HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So Colbert is under scrut...

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:31 PM

So Colbert is under scrutiny. Rachel is next, no doubt.

Because maybe it was obscene, a la Lenny Bruce.

I do worry about Maddow, but so love her for informing me.

FCC to investigate, 'take appropriate action' on Colbert’s Trump rant
By Mark Hensch - 05/05/17 03:51 PM EDT


Late night talk show host Stephen Colbert’s controversial joke about President Trump drew the attention of the Federal Communications Commission. The agency received “a number” of complaints about Colbert’s commentary earlier in the week, according to the FCC’s chief.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai promised to “take the appropriate action” following a comprehensive investigation of Colbert’s remarks.

The FCC's response will depend on whether Colbert’s remarks are considered “obscene.”

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/332132-fcc-probing-colberts-trump-putin-joke

31 replies, 6382 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply So Colbert is under scrutiny. Rachel is next, no doubt. (Original post)
babylonsister May 2017 OP
kimbutgar May 2017 #1
rurallib May 2017 #3
babylonsister May 2017 #13
Squinch May 2017 #2
Dawson Leery May 2017 #4
Coventina May 2017 #5
LineLineReply .
roamer65 May 2017 #10
Initech May 2017 #14
babylonsister May 2017 #17
GP6971 May 2017 #6
Leith May 2017 #9
GP6971 May 2017 #20
Ilsa May 2017 #23
Quixote1818 May 2017 #27
Leith May 2017 #30
milestogo May 2017 #7
babylonsister May 2017 #18
RKP5637 May 2017 #8
Princess Turandot May 2017 #11
tammywammy May 2017 #19
SCantiGOP May 2017 #12
katmondoo May 2017 #15
Doreen May 2017 #16
Lisa0825 May 2017 #21
WillowTree May 2017 #22
Crunchy Frog May 2017 #24
VOX May 2017 #25
Name removed May 2017 #26
Leith May 2017 #31
TeamPooka May 2017 #28
brooklynite May 2017 #29

Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:35 PM

1. Maybe some smart person needs to set up a letter writing campaign in support of colbert

But he must have really got under the orange ones skin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #1)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:38 PM

3. my observation has been that Ajit Pai could give a shit

what citizens think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #1)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:08 PM

13. He doesn't need it:

I read his show is very popular. He's doing A-OK. We just have to watch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:36 PM

2. What's to investigate? No one's denying he said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:42 PM

4. Oh look, the small government mafia wants to get

into the business of a private enterprise.

American Cons are full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:42 PM

5. I'll show them obscene

What the fuck?!?!?!

His words were bleeped. Everybody and their hound dog uses profanity on TV, it's just beeped out.

What makes Colbert any different?

This is a pure political fucking witch hunt.

I invite them all to kiss my sn@tch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #5)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:55 PM

10. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #5)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:13 PM

14. Agreed!

Their mantra is just to piss us off. If they take away my Colbert, believe me, I am prepared to roll some heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #5)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:20 PM

17. Brava!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:46 PM

6. Does the FCC have

oversight over cable? I thought it was just broadcast channels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GP6971 (Reply #6)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:52 PM

9. He IS on a Broadcast Channel - CBS

The real question is why they let real beasts like Alex Jones, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, et al, completely alone for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leith (Reply #9)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:35 PM

20. Thanks! Didn't know that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leith (Reply #9)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:49 PM

23. He's on late night. Does that have any bearing?

Jay Leno made Monica-on-her-knees jokes every night in the 1990s. How was that not obscene but this is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #23)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:52 PM

27. Exactly, this is so fucking transparent its stunning. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ilsa (Reply #23)

Sat May 6, 2017, 12:01 AM

30. Don't Know

But it probably does. However, the words were bleeped out for broadcast so they don't have a leg to stand on there.

It all comes down to trying to make Colbert pay the price for dissing the shitgibbon. He tried to sue Bill Maher, after all. And orange boy can't help but slam back at the smallest slight, insult, or joke at his expense. Poor tender baby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:50 PM

7. They will attack Maddow for being gay.

Which doesn't work because she's not in the closet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to milestogo (Reply #7)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:22 PM

18. No, they don't like people speaking the truth; that's what Maddow does.

I bet they're watching, because dt loves tv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:50 PM

8. If Colbert was considered obscene, then WTF was tRump? Certainly no choir boy. tRump was one

gross individual!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:57 PM

11. CBS beeped over it...

the word 'cock' at least. I thought that was what the network was supposed to do to stay in compliance.

Even if they were to issue a fine, wouldn't it be to CBS, rather than Colbert? A comedian can spend an hour reflecting upon amorous relations between Trump and a Russian wolfhound but he himself cannot send it out on the public airwaves. And since the show tapes at 5PM, CBS obviously could have edited it out if they gave a rat's patootie about a conservatives backlash.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Princess Turandot (Reply #11)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:22 PM

19. With Colbert's ratings CBS won't mind paying a fine. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 09:58 PM

12. Colbert had his highest ratings ever the next night

I think the free market has spoken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:15 PM

15. I say obscene things every day about Trump an his Trumpers

I say it on Facebook, I say it to the wall, I say to the TV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:17 PM

16. I wonder if those two have body gaurds or at least people monitoring them

for their safety. I worry about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:46 PM

21. Can they do anything if it was bleeped anyway?

I mean, how many shows have been bleeped over the years??? Isn't it only actionable if it was actually broadcast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 10:48 PM

22. Unless she switches to broadcast TV, the FCC has no jurisdiction over Rachel Maddow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:18 PM

24. I knew it would only be a matter of time before he would begin cracking down on people like Colbert

and others who get under his skin.

He'll use any means at his disposal to try to suppress the free speech of people in the media who criticize him. What happens will be a test of the strength of our institutions.

He may not get anywhere this time, but I expect that he and the rest of the Rs will keep trying to nibble away at our 1st Ammendent protections. I'm not too optimistic in the long term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:21 PM

25. Nothing says fascism like control of all media...

I fucking HATE what this country has become-- everything it fought in WWII to defeat, the U.S. now embraces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VOX (Reply #25)


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Sat May 6, 2017, 12:15 AM

31. You May Find Constitutional Rights Inconvenient

Freedom of speech does not include shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but it does protect a comedian's jokes.

In case you didn't know, the First Amendment says that government cannot control freedom of speech. TV broadcasters, Facebook, and message boards are not controlled or owned by the government - at least not yet. Therefore it is entirely illegal for the government to control what may or may not be said in those media. Social media outlets are privately owned, which means that they have every right to disallow certain types of speech, just as you have the right to restrict what a person in your living room can say to your child.

You say that somebody attacked the president? Did those puffs of air leave bruises or draw actual blood? Did the words incite anyone to attempt physical harm on tRump? Oops! Am I allowed to use the term "tRump" or is that attacking the president?

The First Amendment certainly IS appropriate in the digital age. I have more concerns about the Second Amendment, written in the age of muskets, applying to our time when people of questionable sanity are allowed to own semiautomatics and hand grenades, but I've never made a move in any way to remove anyone's weapons from their possession.


Edited to add: well, that was some wasted typing. Maybe. Nice to know that I wasn't the only one to go "hhmmm."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:55 PM

28. Jam the switchboards with complaints about Trump's obscene lies on air every day to the FCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Original post)

Fri May 5, 2017, 11:58 PM

29. MSNBC isn't under the jurisdiction of the FCC

FCC only has oversight of broadcast channels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread