Bush’s shit

Let’s just note that broadcast networks had to censor the President himself because if they’d let his slipped “shit” onto the air, each station and network could have been fined $325,000 under the new “indecency” legislation Bush himself just signed. He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster.

  • Old Grouch

    Just too bad somebody hasn’t had the guts to “publish and be d*mned” by running the thing uncut, and then take any fine to court. The trial would have been a hoot.

  • http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/ CaptiousNut

    Was that microphone broadcasting live?

    How many “ifs” can one throw out and still have a point?

  • http://www.rogelsview.com Rogel

    By the way foreign news organizations broadcast this with great pleasure

  • http://www.filmbuffonline.com Rich Drees

    Comedy Central aired the clip uncensored on The Daily Show but then bleeped Jon Stewart when he said it. What a mixed up world….

  • Thedude

    I wish they would bleep “Yo Blair” and the Presidents chewing sounds. Both way more offensive.

  • http://www.bizmord.com/Blog Igor M. (Bizmord Marketing Blog)

    Why is this such a big deal? So he said “Shit”. So what? He did not use this language when addressing the nation nor was he giving a speech to people in a different country. He was speaking “privately” with another person. Just drop it.

  • Pingback: Damien Mulley » Blog Archive » Nicely said Jeff

  • http://www.whyweworry.com Clint

    This whole thing is absurd. It’s simply a matter of the US media trying to make a story where there isn’t one. I for one think it humanizes an otherwise terrible President.

  • Hypocrities

    So here’s a great way for the White House to eliminate leaks… just declare all government secrets to be obscenities! You can’t publish or distribute “obscene” material, right? And who makes that determination? THE GOVERNMENT DOES!

  • http://www.footballfansfortruth.us Cal

    “He’s lucky the version that came to his desk no longer included similar fines for the speaker, not just the broadcaster. ”

    Oh, the drama. Oh, the humanity. Oh, nonsense.

    Bush wasn’t swearing “on tv”. He was swearing in private conversation that broadcasters filmed and then decided–without his consent–to put on the air.

    So if the original version of the law would have resulted in Bush being signed, then the networks would have had a nice new revenue stream. All they’d have to do is capture people swearing on film and blackmail them for funds just under the fine amount. Well, blackmail the wealthy. For movie stars and public offiicials, the payment could be a made for TV movie or a lengthy exclusive interview. Just think of the opportunity for a new form of papparazi. It would clean up more than the airwaves–it would clean up all public and most private discourse! Who could risk swearing, given the fear that a camcorder might be nearby?

    Or–and this is just a thought–perhaps the original version of the law fined the speaker based on awareness and consent. If not, then there was a lot more to get worked up about than Bush saying “shit” on the air.

  • http://michaelflessas.blogspot.com Michael Flessas

    Whatever happened to freedom of speech including the right to say an expletive?

  • http://www.alanrhodes.com protogenes

    How do you Americans take yourselves seriously?

  • Pingback: Antitrust Review » Blawg Review #67

  • Falstaff

    I wonder what the drafters of S193 – the ominous “Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act” – think in light of what transpired on the world’s airwaves last week…?

    TV Watch has common sense answers for the indecency debate’s questions. Check it out today – at http://www.televisionwatch.org.