Slashdot Mirror
Senate Committee Passes FCC Indecency Bill
An anonymous reader writes "US Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for slip of the tongue expletives, negating a ruling by federal appeals court in New York that commission's policy on 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious. 'A mandate by Congress that a "fleeting expletive" can now be found indecent will create a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech, the advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology claims. CDT points out that prior to this bill and the FCC's policy change, the FCC exercised discretion in determining which utterances were indecent, and consistently found that one-time uses of curse words were not indecent.'"
It should be noted, for the social-studies-ignorant, that this is not the passage of a bill into a law, just the passage of a bill through a committee, one of many hurdles a bill must go through. Of course, the committee is often the hardest hurdle to overcome, but there are many chances to defeat this bill. It must still pass the full Senate and, assuming the bill has not already gone though the House, must go through all the same hurdles in the House. I suggest that now is the time to voice your concern about the bill to your elected officials.
You're joking, but because of this law there's literally no way for radio news station to report what Dick Cheney said to Sen. Patrick Leathy on a Senate Floor.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Actually, broadcasters have significantly reduced First Amendment rights, and have for decades. In fact, the recent trend has been for them to enjoy more First Amendment protection.
Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.
And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.
--AC
Add this to:
- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents on college campuses
Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).