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."

Comments

I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for us all when I say "About fucking time!"

Where does it stop?

[Ethanol-fueled]

How blatantly arbitrary and unfair. Why is the FCC flipping out over "fck" on the radio after this went unpunished!

On a related note( possibly straying offtopic) this was a big issue in L.A. and elsewhere across the US with Spanish-language radio stations that were getting away with their equivalent of uncensored Howard Stern. How will the FCC go after them? What about Korean radio curses? When does it end? Hopefully the FCC will be so swamped with complaints that they'll be unable to investigate them all, and then they'll quit being our mommy and focus their efforts towards the future of spectral management.

Re:Where does it stop?

[cpt kangarooski]

It's discourse that starts with, we don't say things that offend each other.

Indeed. But in modern American society, most people, in casual conversation amongst equals, do not take offense at mere profanity which is not uttered with the intent to offend. To compare this with modems, there is a kind of handshaking that goes on in which people beginning to converse with one another work out what is mutually acceptable. The thing is, you're talking about an old protocol in which profanity is not used until both sides are clearly comfortable with it, and I'm pointing out that the new protocol is one in which profanity often is used on the rebuttable assumption that both sides are comfortable with it already.

On the public airwaves, we don't have the opportunity to weigh idiom. Therefore a denominator that eschews initial offense and considers sensibilities is in order.

No.

On the public airwaves there is no conversation at all; the broadcaster speaks, and we either listen or don't. You want him to speak to the lowest common denominator, and offer us pablum. Furthermore, you intend to force the broadcaster to do so or else to muzzle him altogether! Censorship is never in keeping with our values as a society or a polity. Free speech for all is one of our most cherished and central values. And we deliberately protect not merely the inoffensive nothings you like and which no one objects to, because they don't need protecting anyway, but the offensive speech that no one likes at all, but which nevertheless is essential.

Let the broadcaster speak whatever he likes. It may have wide appeal, or it may offend everyone. The audience may choose to listen, or may choose not to.

To do otherwise, to follow your proposal -- that is the most deeply offensive, senseless thing of all.

I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to.

So you're Humpty Dumpty now?

I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to. People will use the word 'fuck' to do the same thing. In my case, it has nothing to do with a euphemism regarding the sex act. Why the sex act must be used to banally emphasis is only part of that word-- it's a negative exclamatory. Bad word. Conveys negative meaning at best. There are better choices.

No. You've disproven your own argument, I think. If the word is of arbitrary meaning, and you don't object to the meaning, and if the word isn't used in reference to sex, then all you're left to object to is a mere sound: fk. You cannot credibly say that the sound itself, regardless of meaning, is offensive enough for anyone to take notice or care. And there's nothing even slightly wrong in English with negative exclamatory words or sentences. It's not even as bad a split infinitive, and those aren't actually bad either.

I'm optimistic.

[Toonol]

I think it's very likely that the FCC will lose on this one. The first amendment is one of the few areas that can often bring both sides of the court together, and one of the few rights that may be even stronger today than it was decades back.

My bet is that, while the basic principle that the FCC can regulate public airwaves won't be challenged, the court will chastise them for inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement and their unclear guidelines.

Need to replace the FCC

[Thaelon]

What we first need to do is change the FCC so that it's not headed by appointed officials, but rather by elected representatives.

The FCC's power has grown far beyond it's original intention (regulating airwaves frequencies in the U.S.). Apparently they only do things in response to complaints. Or at least that's how it once was. But the really fucked up thing is 99% of complaints come from one organization.

So essentially this one single organization is responsible for most of the - detrimental in my opinion - changes to what is allowed to be broadcast or not.

It's not the popular decision. People just think it is because this one fucked up organization has such broad powers and people just assume that it's the popular opinion. It is not.

The organization responsible for all this? The Parent's Television Council. The sick thing is they're proud to be the nation's most influential advocacy organization yet have barely a million members. That's right one million uptight fucks are responsible for 99.8-99.9% of all FCC regulation that affects 303 million people.

And the FCC allows it.

To other countries: The US is not up tight! Most of us love a good nipple on TV. It's this one organization that has been acting via the screwed up joke that is our FCC that has watered down our TV, not popular opinion.

Bad words

[tepples]

What I want to know is why are ANY words considered profane or obscene to begin with, as if no one was unconfortable with these words they would simply not be used for shock effect nor expression the way they are now. English swear words tend to fall into three conceptual categories that westerners treat as serious business for more-or-less understandable reasons.

• Intercourse (blowjob, cock, cooter, cum, cunt, dick, dong, fuck, jizz, pussy, screw). This brings VD and extra mouths to feed.
• Elimination of waste material from the body (ass, fart, peter, piss, shit, turd). These spread disease.
• Religion (damn, god, hell). Names referring to spirits considered good are said to cheapen the name; names referring to spirits considered evil are said to make them more powerful.

Restrictions apply much less strictly to words in Childish (e.g. call the stork, poop, wee, etc.) because children have to have some name for their own parts and functions. They also apply less strictly to words in Medicalese (e.g. feces, flatulence, intercourse, penis, urine, vagina) which symbolize intent to apply a serious tone to the discussion of serious business.