Slashdot Mirror


FCC Indecency Ruling Struck Down

arbitraryaardvark writes "Reuters reports that the 2nd circuit has struck down the FCC's recent ruling on indecency, in a case brought by Fox. The court said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was 'arbitrary and capricious' in setting a new standard for defining indecency. 'Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience ... If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.' No word yet on whether the agency will appeal.

29 of 548 comments (clear)

  1. So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet? by karmaflux · · Score: 5, Funny

    How exactly did the guy pronounce "f@ck"?

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

  2. Freedom of Speech? by i_ate_god · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"

    If I'm not mistaken, thats the whole idea of freedom of speech right?

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:Freedom of Speech? by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know that you must really hate the man, and I'd hate to detract from a good healthy visceral hatred, but Bush came along 65 years after the creation of the FCC. "Shit" and "fuck" have been banished from the airwaves for a very long time.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Freedom of Speech? by bhirsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where do you get your data from?

      The sweeping executive powers of FDR dwarf anything fathomed by the current administration, and don't forget the massively high (at times around 1/3) portion of the GDP that was accounted for by government spending at points in the past. Not to mention the times when the top bracket income taxes were above 70%. Are you blaming Bush for the higher government revenue realized despite lower taxes?

      If you want to bash Bush, fine. But don't do it for things that the progressive heroes of the past were far more guilty of.

      Why don't you and the other slashbots stop being such drama queens?

    3. Re:Freedom of Speech? by e4g4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a fair point - but if the FCC is mandating the V-Chip, why then are they also enforcing censorship? Frankly, I don't give a crap what's being broadcast - I have no children in my house and if I find something offensive on television (like the Fox news channel) i just change the channel. If I were concerned about scarring the minds of small children - i'd make sure the TV filtered out content labelled TV-MA. If the issue is really about "think of the children", a system is already standardized and in place to "protect" them (should their parents choose to do so) - why do we need an additional layer of "protection"?

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Freedom of Speech? by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Glad I didn't put a dent in your hatred. Or that of the 4 people who moderated you up.

      I still don't see what George Bush has to do with this discussion. You have never been able to say "Shit" or "Fuck" on the public airwaves during prime time. George Bush may not be a great president, but every discussion on Slashdot should not be viewed as an opportunity to flame him.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. The short version by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Supreme Court to FCC: "Fuck off"

    Actually, one of the most amusing parts of the ruling was the court citing the fact that the words can't be that bad if George W Bush and Dick Cheney use them (to Tony Blair and Patrick Leahy respectively).

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:The short version by xs650 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Using Bush's and Cheney's personal behavior as justification for anything is setting a dangerous president.

  4. Fleeting use... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    What he's leaving out is that the case was over the "fleeting" use of such words, such as during live events when something accidentally slips through. If a pre-recorded show has the words in there and it is deliberately broadcasted, the indecency rules still apply.

    The problem is that currently, the FCC sometimes enforces the standard of "fleeting use," and sometimes it doesn't. The courts are just saying that it needs to be standardized and rationally applied.

  5. Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet by uolamer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it would sound something like F at chik or.. fatchick?

    --
    s/©//g
  6. Parents: by Wicko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You remember that little warning at the beginning of the show? This show contains coarse language, sexual content, and violence? Yeah, that means don't let your kids watch it. That wasn't too difficult I hope!

    1. Re:Parents: by Gorm+the+DBA · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How's about parents understand that during events which are important and emotional enough to be broadcast "live", you realize that people may, maybe, just maybe, get excited and emotional enough as a result of something that their internal censors may temporarily shut off and unpleasant words may occur.

      It's called life. The only reason "Fuck" is cool to say is because it gets such a huge reaction. If it was treated like any other word, say hemmoroid perhaps, then it wouldn't be used nearly as often.

      Watch TV with your kid, or ensure it's turned off. It's called parenting, and it's been fairly effective for about 3,000,000 years. It's only been ineffective for the last 20 or so.

  7. Sticks and Stones by moehoward · · Score: 4, Insightful


    They are only words. Banning words is what gives the words power. My wife and I allow have told our kids that they are allowed to "cuss" around their friends and we don't have a problem with it. We'd like them to not cuss around us, but it is not "banned." We have asked that they not cuss around other adults, but it is not "banned." It is their own choice.

    Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are. I don't have a problem with using those words, but I choose not to (except when one-on-one with my wife... go figure). I am 100% sure that my kids have never heard me use profanity, but I am 100% sure that they hear it every day in other places. I have no problem with others using profanity at all. Sometimes it is funny, mostly it says an awful lot about the person using it. It is just words.

    Anyway, we have never heard any cussing from our kids and have never heard any comments from other parents/teachers.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Sticks and Stones by babyrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are.

      Do you also teach them not to judge a book by its cover, and how generalizations and prejudice are wrong?

    2. Re:Sticks and Stones by willow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be an idiot. What people *say* isn't an appearance (except for politicians :^)) and it seems perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions about someone's intelligence based on their speech.

      The parent is simply saying "When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate. Neither reflects well on you".

      OMFG :)

      --
      Moderation in everything, including moderation.
  8. disgraceful by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look how he describes it not as a federal court, but as a "New York court" in order to exploit the biases of the rest of the country.

  9. God forbid... by OfficialReverendStev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.

    Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)

    --
    A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
  10. Two small victories in one day. by u-bend · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today's starting off pretty well--first the RIAA gets a small smackdown, and now this. It would be nice to live in a country where parents are actually expected to make decisions for themselves about what their kids watch. As a previous poster stated, we already have the annoying warnings about the content of upcoming programs--that means that if you don't want your kids absorbing and regurgitating TV filth, then don't let them watch it.

    --
    u-bend
  11. Re:Censorship is good? by profplump · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, no, no. You're forgetting that the fleeting use of "obscenities" actually physically harms children under 12. Too much exposure and their eardrums will literally melt. And while their eardrums will eventually grow back, the buildup of melted eardrum material will cause long-term hearing loss if left untreated.

  12. Why are words bad? by Liquidrage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never understood why you can watch someone get shot in a drama in prime time, someone could say something like "I'd like to put a fork into your eyeball" in prime time, yet a single word like the F-Bomb can't be said?

    What is the actual purpose of "bad" words? Why not just consider that bad words don't exist and everyone can say any word they want and we just not "have a cow" over it?

    Seems to me we're taught to take exception to the words. It's a learned behavior. How about just not learning it in the 1st place?

  13. And the problem is... by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

    And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.

    *WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.

    ( 7, 5 and 3 year old girls )

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  14. The FCC missed the point -- as usual by Xesdeeni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey Kevin Martin! It's not that the FCC can't stop swear words from primetime TV, it's that the FCC has to define what constitutes a swear word (here's the hard part) BEFORE they can slap a fine on a TV station. You can't be intentionally vague with the definition of indecency and then come down hard (to the tune of millions of $$$) on the TV stations who have no idea where the line is drawn.

    Kevin buddy, write down what indecency is, and everyone will comply. It's a neat idea...give it a try.

    Xesdeeni

    1. Re:The FCC missed the point -- as usual by Kenrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You've just described the modus operandi of the entire government, not just the FCC. Define something vaguely, start issuing fines, and then see what sticks in the court system.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
  15. Fox a Republican lapdog... by mollog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or is it the other way around; the Republicans are Fox's bitch. Either way, you're trying to be logical about politics, you yourself are being illogical.

    Republicans are supposed to be political conservatives. Political conservatives are supposed to be against government interference in private lives. Terri Schaivo, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. show that they care more about their 'base', the social conservatives, than they care about political philosophy.

    And the fact that Fox has been leading the charge when it comes to smutty, sensationalist television, which you think would offend the religious right, and they they get a free ride from the Republican Party because they're such whores about supporting the NeoCons is just another example of the hypocritical politics we have these days. Another reason why religion and politics are a bad, but historical, combination.

    I'd love to support the Republicans (fiscal conservatives, political conservatives), but I don't dare support the whores and hypocrites in power right now.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Fox a Republican lapdog... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, conservatives are technically resistant to change (although most self identified conservatives today are also in favor of minimal government). Opposition to "gay marriage" is opposition to change...that is marriage as currently defined (one man to one woman) works, why change it? If we need something like "gay marriage" why not create something new for that purpose instead of changing an existing social practice that works (BTW what I mean by "works" is a complex topic and defining that is completely off topic in this post)? Abortion rights is a question of whose rights, the mother's or the child's? You either believe that the mother's rights trump the child's, or that it is not a child, not everyone shares that opinion. If someone believes that a fetus is a child then it is logically consistent for them to expect the government to protect its right to live. This is not necessarily a question of government interference in private lives...unless you think that laws against murder are interference in private lives. There are similar arguments about the Schiavo case. One of the problems we have in this country is that many issues are couched to make one side or the other look bad instead of about the actual disagreement. "Abortion right" is not about government interference in private lives, it is about disagreement over when life becomes subject to government protection. For example, most people who think there should be no government regulation of abortion, think the government should regulate how a parent disciplines their child.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  16. Fucking ludicrous by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 5, Funny
    A quote from the AP story...

    The new policy was put in place after a January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show by NBC when U2 lead singer Bono said an expletive before the word "brilliant." The FCC said the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can trigger enforcement.

    ...

    In a statement, Martin said: "It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word `f---' does not invoke a sexual connotation."

    http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6063897

    So he thinks that every form of the versatile word "fuck" is inherently sexual. I keep wondering, is he fucking serious? That's a fucking ridiculous stance to take! If he is in charge of censoring our airwaves, things have gotten pretty fucked up.
  17. Re:Censorship is good? by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That idea works GREAT with a 4 year old.

    If your kid isn't old enough to ignore stupid stuff they see on TV, they should not be watching it without your active supervision PERIOD. You people are fixating on lame stuff like adults swearing and ignoring the more insidious things that MORONS like Valenti wouldn't even catch. The gross stuff is actually easy to deal with. It's the subtle stuff and trivialized misbehaivor of minors (often considered cute rather than dangerosu) that you have to watch out for.

    Fuck is not a problem. Disney Children's movies with the main character casually committing felonies with no apparent consequences are a problem.

    This isn't about children. This is about uptight old crones that will have a conniption fit if you violate their sheltered puritanical outlook on life.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  18. Re:But Wait... by kalirion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simpsons, Family Guy and even South Park may be full of dirty jokes, but their "moral of the story" is almost always in favour of the conversative American Way, often injecting principles in such a straightforward manner as could only be applied to stereotypical idealised lives.

    Gay tolerance, making fun of Christianity, making fun of immigration laws - yup, that has "GOP" written all over it.

  19. The Republican party isn't conservative. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that the Republican party, as of the last decade or so, isn't precisely conservative at all. The Republicans have abandoned just about every "conservative" value or position, including small government (or at least opposing its increase), states' rights, individual freedoms, etc. (About the only thing an actual 'conservative' and a modern Republican would agree on is their stance on gun control.)

    They are no longer, and haven't been for some time, "conservative." In fact they seem to want to change quite a lot. They're probably best described as 'authoritarian,' particularly on the social side. And IMO, "social conservatives" aren't conservatives at all; the title is a complete misnomer. They're not trying to prevent some sort of drastic change to the social fabric, they're trying to induce a drastic change. They are, by many objective definitions, actually quite radical. (Of course, they tend not to think so -- they prefer to think of themselves as trying to take the country back to some 1950s idyll that never existed outside their own imaginations.)

    The actual conservative wing of the Republican party died with Barry Goldwater; what remains has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with pushing a transformative agenda. It's just a different transformative agenda than what the more far-left elements of the Democratic party want.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."