Emmy Awards: Sally Field Censored; Sopranos Wins Best Series

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:24:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yes! The Sopranos gets its due and wins the Emmy for Best Drama Series.

But what was up with the censors? They were way too fast on the trigger. Sally Field did not deserve to get censored. Here's the video [Via Think Progress.]

After giving a tribute to the mothers of soldiers in harm's way, she said "If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be any god -" [cut]. The sentence uncensored: "If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn't be god-damned wars in the first place."

Congrats also to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show for winning the award for Best Variety, Music or Comedy Series and Al Gore, whose Current TV won an award for Creative Achievement in Interactive TV.

Overall, though tonight's Emmy Awards were terrible.

More...

The theatre in the round was an awful idea. So was the lack of a set. There was just a bare platform with microphones.

I did like the cast of the Broadway musical Jersey Boys performing a Four Seasons musical tribute to the Sopranos. The entire cast of the Sopranos followed them onstage to a huge standing ovation. I'm so going to miss that show. Best television ever.

And, by the way, how did James Spader win best actor over James Gandolfini?

Update: Soprano's David Chase acceptance comments: bq. "In essence, this is a story about a gangster," and gangsters are out there taking their kids to school, working to put food on the table.... "If the world and this nation were run by gangsters, maybe it is."

< OJ Simpson Held Without Bond | Hillary Unveils New Health Care Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Emmy Awards: Sally Field Censored; Sopranos Wins Best Series | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

What About the Rest of the Phrase? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by john horse on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 06:01:26 AM EST

Fox didn't just censor a word but a whole phrase. So why did Fox censor "wars in the first place"? Does Fox consider being anti-war to be blasphemy?

Fox cut out (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Al on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:24:30 PM EST

the entire phrase, not just a single word. The profanity excuse won't fly.

It's Just That (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:53:40 PM EST

She was a nun on TV and nuns are not allowed to say god damn. Nothing to do with the war or politics.

woopsie.... (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 12:30:59 PM EST

The evil censor from Fox shut down an anti-war comment... that's bad...

ABC won't release a very unflattering docudrama of Clinton in DVD format and that's good.

Please... my head is spinning.

Oh... Me? I would cut both of'em free, though I don't believe profanity should be on TV and that the docudrama is especially accurate, just as I said about F911 and the Gitmo one...

Profanity evolves..... (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:13:20 PM EST

I think we can safely bring "god damn" out of the profane and into common jargon.

Part of what makes network tv unwatchable is that the characters are not realistic...they don't speak like we do. We the people say "god damnit" god damnit:)

[ Parent ]

unflattering docudrama? = anti-war comment? (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:54:28 AM EST

Sorry, ppj.

Only in your upside down, inside out, backwards, rectally inverted bizarro world do outright lies from ABC's "docudrama" (heh) equate with Sally Field being vocally opposed to attacks on countries that were and could be no threat.

But nice try. Well... actually... no. Not even a nice troll... I mean try.

[ Parent ]

edger's idea of free speech (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:23:09 PM EST

Maybe you missed the part about me letting them both through..??

No? You're for censorship, right?

No? Okay. Your for free speech right?

Yes and no.

Oh. Only free speech for those who agree with you.

That's what I thought.

First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST
Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

[ Parent ]

Censorship? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:57:44 PM EST

The only censorship you're experiencing ppj, is self-censorship - another term for willful blindness.

Maybe you just missed this part on purpose? It's all a conspiracy:

...no other examples of craziness and propaganda should be censored and the same reason that wingnut trolls should not be banned.
People would forget how to recognize craziness and propaganda too soon, without examples.

Censoring people who are intentionally crazy is pointless, but... do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them that way.

Any other questions today?

That's what I thought...

[ Parent ]

Still don't get it,eh?? (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:17:47 PM EST

We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them that way.

That's censorship. The fact that you can understand that shows how far you have drifted.

[ Parent ]

: Grrrrr (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:18:54 PM EST

CAN'T understand that...

[ Parent ]

God-damn (none / 0) (#1)
by DA in LA on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 11:56:57 PM EST

is a big time no no on television. I'm a TV writer and that is one of the worst, according to standards and practices. (I hate them)

It's Legal Though (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:04 AM EST

Technically, Field's censored words are not profane. A 2004 FCC ruling specifically stated no objection to the use of "god damn" on TV when making a judgment on the uproar over Bono swearing at the Golden Globes in 2003 where he used more colorful language.
See the FCC ruling HERE.

think progress

[ Parent ]

: Right, but (none / 0) (#18)
by DA in LA on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:01:47 PM EST

that has little to do with the individual networks agenda. Fox is currently attempting to clean up it's act and create a more family friendly atmosphere. Hence the no "god damn'
Also, this has nothing to do with what the FCC will or will not allow. It is about Fox not wanting a deluge of complaints from viewers across the country.

[ Parent ]

The Emmys were on?? (none / 0) (#2)
by LibraryLady on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:01:17 AM EST

I watch so little network television anymore that I didn't know or care.

The censoring of the GD word is standard and not allowed on any regular channels. I am not surprised by this.

Katherine Heigl was allowed (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:08:27 AM EST

to use "hell" and "as*" (as in I worked my as* off) but goddam isn't allowed? I don't get it.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah (none / 0) (#8)
by DA in LA on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:19:11 AM EST

try working with standards and practices on a daily basis. Nothing makes sense.
But God-damn is considered to be blasphemy, so it makes sense.

[ Parent ]

Sally Fields - god dammit (none / 0) (#4)
by maddmom on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:10:13 AM EST

I have never been on this site... pretty cool site. Anyway, just wanted to read (hear) what Sally Fields said on Emmys... wow, I thought it was going to be soooooo controversial... it's insane that would be censored!

Ironically, on this site (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:12:24 AM EST

asterisks are required!

[ Parent ]

Sally Fields - god dammit (none / 0) (#6)
by maddmom on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:26:36 AM EST

I sure hope THAT is a joke.... otherwise... I definitely found the WRONG site to be on

[ Parent ]

See: (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 01:30:11 AM EST

Comment Policy

[ Parent ]

Comment policy (none / 0) (#10)
by RustedView on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 10:14:15 AM EST

Not to get into a debate on this, but I recall, the reason for the shunning of cursing in comments was two-fold. Generally speaking it didn't add anything to debates. More importantly, prolific cursing causes censors such as NetNanny and to flag a site for exclusion. In order to ensure that the ideas on this site can make it to all people, regardless of whether they have a free and open connection, or are censored by NetNanny or the other software used at public libraries or workplaces.

[ Parent ]

Profanity is prmarily excluded because (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:49:18 AM EST

of censor software programs at law firms. They block sites with profanity. It happened to TalkLeft once because of a comment. I got dozens of emails from lawyers around the country saying their access to TalkLeft was blocked at work. It took me three days to track down the censor program makers and get them to reverse it. I'm not going through that again.

A secondary reason is to maintain the level of discourse on the site. Goddamit and hell are not profanity. While neither is the word "as*", it gets picked up by filters which don't distinguish between its descriptive use and its use as a noun in s*x overtures.

Hope that's clear. Comments with words filters pick up as objectionable will be deleted as I cannot edit, only delete comments.

[ Parent ]

Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by glanton on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 01:10:34 PM EST

Is there a list somewhere of what words the filters track and which ones they don't? I ask because I would have thought the use of "godamnit" on this site would need asterisks to keep from triggering the filters.

[ Parent ]

: Anyone running filter software on their networks (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:37 PM EST

can define their own list of "filtered" words or phrases.

[ Parent ]

Are we banning religious speech now? (none / 0) (#16)
by William Ockham on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 02:44:55 PM EST

The phrase "God-damned wars" is a profoundly theological statement that should be debated openly, not censored. It disturbs me that one of my most cherished religious beliefs is deemed unacceptable for public discussion.

Emmy Awards or Political Forum? (none / 0) (#19)
by GreedRulestheWorld on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:41:54 AM EST

As long as Fox would also censor opposing comments then they are justified in censoring Sally's. This was the Emmy Awards broadcast! Those who tuned-in should expect to see who won and what they had to say about their experience with their show. If EVERY winner made a political statement Fox would end up with ratings similar to a broadcast of the President's speaches.

Corporate greed rules the airwaves. Consider the alternative; THIS, the Internet. Never before has there been such a powerful tool availabe to virtually anyone to influence the world. So, Sally, speak your mind here and anyone interested in hearing your political views can tune-in and hear them uncensored.