggest are thus:

Fuck.

Shit.

I'm taking a shit.

You're parents had sex and that was how you were actually created. It wasn't the stork like your parents have lied to you.

Play them a blues song or a rock and roll song that has sexual references in it without using the deadly "f-word" or "s-word", referring to words so deadly the Supreme Court couldn't even write them in their decision. The words are, of course, fuck and shit.

If you have actually done this experiment, even if you used only one of the deadly words, I request that you observe what has happened to the child. Have they fallen down dead? Have they contracted a terminal cancer? Has their IQ points dropped BELOW zero? Has the child been otherwise traumatized by the use of the words or songs played or excretory functions described? Does the child seem normal? Has nothing harmful happened to the child with your "fleeting utterances" or song playing?

Now, since no harm has come to the children you have tried this experiment on, what conclusions can you make from the Supreme Court Case and the FCC? Children are not being harmed but the FCC and Supreme Court are claiming that such language which THEY deem indecent indeed do harm to children. Wouldn't that make them...LIARS? If they are lying (unless, of course, after uttering the word fuck to someone 17 years 364 days or less actually has hamred or killed them) why was such a decision made? Who can actually be hurt by a $325,000 fine? How is this related to "free speech"? *thinking* *thinking* *head ache forming*

I know that such public institutions like community radio or televion can be easily destroyed by allegations of indecent language. If they get destroyed, corporations could help relax regulations (as they've been attempting for years) and possibly purchase our public airwaves (all of which are legally public, but the FCC was formed in order to sell OUR airwaves to corporations). I wonder if it is actually the safety of children the FCC and Supreme Court have in mind, or maybe helping their profit motivated corporate pals in acquiring more of our public airwaves?

Since there are 8.6 million children in the U.S. without health care and the Supreme Court and FCC does nothing about that, I'd have to say that they are, AT BEST, disingenuous in stating their "fleeting expletives" decision has ANYTHING to do with the interests of children.

Nor does the U.S. and its various organizations, such as the Supreme Court and the FCC, give a RATS ASS about the systematic rape of children within various church organizations and other governmental style organizations. I mean, fuck, they don't even do a thing about the UN pedophile ring.

My conclusion (and yours possibly, too, should the child you experimented with not suddenly fall dead or have some serious trauma enacted upon them because of your utterance or song) is, the Supreme Court and FCC are FUCKED UP AND FULL OF SHIT! That the real reason, as stated in my conclusions of my "Guilt Ridden Catch Phrases" post, is "GOLD!" It is always about gold.The government doesn't give a fuck about children. If they did, those children would have health care and their systematic rape within various organizations like churches, boy scouts, the UN, various governmental organizations, etc., would be prevented and stopped. But it aint, is it?

Hmmm. I wonder what else the Supreme Court, FCC, and other such governmental organizations might be lying about?