Fuck by Squishy

Fuck. The word, that if said on public television between the hours of 6am and 10pm, could cost the person a fine of up to $500,000. If I got caught for possession of pot, I would be charged a mere $100. Is it me, or does this not seem right? Who is to say that ‘fuck’ is a bad word anyway? Not only fuck, but damn, shit, ass, cunt, piss, etc. Out of the hundreds of ‘F’ words, only one is deemed horrific. Why is this? Next thing you know, chalk is going to be the next bad word. “Chalk you, did you hear me motherchalker?”

On the FCC website, it said that obscene speech is not protected by the first amendment, even though the first amendment is about freedom of SPEECH. Then again, on the same exact page, it says, “As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.” Hmm, that is a tad interesting. So when did obscene speech and indecent material become different from one another? Banned entirely? I thought that what the first amendment was, would contradict that statement. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” So how can they ban language at all if it says right there, congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech?

So earlier I said that indecency is not allowed between the hours of 6am and 10pm. Reason being this is so, is because there is a high risk that a child would be watching. They define a child as any persons under the age of 13. Well, during the school year, shouldn’t children be in school during a good portion of that time period? If they are too poor to go to school, then they probably sure as hell could not afford a fucking television. I am not talking shit about anyone, but seriously, public school is pretty much free. There is no need for those hours…

The Federal Communications Commissions should not be every child’s parent. They should leave that to the actual parents. Children under 13 should be watched anyway… Just because you leave your 6 year old child alone in front of the television, does not mean that they are safe. It is up to the parents to watch their children, so even if the kids were home during that time frame (and not in school for one reason or another) the parents should be monitoring their child and making sure they know what is going on in their life. If you bitch about how your child saw the Grammy’s and they saw that Bono said “Fucking brilliant”, then you should shut the hell up right now. Where were you when your kid was watching the fucking Grammy’s? Why would you let your 6 year old watch an adult program anyway? Is it G rated? No, the Grammy’s are not. Children are more likely to repeat what you say than what is said on television.

Speaking of Bono, in March of last year, Bono said on the Grammy’s, ‘fucking brilliant’. Goddamn did people have a hay day with that. The people that decided to call in to complain are usually the stuck up old hags who do nothing but bitch all the time. So the FCC had to act… they said Bono was using “the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language” Alright. On the FCC website, it says right there in black text, ‘context is the key’. Everyone knows he was not using it in that context… If I were to say, “That is so incredibly fucking awesome.” Am I talking about an explicit sexual activity in that context? No and neither was Bono. After this matter happened, the commission equated profanity with “language challenging God’s divinity” Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Doesn’t the first amendment state that the government should avoid excessive involvement in religion? I just wonder if the reason we still have censorship is because almost every president has believed in God and thinks that it is wrong and ‘challenges God’s divinity’. When there was nothing but the colonies, I am pretty sure that Church and State merged, the only problem with what I think is, why didn’t they change the censorship law after they separated the two? Alright, off topic…

In a different direction, what humors me is the CDA. When Clinton was in office, Congress passed what was known as the CDA; the Communications Decency Act. The CDA attempted to place almost the same censorship restrictions on the Internet that existed for public broadcasting. Although, the Supreme Court did find that it violated the first amendment and overturned it in 1997. So if the CDA placed almost all of the same restrictions on the internet as broadcasting, and the Supreme Court only found that the CDA violated the first amendment, then why can’t it be feasible that the broadcasting restrictions violates the first amendment as well?

I strongly urge all of those who feel the same way about all of this bullshit, to get off your ass and do something about it. You are probably thinking I am only one person; I would not help at all. But if everyone thought that, then nothing would ever happen. I always thought of it this way. If I was in a movie and I was just 1 person out of 2000 people during a fight scene, and I thought “Why even bother, there are enough people anyway”… and everyone thought the way I did, there would not be a fight scene. We all have to unite as one if we want anything done. I joined the NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) and I write LOTS of letters, and maybe someday if there are enough of us, then something will be done about it.

--Squishy