George Carlin and Radio Censorship Americans hate the word censorship. It puts fire into the eyes of any self proclaimed, speaker of the people. but is censorship that bad, or that wrong? Censorship is an enormous part of the stability of society. One of the many types of censorship takes place on the airwaves. Comedians, George Carlin, Howard Stern, and Mncow Muller had an enormous effect on the ideals of censorship in this era, trying to prove that the FCC had no right to censor radio airwaves. They questioned why words we all hear at home cannot be spoken on the radio if listeners are given a proper warning. However, there is no need for young children to be exposed to such lude material and the American people must be more reasonable about morals and stop worrying about our “First Amendment” rights. In 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of language. This broadcast took place on a mid-afternoon weekday. Immediately before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown. As a part of the program the station decided to air a 12 minute monologue called "Filthy Words" by comedian George Carlin. The introduction of Carlin's "routine" consisted of, according to Carlin, "words you couldn't say on the public ... ... middle of paper ... ...signed to bad intentions and bad thoughts. Is it moral that we let our government decide what we hear or say? God fearing, naturally good, human beings should know the difference between what is good, and what is bad. That is the greatest immoral act of all. Work Cited Gunther, G. (1991). Constitutional Law. Twelfth Edition. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc. pp. 1154-1161. Carlin, G. (1977). Class Clown. "Filthy Words" monologue. Atlantic Records, Inc. Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University. Stern, H. (1994). Private Parts. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. Stern, H. (1995). Miss America. New York: Regan Books. Stern, H. (1996). Private Parts. Paramount pictures Ltd. www.Q101.com Mancow Show
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Public law : Cases, materials, and commentary In Forcese C. (Ed.), . Toronto: Toronto : Emond Montgomery Publications, 2006.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ,
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Gorup.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
Censorship has been a big part of the world’s history and especially America’s history. One of the most quoted amendments to the United States constitution is the first amendment; “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...” This amendment guaranteeing free speech, press, and religion is still heavily debated and contested today. Censorship, as a challenge to free speech and press has been allowed many times and has been heavily debated itself. Many people censor for many different reasons and in many different forms. Censorship itself is not always a bad thing and has in some cases been used for protection of the general population.
Censorship is the suppression of publishing information on the Internet or television (Naik). The government blocks only the content that is proved to be unfit for the public. Censorship is only used to a certain extent in the United States of America, but it is much more widespread in other parts of the world. Many people argue that the First Amendment to the constitution provides freedom of speech. Therefore, fining television stations for not censoring explicit materials could be a violation First Amendment rights (Ruschmann). Most people agree that the reason that the United States survives as a democracy is because of the freedoms provided by the First Amendment. With these freedoms revoked, the government could become too controlling (Ruschmann). Censorship also occurs when politicians commit crimes and feel threatened by the media. Political Censorship is unjust to the public because stories about the citizens can be posted on the Internet, and played on the news yet, the citizens have no control over this public display (Censorship).
Another amusing example was in June 1965, radio stations across the country ban the Rolling Stones "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" because they believe the lyrics are too sexually suggestive.
South Park is widely regarded as a contentious television program, but the season thirteen episode “The F Word” “was remarkable for breaking with the usual satirical format and proposing serious arguments for reconstructing the language we use to describe homosexuality” (Schulzke, 2012, p. 24). In his article on South Park, Schulzke argues that one of the show’s few unambiguous social positions is its stance on equal treatment for homosexuals, and that this specific episode makes a credible case to change how the word “fag” is defined and used. Many examples across multiple seasons, starting in the fourth episode, are explored to show the position that the program has taken on equality of rights and treatment for homosexuals. Later, when discussing “The F Word”, he suggests that although the writers may not have known it, they use multiple concepts, such as “meaning as use” and “social construction of meaning” (Schulzke, 2012, p.28) in an attempt to look at and redefine the hate word, and then acknowledge that the final value of a word comes from the linguistic community. Also suggested is the strength of the message inside of the episode, namely, that the multiple repetitions of the theme, whether blatantly stated by the characters or shown more subtly through different segments should more than suffice to display the message of the episode to a large majority of viewers.
Censorship is harmful because it stops one from gaining the full truth in any situation take Yang Geof in “ The care for censorship in the new social age”. This passage is mainly about how the world can be more productive with acknowledging a subject in taking it head on rather than ignoring it. Having the ability to speak freely without repercussion could spark honest discussions about important topics such as politics.
Is Censorship Justified? Ever wondered the reason behind racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, children committing crimes or violence? The main reason is that censorship is not properly imposed or there is a need for censorship in the society. Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain people, individuals, groups or government officials find objectionable, offensive or dangerous to others. There are varieties of other definitions, but all have in common the concept of withholding information and/or resources from those who seek it.