Radio station fined for playing Eminem

[Undertoad]

The Federal Communications Commission has threatened a Madison, Wisconsin radio station with a $7,000 fine for playing an unedited version of controversial rapper Eminem's song "The Real Slim Shady", which contains explicit lyrics.

The FCC said on Friday it proposed the fine after receiving a complaint that the station, owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc., willfully played the unedited version of the song on Aug. 24.

"The four minute forty-four second rap song contains unmistakable offensive sexual references," the FCC said in an order proposing the fine. "Such a song is inappropriate for broadcast during times when children may (be) in the audience."

The Wisconsin radio station, WZEE-FM, told the FCC during its investigation that a disc jockey queued up the edited version of the song, but static electricity caused a compact disk player to skip to the unedited version.

The FCC rejected the station's argument that the song contained only isolated profanity and was not sexually explicit, saying the sexual references and expletives "appear designed to pander and shock."

--
It's funny; cause at the rate I'm goin when I'm thirty
I'll be the only person in the nursin home flirting
Pinchin nurses asses when I'm jackin off with Jergens
And I'm jerkin but this whole bag of Viagra isn't working
And every single person is a Slim Shady lurkin
He could be workin at Burger King, spittin on your onion rings
Or in the parkin lot, circling
Screaming "I don't give a fuck!"
with his windows down and his system up

[elSicomoro]

I admit, I dig Eminem a little bit. But as a human being, he doesn't appear to be very intelligent.

[Undertoad]

I think you're right. Not too bright. But he does have a remarkable skill; it's like he's a guy who's done nothing but work at one thing for years and years, and he's really good at that one thing, but ask him a question and he sounds like an idiot.

But for me he's been a doorway into other rap. I'm an old guy, not likely to get into it (all the kids these days, they dress funny and their music is just noise). I read a positive review of Eminem when I heard his first single, and then I read the NEXT review which was of The Roots' Things Fall Apart. I bought that, and listened openly, and... it was phenomenal. Genius.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
I think you're right. Not too bright. But he does have a remarkable skill; it's like he's a guy who's done nothing but work at one thing for years and years, and he's really good at that one thing, but ask him a question and he sounds like an idiot.

He seems to be following the path of his mentor, Dr. Dre. Dre was never into the hard gangster stuff until AFTER he started rapping with NWA. Mr. Mathers seems to be following this same path with his run-ins with the law (and the Insane Clown Posse).

But for me he's been a doorway into other rap. I'm an old guy, not likely to get into it (all the kids these days, they dress funny and their music is just noise). I read a positive review of Eminem when I heard his first single, and then I read the NEXT review which was of The Roots' Things Fall Apart. I bought that, and listened openly, and... it was phenomenal. Genius.

We're very fortunate to have the Roots call Philly home. They made it cool for rap bands to make their own music, rather than stealing it from George Clinton, James Brown, or Prince.

Their first album was great too...with a hilarious video called "What They Do." Lampooned the whole gangsta rap thing 3-4 years back.

[Chewbaccus]

[quote]Originally posted by Tony Shepps
I think you're right. Not too bright. But he does have a remarkable skill; it's like he's a guy who's done nothing but work at one thing for years and years, and he's really good at that one thing, but ask him a question and he sounds like an idiot.

You mean an idiot savant. I do go along with that. But I just in general don't like the FCC for this and many examples of this reason. I have never been able to grasp how the Hidden Order of Puritans have managed to keep the FCC in power despite the most basic fact that it controls what we can broadcast, essentially say, to the people, our fellow Americans. If someone can provide conflicting evidence, a well-reasoned argument to tolerate them, I'd love to hear it, please, honestly.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Chewbaccus

You mean an idiot savant. I do go along with that. But I just in general don't like the FCC for this and many examples of this reason. I have never been able to grasp how the Hidden Order of Puritans have managed to keep the FCC in power despite the most basic fact that it controls what we can broadcast, essentially say, to the people, our fellow Americans. If someone can provide conflicting evidence, a well-reasoned argument to tolerate them, I'd love to hear it, please, honestly.

No, other than the whole damned morality argument, the FCC's laws are archaic.

As much as I hate to say it, but potty words are essentially mainstream. In fact, I'd say that potty words are slang now (like "I ain't got no").

What IS offensive/obscene anymore? I don't approve of Eminem's homophobia, but he DOES have a right to say it.

[Undertoad]

The FCC has an important job to do just in allocating frequencies, making sure none of the stations trip over each other, that they're always on frequency, not transmitting over their rated output, etc.

The other strange thing is: in theory, if you don't broadcast over a state line, how can the FCC be involved? It's not a federal case until it crosses a state line!

On Eminem's homophobic comments, I think it's too bad he had to go that way, and go even further with the violence. At the same time, no question that the kids "get it" much better than the adults: that's just rap. It doesn't mean anything.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
The FCC has an important job to do just in allocating frequencies, making sure none of the stations trip over each other, that they're always on frequency, not transmitting over their rated output, etc.

But I don't like the way they're trying to stop the "pirate radio" movement. I'm all for letting people operate low-frequency radio stations...particularly if they're just neighborhood things. I want one...except I'd put it on the internet as well.

*ponders* What would I put on that station? *rubs his hands together* muahahahahaha!

[Undertoad]

Well that's true.

wst3 and I know a bit about it... we were both station mgrs for our college's radio station.

The current demise of low-power FM was ridiculous. We can only hope that the net reaches the point quickly where anyone can run their own station. It's not that far off, really.

[alphageek31337]

If anyone feels like giving it a shot, shoutcast radio (www.shoutcast.com) will let you run your own radio station in streaming mp3, and give you a free spot on the site. All you need is winamp w/ the shoutcast plugin (there may be one for macamp, don't know about linux), and your listeners can connect via shoutcast.com and winamp to listen to your stream.


Pittsburgh Steve out

[wst3]

Originally posted by Chewbaccus
But I just in general don't like the FCC for this and many examples of this reason. I have never been able to grasp how the Hidden Order of Puritans have managed to keep the FCC in power despite the most basic fact that it controls what we can broadcast, essentially say, to the people, our fellow Americans. If someone can provide conflicting evidence, a well-reasoned argument to tolerate them, I'd love to hear it, please, honestly.

I don't know about conflicting evidence, but I can show you the other side(s) of the coin...

First, it is NOT a hidden order of puritans... much as you may choose to believe otherwise, the FCC is not constantly monitoring everything that is broadcast over the air. They are not trying to foist their own beliefs on the masses.

Enforcement of the rules happens for one of two reasons, the most common is a complaint, the other is routine inspections.

The inspections are more for compliance with both technical and management rules, but they will listen while they are there.

So, if the FCC is threatening to fine a station that means that someone complained. Now that someone could be the mayor, or a major backer of whoever is in power at the moment, but that doesn't happen a lot because those folks don't, as a rule, listen to rap<G>!

So, what most likely happened is that a lot of people complained, and when that happens the FCC investigates the complaint, and if they find against the broadcaster, they punish them. These fines, more often than not, are pretty much for effect, though they have been known to levy large fines when warranted.

Anyway, the FCC uses a rule of thumb to guage whether or not something is suitable for broadcast or not... basically they try to guage the community in which the alleged offense took place to determine if a reasonable person living in that community would be offended.

There are a couple of loopholes... in general, hate related messages are not tolerated, but even then you have to really work hard to get a fine levied because, within certain bounds, even hate messages are protected.

Example... several years ago a member of the local KKK and American Nazi Party wanted to be interviewed on a college radio station news show. The students wanted to take this guy on, the administration was less thrilled. In the end, the administration decided to let the interview take place, a point made moot when the interviewee stabbed a guard at a KKK meeting the night before the interview, thus making himself unavailable.

Was the college right in letting the interview take place?

Some might find the rhetoric spewed by a white supremecist just as offensive as others find violent rap. Who's right, and whose standards do we uphold?

The answer, at present, is the community sets the standard. That means there are places where the KKK can broadcast all their stuff without worrying about big brother, and there are other places where rap can be broadcast pretty much uncensored.

It isn't a perfect system, but then Free Speech is predicated on responsibility and tolerance, two things that sometimes seem in very short supply.

[wst3]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
The other strange thing is: in theory, if you don't broadcast over a state line, how can the FCC be involved? It's not a federal case until it crosses a state line!

The management of the scarce resource of broadcast bandwidth is handled by the federal government as a matter of international treaty. In this case it is a federal case even though it often does not cross state lines.

In order to carve out a section of the RF spectrum for our use, we had to agree with a bunch of other countries on how it would be divided, and how it would be managed. It is a treaty that the federal government entered into on behalf of the states.

[wst3]

Originally posted by sycamore
But I don't like the way they're trying to stop the "pirate radio" movement. I'm all for letting people operate low-frequency radio stations...particularly if they're just neighborhood things. I want one...except I'd put it on the internet as well.

Once again we have a case where the FCC would be quite happy to leave "pirate" radio alone, except that some folks just can't get enough!!!

This is one of those deals where I just don't get people!!!

If you are smart enough to put together a low power radio station why aren't you smart enough to do it in such a way as to avoid crossing the regulators?

Think it's tough to broadcast and still stay below the radar? Then you aren't thinking!

I'm not about to post a how-to on pirate radio<G>... but it really isn't tough. And if you stay out of the way, you won't be bothered.

The stations that get bothered are the ones that trample all over other people's rights, and frankly, I think they get what they deserve!

Bill

[russotto]

Originally posted by wst3
It isn't a perfect system, but then Free Speech is predicated on responsibility and tolerance, two things that sometimes seem in very short supply. [/b]

Free speech is not about responsibility and tolerance; it is about freedom. Including freedom to be intolerant. Including freedom to speak in ways the government (or "community", which in this case is a euphemism for the biggest complainers therein) deems irresponsible.

[wst3]

Originally posted by russotto

Free speech is not about responsibility and tolerance; it is about freedom. Including freedom to be intolerant. Including freedom to speak in ways the government (or "community", which in this case is a euphemism for the biggest complainers therein) deems irresponsible.
[/b]

I can tolerate that<G>.

I was too brief in my statement(rarely happens!!!!), so let me expand...

There are a number of responsibilites associated with all of our freedoms, freedom of speech included. For the most part, the delineations have been made by the courts already (the famous example being that you are not free to yell fire in a crowded theatre... to do so would be irrespnosible!)

And there is a requirement implied that I need to tolerate your nonsense and you need to tolerate mine.

The government, at any level, should receive the least protection, or the loosest interpretation, by which I mean that absolutely I should be able to criticize the local, state, and federal lawmakers, judges, and executives as well as the laws that they pass, interpret, and enforce.

There are limits, however, and I can't think of a better place to establish them than my community! If you don't like my standards then one of us has to find a different community... which is kinda the key to making democracy work.

For example, and this is admittedly extreme, if I were an athiest, and I moved into a strong Christian community where people greeted eachother on the streets with religious greetings, would I have the right to shut them up? Would they have the right to ask me not to play offensive music really loud from my front porch?

Or look at the opposite situation, if I were a good Christian, and moved into an area where foul language and music about hate and violence were the norm, would I be right in asking my new neighbors to please refrain from using foul language and playing offensive music?

So, if you and I disagree about what ought to be heard on the radio, one of us is going to lose the battle, and the winner will be the one who voices the preferences of the majority.

While it is difficult indeed to put our rights into any specific order, I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the most important ones. The press may be irresponsible at times, and even clearly biased at other times, but I wouldn't trade that for any kind of control. Even when they publsh meaningless but sensational stories just to boost circulation or viewership.