Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court to Hear FCC Indecency Case
MachineShedFred writes "The Supreme Court of the United States has announced that it will be hearing the FCC's appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the FCC has changed its policy on fleeting expletives without adequate explanation. It's now on the FCC to explain to the Supreme Court why its policy has changed. This is also the first time the Supreme Court has heard a major 'broadcast indecency' case in 30 years."
And I'm offended by those that use obscenities; I find it a poor substitution for a good vocabulary and a sign that the utterer means to pander to bad word choices. I'll be modded flamebait, oddly.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
If the most intelligent thing you can find to say to back up your claims that we should abandon the government is to use inflammatory speech that awakens my lizard brain and gets it all fired up, then your message doesn't deserve to be broadcast.
There is a difference between censoring things because of the things they say and censoring things because they make you feel a certain way without really saying anything.
Psychologists help advertisers do the same thing that swearing does. They help them make us feel things about something without telling us anything concrete. It's wrong. It's psychological warfare. They should be working to make sure it DOESN'T happen, not making a buck in the private sector with the skills that are no longer in demand like they were during the cold war.
There needs to be more censorship. A lot more. Swearing is just the obvious example, low hanging fruit that anyone can understand, assuming that they haven't already decided they don't want to.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
There are a lot of flaws in what you said. Some nudity is a form of pornography. Depends on context. We can all agree, for example, I hope, that nudity in marriage is private and not pornographic. Or perhaps in other non-marriage private relationships. Exposing a child to an unclothed human body (of an adult) is horrible parenting and can certainly be psychogically damaging. Why do I say this? Because, it removes any possibility of that child making their own personal choices once they become an adult and old enough to make their own choices. For example, if a female child becomes an adult woman and makes the most basic, fundamental choice that she wants to marry a man and for him to be the first man that she has any intimate sexual kind of knowledge of, that choice has been taken away from her if she has already as a child been exposed to the same kind of sexuality. None of us, including her parents, can make that choice for her or preclude her choices as an individual. The psychological harm therefore often results from both the loss of sexual innocence, and loss of choice and control in their own lives. I know. As a juvenile court judge for over 14 years, I had many cases in which teenage and younger children suffered verifiable diagnosed pyschological damage from things like live in boyfriends just walking around in front of them naked, etc. These are just examples. Pornography is not limited to acts - there is no such narrow minded definition of pornography. The problem is not with American society. The bigger problem is wiht those persons and societies that do not make the above basic distinctions or allow for freedom of choice of the individual for themself, and instead try to dictate their views on others.