Jem, I think you're over-reacting a bit. It's not as though now that it is possible to say it on TV that all of a sudden it's going to start popping up EVERYWHERE, like on 'Friends'! (Lol!) I think on a cop/lawyer show it would add a great deal of realism; I mean, as if they don't swear on the job. Besides, we understand that YOU may not want to hear it on TV, but does that mean the people that DO want to hear it shouldn't be able to because of what is certain to be become a distinct minority opinion? It's as though it's an all or none proposition. Some shows will have it, some won't.
I think this is a good point. I have little use for censorship. However, there really should be (and there are) some standards. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) has a set of standards. These standards change all the time as society changes. Before GG was born, it was standard practice on television that even married couples could not be shown in the same bed together. In the 50's and into the 60's, all the Ozzie and Harriets (etc.) had and slept in twin beds. Before that, the same "rule" held true in the movies. For a time, this "rule" was circumvented by having scenes of adults in a bed together (even fully dressed) with one of the participants having to have one foot on the floor....I know this sounds (and is) ludicrous, but that was how it was. Now, the boundaries are very few. And you know something? I did feel uncomfortable when I would leave my car radio tuned to whatever channel Howard Stern was on, and I would have my son in the car when he was just too young IMO to hear some of what was said. I would turn on the radio, or maybe he would, and it irked me that my (then) 4 or 5 year old would hear enough of Stern talking about whatever it was before I could turn the radio off, or change the channel. If I had a daughter, I am sure it would have bothered me even more. Logical or not, that is just how I felt. True, I could have been more careful. And also true that I myself listened (and still do) to Howard Stern. But it is also true that I was uncomfortable when my son was that age and would hear Stern talking about anal sex, or whatever. No simple answers. I guess it should be up to the parents to determine what is acceptable for their kids to hear. Maybe the "V-Chip" is an ok idea. I think my Sony TV has one built in. I know there is a "parental control" feature. I don't know what it does, since I have never used it...our kids are all too old now. Is this a "V-Chip"? I don't know the technology. I am sure some here do. As far as wearing a word out, that I could not agree with more. Using an expletive to shock or to emphasize is OK with me. But using them in every single sentence, as some people do, is just tiresome to listen to. We all know or have known people who speak like that. And yeah, I am pretty sure they do not talk that way around their grandmothers. Now Kerry has said "fucked up" in The Rolling Stone interview when referring to what Bush did in Iraq. So now we have, for the first time, the "F word" being used in a national Presidential campaign. Maybe this will cause the word to soon become completely devoid of it's shock value. You couldn't say "Damn" in the movies until Clark Gable said it in Gone With the Wind, and now it means nothing. Offends virtually no one. You couldn't say "suck" on TV (I had a Mothers of Invention album that had the word "sucks" bleeped out....that was on a record I bought with my own money in a store! In (I think) 1968 or '69. Eddie Murphy used the word on Saturday Night Live, and now it is commonly used to the extent it has zero shock value, and little kids can probably use it in their kindergarten classes and it would go un-noticed. George Carlin's "seven words you can't say on TV" are about to get another haircut. I believe "piss" was on the original list. Still, this does not mean there should not be some kind of "standards and practices" as the NAB calls them. Having standards does not equate to censorship. As has been mentioned in this thread, censoring words, and censoring thoughts are two different things. I guess there is a very strong case to be made for the fact that words are just words. Certainly they can get worn out, and lose their effectiveness. But nothing will change the fact that people who have to continuously use four letter words for no purpose can never use them to make a statement have more impact. For them the words are already worn out. Hear the Pope say "shit" it will stop you in your tracks. Hear others say it, and you don't blink. What they do accomplish by speaking like that is impress upon MOST other people poor breeding, lack of social graces and class, and generally gives the impression of low intelligence (whether that is the case or not). Is there any doubt that some of the ET regulars that constantly use "vulgar" language are, for the most part, perceived as either drunk, stoned or stupid? Ever notice that the most four letter words, together with the biggest fonts, and the most senseless posts seem to always come from the same select few? And they are almost never taken seriously? Even if they have something of value to say, the pre-conceptions relegate their posts to a certain category in the minds of most of the rest of the ET members. You see four letter words in a huge font, and you can pretty much know who the most likely guys to have made the post are. Peace, RS