On 07/15/09 13:41, David Eduardo wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 07/15/09 09:30, David Eduardo wrote:

I don't even know where there is a server farm.


Bull****.


No, the bull****ter is in your mirror. Your only saving grace is a
better vocabulary and writing style than Mr. Ace.


Actually, I rather enjoy Ace's crisp, pointed style.



I have never been near a server farm, and the closest one I know to
exist is in central Washington state. There may be one down the street,
for all I know, but since programming and programming research have been
my concern for the last coupla' decades, I have little practical
interest in knowing where a bunch of servers are located, and even less
curiosity.

From discussions at the recent NAB, every communications attorney in DC
and elsewhere seems to be cautioning it's clients on the use of
profanity which goes beyond the clearer "sexual acts and excretory
functions.... appealing to the prurient interest" guidelines.
Additionally, content which appears to promote the use of drugs is being
given greater review.

In my example, I mentioned something to the effect of "giving
instructions on setting up a bong.." which could be interpreted to be
consent to or promotion of the usage of (illegal) drugs. That's
different from references to a drug, spoken, sung or otherwise.

Most stations and operators do not want to be "the" test case on a new
application of community standards, since there have been rulings such
as the Boise case where "local" has been taken out of the application of
standards, meaning that community standards are whatever the FCC decides
them to be.

Every time I drive out of town, I am passed by speeders. I know, and
they know, that there is some degree of certainty that they will be
stopped and fined. Similarly, many station operators know that they are
operating in a gray area, and may be fined. Some risk the consequences
since there are no black and white rules in place. Others do not take
the risk as they do not want to be the cause of the determination of
such rules.

What's not understood by many is that things like the "F" word are not
prohibited... just most uses of it are, based on content. But if a PBS
station had a professor who discussed how offensive terms made their way
into the language, including the word origins and applications, the FCC
would likely not find such usage offensive.

But the consensus is that there is more attention being placed on
content than we have seen for many decades.


Nice academic backpedalling. But it doesn't address that your
statement was simply wrong. Stations DO run songs with drug
references. Jocks DO say make drug references in their patter.

And they do it today. With impugnity.

If some choose not to, that's not a blanket incumbent on the
broad number of stations.

If there's more attention to content, it's focussed on things
like race, sex, and politics. Drug lyrics still get a pass all over
the country.



And for the record, consensus does not equal truth.