expletive deleted

topic posted Tue, May 23, 2006 - 10:28 AM by 
posted by:
  • Re: expletive deleted

    Wed, May 24, 2006 - 11:45 AM
    Oh now, I LIKE this!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • not seen on i-t***s

      Tue, August 1, 2006 - 3:29 PM
      • Re: not seen on i-t***s

        Tue, August 1, 2006 - 8:06 PM
        Now we're speaking Other™m's language.
        Cool! .... or maybe C**l

        I'm silly, I know. Very interesting, O™m.
        • expletive.... somethinged

          Tue, October 10, 2006 - 7:40 AM
          • lots of expletives not deleted

            Mon, October 16, 2006 - 9:33 AM
            • Re: lots of expletives not deleted

              Thu, October 19, 2006 - 8:30 PM
              delightful!



              "Ad hoc, ad hoc,
              and quid pro quo.
              So little time, so much to know!"

              -Jeremy Hillary Boob, Ph(u)D
              • WTF?!

                Fri, December 29, 2006 - 9:13 AM
                news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5259916.stm

                BB Pete: Exploitation or education?
                By Liam Allen
                BBC News

                When the producers of this year's Big Brother accepted a man with Tourette's syndrome as a housemate, some accused them of exploiting his condition - which, in his case, includes the involuntary use of strong language - for the sake of entertainment.

                As the show concludes, have they changed that view?

                The day after the housemates in the seventh series of Big Brother entered the house 13 weeks ago, the president of the UK's Tourette's Syndrome Association (TSA) said it had been against Pete Bennett being among them.

                Roy Hillard said that, while he hoped the inclusion of the 24-year-old would help raise awareness of the condition, he thought "on balance, it will have adverse effects".

                He said Pete's condition was "likely to get worse" in the house, and said it could lead to children with Tourette's being mocked.


                TOURETTE'S SYNDROME
                Between 199,000 and 331,000 people with condition in UK
                Named after French neurologist Dr George Gilles de la Tourette
                Often inherited although its cause is not yet understood
                Could involve abnormal processing of brain chemicals including dopamine
                Believed to affect up to one in every 100 schoolchildren
                Simple tics include eye blinking, sniffing and tongue clicking
                Complex tics include jumping, twirling and biting oneself
                50% chance with each pregnancy of parent passing on gene to child
                Three to four times more common in males
                Source: TSA

                Composer and writer James McConnel, 48, who has the condition, also initially expressed concern over Pete's inclusion in the house.

                Speaking on the eve of Friday's Big Brother final, Mr McConnel told the BBC News website: "I was worried because I do think Channel 4 was looking for a bit of voyeurism."

                But the "theatrical" nature of Pete's Tourette's "makes him loveable", he said.

                Pete's symptoms include involuntarily hitting his throat and swearing, namely the word "wankers".

                Mr McConnel, who has written a book about Tourette's, dismisses concerns that Pete's fame could lead to children with Tourette's being bullied.

                "He's a very likeable bloke, a very nice bloke.

                "Young kids have a hard time as I did but maybe this will help them. Maybe it will help bullying."

                Idiosyncratic behaviour

                Author Nick von Bloss, 38, who has also written a book on living with Tourette's, says that at the start of Big Brother he was "incensed" by the "sensationalism" surrounding Pete's entrance into the house.

                Young kids have a hard time as I did but maybe this will help them. Maybe it will help bullying
                James McConnel

                And, after watching much of the series, he is still less than impressed.

                "I think Pete's inadvertently doing a lot of damage to Tourette's awareness," he added.

                Mr von Bloss said he had observed Pete displaying only two symptoms of Tourette's - the throat-hitting and swearing - and that the rest of his idiosyncratic behaviour, including making faces and putting on voices, was down to his personality.

                "He's such a colourful personality with so many odd aspects to his personality that it's obscuring his Tourette's and making people think that's part of his Tourette's."

                'Not representative'

                But the TSA said it now thought some good things had come out of Pete's inclusion on the show.

                "What it has done is put Tourette's on the map," said a spokeswoman.

                I think Pete's inadvertently doing a lot of damage to Tourette's awareness
                Nick von Bloss

                "Hopefully, people will recognise other people with Tourette's and see they have more in common with a person with Tourette's than they'd realised."

                But she said the fact that Pete's tics included involuntary bad language - or coprolalia - had the negative effect of reinforcing a public perception of Tourette's as "the swearing disease".

                In fact, coprolalia affects only about 10% of people with Tourette's syndrome.

                "It's a serious point. Even now there are GPs saying that if you're not swearing then you have not got Tourette's," she said.

                "Overall, our view would be that Big Brother has been helpful and shows someone who's nice and normal has Tourette's.

                Even now there are GPs saying that if you're not swearing then you have not got Tourette's
                TSA

                "Our only reservation is that it may reinforce the mistaken view that coprolalia is a necessary diagnostic criteria."

                Tourette Scotland chairperson Janice Mylan, meanwhile, said Pete had been a role model for people with Tourette's.

                "Most of the reaction we've had has been positive. People have felt that he's been honest and upfront about his Tourette's and that helps with removing the stigma that's there, especially with youngsters."

                A Channel 4 spokeswoman said Pete, who has been a runaway favourite to win the show from early on in the series, had been chosen solely for his personality.

                "Pete's attitude to his condition is a really positive one and that's helped to educate and inspire people," she said.

                "He's a very positive role model and he's been a great housemate."

                Do you think Channel 4 producers have exploited Pete's Tourette's Syndrome or improved the public's understanding of the condition?

                Below are some of the responses we received. This debate is now closed

                I have a daughter with Tourettes. I believe that Pete from Big Brother has helped the general public to come to terms with Tourette's BUT I am still very concerned about the lack of knowledge there is within the medical profession on this subject and how it is approached by them. If any of you are genuinely concerned please push for more research as this can be quite a disabling condition with many lifestyle restrictions attached to it.
                Marion Johnson, Gillingham, Kent

                Did Channel 4 exploit Pete, hmmm NO, Pete turned up at the auditions. Has Pete helped undermine the awareness of Tourette's, hmmm NO, he's allowed the audience to see the human being inside. So what has Pete achieved, he's proved that no matter what your situation, if you concentrate on the important things in life then that's all that really matters.
                Nigel Bradshaw, Blaydon on Tyne, Tyne and Wear

                While Channel Four are obviously were out for the exploitation of Pete, I think the public's exposure to this condition will be beneficial to people with Tourette's because the general public have been made more aware and tolerant of such conditions. Although Roy Hillard feels his presence on this programme will lead to afflicted children being mocked, his implication is that they wouldn't be mocked if Pete hadn't appeared on this show. This is a non sequitur. Children mock anything that is different. A child with Tourette's is going to have a hard childhood. By appearing on this program I feel that Pete has raised public awareness of one of many wonderful variants of humans that exist, and shown the positive sides of creativity and spontaneity that Tourette's people have.
                John Ayles, London

                If the public were educated about Tourette's it was accidental. The intention on the part of Channel 4 was to fuel mass voyeurism and so boost their ratings - pure and simple. It was an exercise in commercial exploitation and not, as some people seem to think, to promote understanding of Pete's condition. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive.
                Bian, Manchester

                I have 2 daughters with Tourette's who go to boarding school and I can only say that though I hate Big Brother and the whole media circus, in this case it has made my daughters happy as the show has raised awareness of the condition and they have been able explain to other people what living with Tourette's is like. Pete being such a nice chap has only helped this, ie. you can be normal and have Tourette's!
                Hilary Wilson, Darmstadt, Germany

                I'm not ashamed to say I knew very little about this condition before watching Pete. It's easy to see now, how sufferers refuse treatment to reduce symptoms because they feel they are suppressing part of themselves. As we near the end of the show, I find myself not noticing this affliction at all...a sign of acceptance that comes with familiarity and one that, I'm sure, will be replicated amongst others in the viewing public.
                Nick Clark, Nottingham

                Exploited? Hardly. When he emerges from the house he will be a celebrity with a small fortune. His swearing and tics will be instantly understood and accepted wherever he goes - which, after a lifetime of bullying and sidelong glances, must be a relief. The only downside is that he's ended up with Nikki.
                Barry, Brighton, UK

                If anything I think Pete has done nothing wrong towards his cause, despite his mannerisms he has proved to be an immensely likeable and funny character and one that deserves to go further after this show ends. He is a natural compared to what you look at the stuff comedy writers are trying to come up with these days. I hope it works out for Pete too... he is well funny. Mark.
                Mark Stevens, Llandudno, Conwy, North Wales

                I think it's done a great deal of good. The problem is that the ego can be subconscious, and makes people want to keep to their original viewpoint (think of Bush and the even more pointless war on terror). That those that have said it would be bad are now saying it has done "some good" is a great indication of the genuine good it has clearly done. They just won't admit to the full extent to which they were originally wrong.
                Andy, Warrington UK

                The main thing that Pete's inclusion in Big Brother achieved was completely undermining the competition. Everyone knows the fickle general public are prone to a sympathy vote. He had it in the bag from the moment he stepped in the door at the expense of more worthy contestants.
                Matt, Manchester, UK

                Of course channel 4 exploited his condition, that's why he was put into the house. It was that upsetting I could not watch the program, it was disgusting what channel 4 did, to get better ratings. I personally think that the television regulator should have stopped this farce, it was a deliberate attempt to use Tourette's Syndrome to keep the general population amused, it did no favours to the people who have this debilitating problem at all.
                Paul, Lurgan, Northern Ireland

                I think that Channel 4 has improved the understanding of the condition. I personally did not know that such a sickness exists. After watching Pete, I found out that the people with such condition have Tourette Syndrome and they are not doing strange things with intention.
                Hameed, London, UK

                I don't think that Channel 4 have exploited Tourette's in any way and I think that they haven't tried to focus on the swearing for more viewers. Pete actually chose to go on the show to raise awareness of Tourette's and I have to say that I think he has done so. Maybe people will think twice before bullying the poor souls that have to live with this debilitating condition. Good on Channel 4 for giving Pete a chance to stand up for all the underdogs out there!
                Ellen, Birmingham

                All power to Pete's theatrical elbow - Tourette's? - perhaps a smattering- and a timely judged emphasis for the camera's whenever and wherever he considered a "boost" appropriate. Unfortunately Pete has "plasticesed" the syndrome and other sufferers will suffer more as a result.
                Geoff, Scotland

                Story from BBC NEWS:
                news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-...5259916.stm

                Published: 2006/08/18 03:10:08 GMT

                © BBC MMVI
                • Linguistic filth at the movies

                  Fri, December 29, 2006 - 1:07 PM
                  itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/lan...3966.html

                  December 26, 2006
                  Linguistic filth at the movies

                  Last Sunday's Los Angeles Times gives capsule reviews of 53 recent movies (either opening, on release, or just out on video) that are assigned to MPAA categories (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17). "Language" is cited as one of the reasons for a non-G rating in no less than 38 of the 53. That's 72% (or 75% of the non-G-rated films). What the hell (oops; PG, language) is going on in a culture where for 72% of the movies currently on offer, parental guidance has to be supplied concerning the danger that children might hear a stray swearword or the name of a sex-specific body part?

                  I stress that it is not just movies for grownups that are being labeled as having language too strong for young ears. It is films for kids. The distribution the different ratings is wildly skewed: the number of NC-17 films on offer is zero, and less than 4% are G. About half the films are rated R, a quarter are PG-13, and 20% are PG, the latter rating being basically the default for movies that are obviously intended for kids. But 73% of the PG films (8 out of 11) are certified as having language problems bad enough to call for parental oversight: cartoons like Flushed Away, comedies starring kids like Unaccompanied Minors, fantasy comedies like Night at the Museum, inspirational sports dramas like We Are Marshall, gentle romances like Sweet Land (all these are plain PG films: children can attend on their own, but parents are advised to give them guidance).

                  I'll tell you what I think. I think we have drifted away from sensible caution about exposing kids to obscene language, and wandered into irrational superstition about common words and phrases. We have become so anxious about word taboos we are behaving like a culture gone crazy. Our priorities are out of kilter.

                  I happened to view The Queen twice (by choice; it is extraordinary, and when Helen Mirren walks up to receive her Oscar for best actress I will be there cheering from the Language Log film critics' box). It is rated PG-13 for "brief strong language". I have scratched my head and wondered where in that graceful yet riveting film of family tension, administrative complexity, and governmental protocol there was an episode of language so foul that "parents are strongly cautioned to give guidance for attendance of children younger than 13."

                  I have come up with only one possibility as to what it must be. There is a scene in which Queen Elizabeth drives her Land Rover solo across a ford on the Balmoral estate and breaks the drive shaft on a rock, stranding her vehicle in shallow water. As she gets out to check under the vehicle, suspecting the worst, she quietly mutters "Bugger" to herself. For this, parents are strong cautioned to consider keeping their twelve-year-olds home. We are going collectively insane.

                  In Casino Royale a naked man is tied to a chair with the bottom ripped out of it and is tortured by having a knotted rope slammed into his testicles again and again until he howls in agony. The film gets the same rating as The Queen: PG-13. Something is profoundly wrong with our beliefs about the evil powers of everyday language, and with the movie guidance that is being supplied to us.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    comic but not funny hah-hah

                    Wed, January 3, 2007 - 10:49 AM
                    itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/l...3942.html

                    Until yesterday, one item from the Zits list of activities unsuitable at a school dance had still not been tracked down anywhere: squeaning. Then Keith Handley found the squean on a fonts website, where a comic-book style font (called MarkerMan) is being distributed that

                    Includes 5 useful cartoon symbols, leaned from Mort Walker's Lexicon of Comicana and ABC Etcetera: The Life & Times of the Roman Alphabet by A. & N. Humez. From left to right of the bottom row above: the squean (which might float around a drunken character's head)...

                    The squean is an asterisk with an empty center.


                    ("Leaned from" puzzles me. "Learned from"? "Loaned from"? "Gleaned from"? Or what?)

                    There's also the phosphene, for a character who's "seeing stars", and three substitutes for swearing -- the grawlix, the jarn, and the quimp -- which can be used on their own or combined with one another and with standard symbols like @#$%*. (The grawlix, a spiral, figures prominently in a "Mother Goose & Grimm" comic strip that Ben Zimmer posted about a while back: "Grimm just said the {grawlix}-word.")

                    The labels are presumably inventions of Walker's. The Amazon book description tells us:

                    Written as a satire on the comic devices cartoonists use, the book quickly became a textbook for art students. Walker researched cartoons around the world to collect this international set of cartoon symbols. The names he invented for them now appear in dictionaries.

                    [Addendum: Dick Margulis writes to say that phosphenes are the "stars" you see when you close your eyes and press against the lids, and the OED pretty much agrees with this. So this one isn't an invention.]
                    • Re: comic but not funny hah-hah

                      Fri, January 5, 2007 - 3:02 PM
                      I like to tell everyone that I have Voluntary Tourettes Syndrome.
                      • the *-word

                        Sun, January 7, 2007 - 7:41 PM
                        • new swear word

                          Mon, February 19, 2007 - 12:56 PM
                          • Re: new swear word

                            Mon, February 19, 2007 - 11:36 PM
                            Oh dear, my devout use of the X-Word is seriously threatened:
                            www.warriorsfortruth.com/news-...p.html
                              • f*gg*t

                                Tue, March 6, 2007 - 1:55 PM
                                • Sofa King

                                  Tue, April 17, 2007 - 11:44 AM
                                  • Re: Sofa King

                                    Tue, April 17, 2007 - 12:01 PM
                                    www.urbandictionary.com/define.php

                                    This word always conjurs up pictures of swedish workman stuffing upholstered furniture, such as large sofas.
                                    "Sorry Helga, I can't join you for gingersnaps, I have to finish horking dis here couch!"
                                      • The british do have the gift, insultwise.
                                        • expletive UN-deleted

                                          Mon, April 30, 2007 - 8:51 AM
                                          greasemonkey script to do away with the likes of me: www.ironicsans.com/2007/04/...rnet.html

                                          via itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/lan...4451.html
                                          • Re: expletive UN-deleted

                                            Mon, April 30, 2007 - 10:53 AM
                                            there is a vas deferens between butch and bitch.
                                            • new, fast, automatic

                                              Mon, June 4, 2007 - 12:59 PM
                                              • Re: new, fast, automatic

                                                Mon, June 4, 2007 - 8:44 PM
                                                good lord! silly. absurd.
                                                • an angry obscene version of “get lost”

                                                  Wed, June 6, 2007 - 5:45 AM
                                                  www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05...ecency.html

                                                  The New York Times

                                                  June 5, 2007
                                                  Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency
                                                  By STEPHEN LABATON

                                                  WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

                                                  That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.

                                                  Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.

                                                  Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

                                                  The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.

                                                  Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”

                                                  The networks hailed the decision.

                                                  “We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”

                                                  Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.

                                                  “I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”

                                                  He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time, “Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”

                                                  Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.

                                                  Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.

                                                  But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

                                                  Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

                                                  “We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.

                                                  Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.

                                                  Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.

                                                  “We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

                                                  In his dissent, Judge Pierre N. Leval defended the commission’s decision to toughen its indecency policy.

                                                  “In explanation of this relatively modest change of standard, the commission gave a sensible, although not necessarily compelling, reason,” he said.

                                                  “What we have is at most a difference of opinion between a court and an agency,” Judge Leval said. “Because of the deference courts must give to the reasoning of a duly authorized administrative agency in matters within the agency’s competence, a court’s disagreement with the commission on this question is of no consequence. The commission’s position is not irrational; it is not arbitrary and capricious.”

                                                  The case involved findings that the networks had violated the indecency rules for comments by Cher and Nicole Richie on the Billboard Music Awards, the use of expletives by the character Andy Sipowicz on “NYPD Blue” and a comment on “The Early Show” by a contestant from CBS’s reality show “Survivor.”

                                                  The commission did not issue fines in any of the cases because the programs were broadcast before the agency changed its policy. But the networks were concerned about the new interpretation of the rules, particularly since the agency has been issuing a record number of fines.

                                                  Two years ago, Congress increased the potential maximum penalty for each indecency infraction to $325,000, from $32,500. Producers and writers have complained that the prospect of stiff fines had begun to chill their creative efforts.

                                                  The case, Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, along with a second case now before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia involving the malfunctioning wardrobe that exposed one of the pop singer Janet Jackson’s breasts during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl, have been closely watched by the television industry and its critics for their broad implications for television programming.

                                                  Neither cable TV nor satellite programming faces the same indecency rules even though they cover about 85 percent of homes. And as the Bush administration’s appointees have taken a tougher view on indecency, the industry has waged a countercampaign in the courts.

                                                  The commission has struggled to consistently explain how it applies the rules. In the Bono case involving the Golden Globe awards, the staff initially ruled in favor of the network. After lawmakers began to complain about that decision, the commission, then led by Michael K. Powell, reversed the staff decision.

                                                  But the commission declined to impose a fine because, it noted, “existing precedent would have permitted this broadcast” and therefore NBC and its affiliates “necessarily did not have the requisite notice to justify a penalty.”

                                                  Broadcast television executives have complained about what they say has been the arbitrary application of the rules. They expressed concern, for instance, that they might be penalized for broadcasting “Saving Private Ryan,” a Steven Spielberg movie about the invasion of Normandy during World War II, because of the repeated use of vulgarities.

                                                  But the F.C.C. in that case ruled in favor of the networks, finding that deleting the expletives “would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers.”

                                                  --------

                                                  www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06...06wed3.html

                                                  June 6, 2007
                                                  Editorial
                                                  Expletive Policy Deleted

                                                  At the Billboard Music Awards in 2002, Cher had a salty rejoinder to critics who “have been telling me I’m on the way out every year.” At the same event in 2003, Nicole Richie had some earthy reflections on the difficulties of cleaning a Prada purse. It’s hard to believe these comments threaten the nation’s well-being, but the Federal Communications Commission found them indecent and profane. That threatened Fox Broadcasting, which televised the awards show, with major fines. This week, in a very welcome decision, a federal appeals court overturned the F.C.C.’s indecency policy.

                                                  For years, the F.C.C. had a reasonable, practical approach to live broadcasts. It recognized that coarse language sometimes slips in and if the offensive words were relatively isolated events, stations could carry them without fear of punishment. But in recent years, the F.C.C. decided to go after broadcasters that carry programs with even “fleeting expletives,” like Cher’s and Ms. Richie’s.

                                                  In a suit brought by a group of broadcasters, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found the commission’s policy to be arbitrary and capricious and the reasoning behind it to be weak and riddled with illogic. One of the commission’s rationales was that the expletives could not be separated from their “sexual or excretory” meaning. But the court noted that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have both used the words the commission objected to in public in ways that clearly did not have any “sexual or excretory” meaning.

                                                  The Second Circuit did not need to reach the constitutional issues in the case. But it rightly pointed out that the F.C.C.’s “fleeting expletives” policy also raises serious First Amendment concerns. That suggests that even if the commission tried to improve its reasoning, the policy would still be struck down. The F.C.C. should return to the more reasonable approach it once took to regulating live broadcasts and focus on more important issues than Cher’s and Ms. Richie’s colorful language.

Recent topics in "Word Salad"