What the *bleep*ck is wrong with *bleep*ing TV censoring?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2006-09-12 04:55pm

It's understandable why swearing to others is generally frowned upon as uncouth language in any remotely serious setting, in which case that certainly is true. But I thought of something rather different while watching a totally average episode of Mythbusters.

Jamie goes "Well, you sure f---(bleep)cked that up."

There is literally no doubt to what he said, and of course it was censored. But any 6 year old could peice together the syllables in about two seconds. So why is stuff like that filtered anyway? You notice it all the time on TV showings of movies, where everything goes silent for a second but you know precisely what is said.

Isn't the point of saying something to convey what the word is? What's the difference if you know what's said, but don't hear it? Why is it a big deal if a word is said 'in the clear' rather than half(bleep)ssed censored by some s(bleep)tty decency standards?

Infidel7 · Post by **Infidel7** » 2006-09-12 05:03pm

My favorite is that they bleep the 'god' out of goddamn but not the 'damn'. Bastards.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-09-12 05:03pm

To be perfectly frank, there isn't any, really, but it makes some people less likely to be offended, even if the 'offending' word is perfectly comprehensible after the bleeping.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-12 05:05pm

TV networks know damn well that kids these days hear much worse things on their elementary playground then could ever be said even without censoring, but parents don't know this, so the networks try to get as close as they can to real life speech without having a bunch of overweight stay-at-home midwestern soccermoms getting together and starting a boycott at their next church bakesale.

It's almost always overprotective parents who get offended, not anyone else.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-12 05:39pm

It's a sop to idiot family groups, isn't it? It certainly doesn't make any practical sense - but remember, these same people object to nudity but are fine with tiny triangles covering nipples. I see these phenomena as the same: that you only have to interrupt a part of it and it's not 'nudity' or 'swearing' anymore, even if everyone knows damn well what it is.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-09-12 05:43pm

Fill in the blanks. F*ck you, you soppy w**ker.

If you managed to get them all right, congratulations! You have a mental faculty beyond that of a 3-year-old.

I can only pin this down to being the product of social evolution whereby total blanking of a swearword is seen as too strict in some circles, which leaves me wondering why removing bl**dy obvious letters from a profane phrase constitute censorship at all.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-12 05:44pm

Remember:

"Won't someone please think of the children!"

That's about it. Interestingly, the radio station that I'm now the president of (woo!) has been dealing with this kind of bullshit since we started. Getting lots and lots of complaints about language and all sorts of stuff (the vast majority vexacious/frivolous). Through all of the processes with groups like the ABA (Australian Broadcasting Authority) investigating this - we've set precedents which show that we CAN do that kind of thing if we wish to.

Why the hell can't these kind of complaints in other nations be dealt with similarly.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2006-09-12 09:02pm

weemadando wrote:Why the hell can't these kind of complaints in other nations be dealt with similarly.

Because Australians are all bloody uncouth wankers compared to everyone else anyway, and we fucking well know it.

EXPLETIVE!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-09-12 09:12pm

weemadando wrote: Why the hell can't these kind of complaints in other nations be dealt with similarly.

There are nations where this kind of complaint never goes to court in the first place. DO try enforcing US level censorship in western Europe.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-12 09:43pm

The American "family values" agenda is simple: alter the world so that you can completely ignore your child and still be confident that he is receiving the same kind of Christian upbringing that you would give him if you weren't busy.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-12 09:50pm

Dominus Atheos wrote:TV networks know damn well that kids these days hear much worse things on their elementary playground then could ever be said even without censoring, but parents don't know this

I'd say most parents ARE aware of the foul language on the playground. They just respond, "and so the kids should be exposed to even more on TV?"

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-12 10:45pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:TV networks know damn well that kids these days hear much worse things on their elementary playground then could ever be said even without censoring, but parents don't know this
I'd say most parents ARE aware of the foul language on the playground. They just respond, "and so the kids should be exposed to even more on TV?"

No, they're not. Not the ones who would start a boycott anyway. They wouldn't expend all that energy if they didn't honestly believe that it was the only force that would corrupt their otherwise pure and chaste children.

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-09-13 01:46am

These complaints come from the same kind of people that think their children shouldn't be told about sex or violence "until they're old enough". If the parents aren't old enough to think or talk about it without feeling bad they can't bloody well consider it proper for their children to hear about it.

Kojiro · Post by **Kojiro** » 2006-09-13 03:03am

Penn and Teller always say it well. If you're going to censor it, get rid of it entirely. Half assed censoring isn't.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-13 04:16am

Batman wrote:
weemadando wrote: Why the hell can't these kind of complaints in other nations be dealt with similarly.
There are nations where this kind of complaint never goes to court in the first place. DO try enforcing US level censorship in western Europe. :D

Well, these are only going that far because the people making the complaints are the station that had a temporary license before we were granted our permanent one. And they seem to have very deep pockets and way to much spare time to sit around waiting for someone to say: "balls" or "boob" or make a reference to "dwarf-tossing".

As I said, most of the complaints were dismissed as vexacious, it doesn't stop the complainant from appealing that decision if they have the time and motivation.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-09-13 04:15pm

Amusingly enough, the closed-captions track broadcast with most shows censors the swearing entirely, or replaces it with another word. I seem to remember a friend of mine telling me about the word 'sex' being replaced with 'hugs'. And all along the soundtrack's running the lacklusteredly-censored profanity... do deaf people really need more hand-holding?

Never mind that there are a LOT of crazy American deaf people, but that's another topic entirely...

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-09-14 01:59am

I have this little idea that maybe the reason why there is such an overreaction to unadulterated profane words has something to do with the fact that for most of history, primitive humans have lived in a hostile environment. A certain pattern of sounds (such as that of a predator) had to be immediately recognised and cause an instant 'alertness/fear' reaction in order to help people survive.

When people are taught that only hostile/dangerous people use profanity, the sound-patterns of those words trigger the same instant unpleasant 'fight' reaction. So even if people recognise profane words on a rational level, bleeping stuff out prevents having to go through that primitive animalistic fear reaction.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-09-14 02:51am

Ah, yes, that might be why hearing the uncensored words on a regular basis is said to desensitize you... was never entirely sure what that meant.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-09-14 05:40am

Darth Wong wrote:The American "family values" agenda is simple: alter the world so that you can completely ignore your child and still be confident that he is receiving the same kind of Christian upbringing that you would give him if you weren't busy.

As if it wouldn't be easier to take care of the children.

On the other side, if that were the case we could end up with a lot more fundies ...

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2006-09-15 10:39am

What really gets my funny bone is when american shows change the word so that it will get past censorship. An example is battlestar galactica which switches Fuck with Frack. But for all intents and purposes the word is used the same both as a curse and the sexual act. Or as in FireFly use another language to curse in.
Stupid hypocracy.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-15 11:56am

All audio censoring does is draw attention to the covered profanity.

Tinkerbell · Post by **Tinkerbell** » 2006-09-15 02:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:The American "family values" agenda is simple: alter the world so that you can completely ignore your child and still be confident that he is receiving the same kind of Christian upbringing that you would give him if you weren't busy.

Sigged. Thank you.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2006-09-24 12:31am

Pointless hijack of Tink's new sig

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2006-09-24 01:17am

Ghost Rider wrote:Pointless hijack of Tink's new sig

Repost of my relevant part:

What's even worse is word censors on forums, particularly if they're stupid ones. A good example of this can be found here. Hint: Look in any thread for the word 'cockpit'.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2006-09-24 01:54am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Pointless hijack of Tink's new sig
Repost of my relevant part:

What's even worse is word censors on forums, particularly if they're stupid ones. A good example of this can be found here. Hint: Look in any thread for the word 'cockpit'.

Asterisks? That's not that funny. It would be a hell of a lot funnier if they replaced it with "Penis."

But yes, it is stupid.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What the bleepck is wrong with bleeping TV censoring?

What the bleepck is wrong with bleeping TV censoring?