Your Stupidity Offends ME
By Nathan Porter
--------------------------
Even if we don’t say so publicly, all of us desire to have others live the way we want them to live. To have everyone live by our standards would make life easier, more comfortable and, well, less offensive. Once upon a time most of us new that imposing our personal desires on others would eventually lead to the erosion of all our freedoms. This is a level of understanding that’s lost on Americans today. More and more, different groups of people use government to force the rest of us to behave in a manner that they find acceptable. Some people seek to use government to censor movies, television and radio, as though government is capable of forever distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate speech. Others seek to use government to prohibit private organizations from freely disassociating with people they find morally offensive.
Supporters of government-enforced morality have a powerful friend in the Federal Communications Commission. Under the Bush administration, the FCC has actively targeted the airing of music and language that "appear to be designed to pander and shock." You see, the FCC is not concerned whether or not the music IS designed to pander and shock, but merely concerned that it appears to be designed to pander and shock. Well, CNN has been designed to pander and FOX is designed to shock, how about some FCC action against those two?
I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of radio while driving to the family compound in Hiatusport, and I must admit, there’s a bunch of offensive stuff on there these days. I find stupidity offensive and much of radio, particularly radio advertising, is stupid.
I am offended 45 times a day when Gold Bond reminds me of their anti-itch cream. Trust me, if I itch bad enough to rub cream on it, I’ll know where to find the product. I am likewise offended at the constant reminder that the right combination of herbs will make me have longer (and more frequent) sex. Frankly, I am offended by any commercial that claims a pill will allow me to lose weight while I sleep, keep me from going bald, or enlarge my penis. And if I never again hear that unnamed woman proclaim, “JOINTRITUS,” I’ll die a happy man.
And speaking of dying, I am offended when my relaxing drive along the highway is interrupted by a commercial from life insurance agents asking, “What would happen if you died right this second?” I got news for you, Mr. Life Insurance Salesman. I don’t want to think about it. You guys give me the creeps.
I am offended when Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, or any other talk show host goes on air and reads a story that’s been circulating on the Internet for weeks, and then proclaims smugly, “Only on my show will you hear news like this.”
I am offended when G. Gordon Liddy takes calls from people seeking his advice about sex. It’s not the subject matter that bothers me – he seems to offer good advice most of the time – but I am offended that the 70-year-old conspirator/talk-show host with the bald head (and the bushy mustache à la Just for Men) is talking about sex. Hearing him talk about it conjures up the image of him doing it. It’s enough to make one drive off a cliff.
Since we’re on the subject of what offends me, why stop with radio? These days, there are a lot of things I find offensive. Why not use the government to stamp them out?
I am offended that every time I’m forced to use a public restroom it's occupied by one guy who believes the rest of us want to hear how good or how bad whatever it is that’s happening to him feels.
I am no more offended by the spectacle of gays inviting government regulation of their intimate relationships than I am of heterosexual, serial-impregnators acting like modern-day Johnny Appleseeds, sowing their wickedness across the countryside and leaving behind a trail of human saplings.
I am more offended by a Madam Cleo commercial than I am by Southpark characters saying “shit” over a hundred times in a single episode.
I am as offended by the gaudy French Provincial furniture on the set of the Trinity Broadcasting Network as I am about some rapper singing about killing his wife.
I am no more offended by dung-spewed paintings of Christ than I am by the fact that the only issues Laura Bush feels necessary to comment on publicly are those related to abortion and/or stem cell research.
How about it, FCC? Can you help me silence the aforementioned offensive speech? What percentage of the population must agree with me in order to get that which offends me declared indecent?
Earlier this year, the FCC targeted America’s latest public enemy number one, rapper Eminem (who by all general appearances is a stupid, punk kid). The FCC imposed a $7,000 fine on a commercial radio station in Colorado for airing an edited version (all the “bad” words were bleeped out) of the song The Real Slim Shady. The FCC claimed the song was indecent even without the expletives. Therefore, something else in the song must offend the federal government. Perhaps it is Eminem’s general attack on censorship. In his song, Eminem identifies a double standard regarding what kinds of speech are considered acceptable in popular culture, and he wonders why it is that Tom Green is allowed to say the things he says while Eminem is chastised for similarly crude conduct. Could it be that government is not interested in controlling speech that is offensive but speech that is offensive and also appears designed to deliver a message?
Before Eminem there was Marilyn Manson, and before Marilyn Manson there were Ozzy Osborne, Alice Cooper, and the Bay City Rollers, all musical acts whose primary objective could fairly be described as designed to pander and shock. Ozzy Osborne pandered to people who eat live chickens and shocked those that don't. Alice Cooper pandered to people who sleep with snakes and shocked those who can't even look at a snake. And the Bay City Rollers pandered to people who are deaf and blind and shocked anyone who wasn't.
On May 17th, the FCC issued a $7,000 fine to Portland, Oregon's listener-sponsored KBOO, charging that Sarah Jones' Your Revolution violated the Commission's standards of decency. There was a small outcry from many inside the rap community and deafening silence from libertarians, conservatives, moderates and most liberals. I had not heard the song so I sought out a copy – which I found here – and gave it a listen, and boy was I offended. I was so offended that the Bush administration would attempt to silence this message that I signed a makeshift petition to the FCC demanding that they right their wrong.
The message of the lyrics is sensible. The language is suggestive but not full of curse words. “But what about the children?” you ask. My kids won’t be hearing it. As long as they are in my control they won’t have an opportunity to hear it, and the rest of you are just making excuses for lazy parenting. Freedom cannot survive a generation of lazy parents. And once my children reach an age where I can no longer control what they read, see and hear, I will hope, pray and trust that they’ve been instilled with enough intelligence and morality to understand what they are reading, seeing and hearing, and respond to it properly. Why is it that some people of faith have so little of it?
The FCC's indecency rules define indecent speech as "language that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.” And that, my friends, is the crux of the problem. Today’s standard of decency may be violated by anti-misogynist rap music but 50 years from now community standards of decency might be violated by music that invokes the name of Christ. Don’t think it can’t happen. How different from today were the community standards only 50 years ago?
Censorship is evil, censorship is wrong, and religious people of all types should understand that by your standard so shall you be judged. There are already segments of society who believe that religious folks, Christians in particular, are indecent. How long do you give our culture before such people compose a majority of the population? How long do you think it will take before some bureaucrat somewhere wants to fine WWJD for airing a Christian rap song that suggests sinners will burn in hell? And finally, ask yourself this: How many religious-oriented radio stations could afford multiple $7,000 fines?
So to those of you inclined to support the FCC in this regard I offer one bit of advice: Don’t be stupid. Society may be slouching towards Gomorrah but you will not save it by using the government to enforce your vision of decency or morality, you will only provide precedent for the time when those who find you offensive are in control of the FCC. Anything government can do to others it can do to you.
By Nathan Porter
--------------------------
Even if we don’t say so publicly, all of us desire to have others live the way we want them to live. To have everyone live by our standards would make life easier, more comfortable and, well, less offensive. Once upon a time most of us new that imposing our personal desires on others would eventually lead to the erosion of all our freedoms. This is a level of understanding that’s lost on Americans today. More and more, different groups of people use government to force the rest of us to behave in a manner that they find acceptable. Some people seek to use government to censor movies, television and radio, as though government is capable of forever distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate speech. Others seek to use government to prohibit private organizations from freely disassociating with people they find morally offensive.
Supporters of government-enforced morality have a powerful friend in the Federal Communications Commission. Under the Bush administration, the FCC has actively targeted the airing of music and language that "appear to be designed to pander and shock." You see, the FCC is not concerned whether or not the music IS designed to pander and shock, but merely concerned that it appears to be designed to pander and shock. Well, CNN has been designed to pander and FOX is designed to shock, how about some FCC action against those two?
I had the opportunity to listen to a lot of radio while driving to the family compound in Hiatusport, and I must admit, there’s a bunch of offensive stuff on there these days. I find stupidity offensive and much of radio, particularly radio advertising, is stupid.
I am offended 45 times a day when Gold Bond reminds me of their anti-itch cream. Trust me, if I itch bad enough to rub cream on it, I’ll know where to find the product. I am likewise offended at the constant reminder that the right combination of herbs will make me have longer (and more frequent) sex. Frankly, I am offended by any commercial that claims a pill will allow me to lose weight while I sleep, keep me from going bald, or enlarge my penis. And if I never again hear that unnamed woman proclaim, “JOINTRITUS,” I’ll die a happy man.
And speaking of dying, I am offended when my relaxing drive along the highway is interrupted by a commercial from life insurance agents asking, “What would happen if you died right this second?” I got news for you, Mr. Life Insurance Salesman. I don’t want to think about it. You guys give me the creeps.
I am offended when Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, or any other talk show host goes on air and reads a story that’s been circulating on the Internet for weeks, and then proclaims smugly, “Only on my show will you hear news like this.”
I am offended when G. Gordon Liddy takes calls from people seeking his advice about sex. It’s not the subject matter that bothers me – he seems to offer good advice most of the time – but I am offended that the 70-year-old conspirator/talk-show host with the bald head (and the bushy mustache à la Just for Men) is talking about sex. Hearing him talk about it conjures up the image of him doing it. It’s enough to make one drive off a cliff.
Since we’re on the subject of what offends me, why stop with radio? These days, there are a lot of things I find offensive. Why not use the government to stamp them out?
I am offended that every time I’m forced to use a public restroom it's occupied by one guy who believes the rest of us want to hear how good or how bad whatever it is that’s happening to him feels.
I am no more offended by the spectacle of gays inviting government regulation of their intimate relationships than I am of heterosexual, serial-impregnators acting like modern-day Johnny Appleseeds, sowing their wickedness across the countryside and leaving behind a trail of human saplings.
I am more offended by a Madam Cleo commercial than I am by Southpark characters saying “shit” over a hundred times in a single episode.
I am as offended by the gaudy French Provincial furniture on the set of the Trinity Broadcasting Network as I am about some rapper singing about killing his wife.
I am no more offended by dung-spewed paintings of Christ than I am by the fact that the only issues Laura Bush feels necessary to comment on publicly are those related to abortion and/or stem cell research.
How about it, FCC? Can you help me silence the aforementioned offensive speech? What percentage of the population must agree with me in order to get that which offends me declared indecent?
Earlier this year, the FCC targeted America’s latest public enemy number one, rapper Eminem (who by all general appearances is a stupid, punk kid). The FCC imposed a $7,000 fine on a commercial radio station in Colorado for airing an edited version (all the “bad” words were bleeped out) of the song The Real Slim Shady. The FCC claimed the song was indecent even without the expletives. Therefore, something else in the song must offend the federal government. Perhaps it is Eminem’s general attack on censorship. In his song, Eminem identifies a double standard regarding what kinds of speech are considered acceptable in popular culture, and he wonders why it is that Tom Green is allowed to say the things he says while Eminem is chastised for similarly crude conduct. Could it be that government is not interested in controlling speech that is offensive but speech that is offensive and also appears designed to deliver a message?
Before Eminem there was Marilyn Manson, and before Marilyn Manson there were Ozzy Osborne, Alice Cooper, and the Bay City Rollers, all musical acts whose primary objective could fairly be described as designed to pander and shock. Ozzy Osborne pandered to people who eat live chickens and shocked those that don't. Alice Cooper pandered to people who sleep with snakes and shocked those who can't even look at a snake. And the Bay City Rollers pandered to people who are deaf and blind and shocked anyone who wasn't.
On May 17th, the FCC issued a $7,000 fine to Portland, Oregon's listener-sponsored KBOO, charging that Sarah Jones' Your Revolution violated the Commission's standards of decency. There was a small outcry from many inside the rap community and deafening silence from libertarians, conservatives, moderates and most liberals. I had not heard the song so I sought out a copy – which I found here – and gave it a listen, and boy was I offended. I was so offended that the Bush administration would attempt to silence this message that I signed a makeshift petition to the FCC demanding that they right their wrong.
The message of the lyrics is sensible. The language is suggestive but not full of curse words. “But what about the children?” you ask. My kids won’t be hearing it. As long as they are in my control they won’t have an opportunity to hear it, and the rest of you are just making excuses for lazy parenting. Freedom cannot survive a generation of lazy parents. And once my children reach an age where I can no longer control what they read, see and hear, I will hope, pray and trust that they’ve been instilled with enough intelligence and morality to understand what they are reading, seeing and hearing, and respond to it properly. Why is it that some people of faith have so little of it?
The FCC's indecency rules define indecent speech as "language that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.” And that, my friends, is the crux of the problem. Today’s standard of decency may be violated by anti-misogynist rap music but 50 years from now community standards of decency might be violated by music that invokes the name of Christ. Don’t think it can’t happen. How different from today were the community standards only 50 years ago?
Censorship is evil, censorship is wrong, and religious people of all types should understand that by your standard so shall you be judged. There are already segments of society who believe that religious folks, Christians in particular, are indecent. How long do you give our culture before such people compose a majority of the population? How long do you think it will take before some bureaucrat somewhere wants to fine WWJD for airing a Christian rap song that suggests sinners will burn in hell? And finally, ask yourself this: How many religious-oriented radio stations could afford multiple $7,000 fines?
So to those of you inclined to support the FCC in this regard I offer one bit of advice: Don’t be stupid. Society may be slouching towards Gomorrah but you will not save it by using the government to enforce your vision of decency or morality, you will only provide precedent for the time when those who find you offensive are in control of the FCC. Anything government can do to others it can do to you.
