Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Rule On TV Censorship
Khashishi writes "The LA times and the Associated Press report that the FCC v. Fox Television Stations case is being heard in the Supreme Court. The FCC policy would impose a heavy fine on use of 'indecent' words on broadcast television, which Fox and others are claiming is a violation of free speech. The case was appealed after being ruled in Fox's favor in a federal appeals court in New York. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia support the FCC policy of censorship." Here's a transcript (PDF) of the oral arguments.
Just what kind of topsy-turvy world is this new Obama era producing?!?!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice!
I liked my submission's headline more. :(
Ginsberg said that there is an elephant in the room: The First Ammendment.
As I read it, I see another one:
Potential Harmful impact? Ok... PROVE HARM.
Thats all, prove harm. Even prove potential for harm. Whats the scope of this supposed "harm"? How does this "harm" happen? How do we even know its real?
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits
That it's Fox Television actually pushing this, being the most one-sided national news network in this nation.
I remember listening to an interview with an artist who had been commissioned to create a monument to free speech. This is what he came up with: A giant outdoor blackboard. Free chalk and erasers provided.
In response to the question "Won't people write obscenities? Draw porn? Offend people?", he said "Of course they will. And that's part of what free speech does."
I am officially gone from
In the 80's, the Rhenquist Court time and time again decided that federal agencies did not have the power to create meaningful rules (i.e. agency rules and agency "law" could not carry the weight of, never mind trump, Federal law).
That was the "true" Conservative position. Funny how we've come full circle, deciding that now a federal agency is free to engage in prior restraint. Instead of, you know, just doing what they're supposed to do, which is to make sure people are using the right frequencies that they're supposed to use.
Since really the way things work it should be "Justice Kennedy to rule on TV censorship"
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
How?
The first amendment seems pretty clear that congress can't make any laws restricting speech, so how could it make a law delegating authority on speech either?
The FCC should ONLY be responsible for regulating who can use specific airwaves, not what can be sent over the airwaves. (And ideally the "who can use the airwaves" would be based on highest bidder to prevent any "you allow 'shit' and 'fuck' to be used on your program, you can't renew your license")
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Roberts is W's appointment, and Scalia is insane.
I guess the Cowboy And Taco Show will have to be moved to late-night?
"Think of the children."
Precisely how does the use of expletives ever harm children? Arguments against sex and violence do hold a small amount of water. After all, many people who watch scenes of sex will feel various biological cues to engage in it. There are links between sex on TV and teen pregnancy. Of course, given the existence of the internet and cable television, access to contraceptives would probably be a more effective strategy to prevent teen pregnancy...
The same, to a less extent, with violence. The reason television violence is not as harmful is that it is difficult for the 'children' watching it to actually engage in violence, even if watching it on TV makes them want to. While almost anyone can have sex, assuming they find a partner, it takes training and practice to hit someone and cause real damage. Firearms are usually not just lying around, either, and also take practice before they can be used effectively.
So there isn't a neurological pattern in your brain that lets a person go from the couch to doing whatever violence that person sees on TV.
But course language? It never was the word that was offensive, it was the meaning...and there are plenty of messages to get the meaning out without using the words.
Heck, the F word is so over-used that it really isn't that offensive. "We fucked" can mean "we had sex in a lustful, vigorous manner". "fuck you, I'm quitting" can mean "this job does not compensate me at what I consider market value for my services, good day sir".
The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them. "The reason these words shock is because of their association with a literal meaning," Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting his support for the policy
Then why are we allowed to say copulation and feces on TV?
Thanks to mandating the V-Chip in every television set and tuner over 10 years ago there really isn't any excuse that people can receive "offensive" or "inappropriate" content. Parents and those who agree to tap into the airwaves (people who buy the TV) have to configure it: plain and simple. I mean, we trust them to configure their equipment already to tune to specific channels, right?
More Twoson than Cupertino
I assume the "saveusobama" tag is a joke, since that's referring to the guy who's about to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
Why not do what everybody else does? If it's on at a time when kids are likely to be watching, take it easy on the profanity. If it's on later, when kids should be in bed anyway, don't worry about it.
This works fine in other countries. Why doesn't the U.S. do it?
...laura
they can say whatever they want, just do it in a different medium.
These are public airwaves, and the public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used. Saying you can't broadcast porno over the public airwaves doesn't limit free speech, it just means you have to find somewhere else to do it.
Limiting what content licensed broadcasters can send over the public airwaves is no more censorship than the fact that I'm not allowed to broadcast my speech on any frequency I want.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The Bible says that it's your own responsibility to avoid temptation (2 Timothy 2:22). It doesn't tell you to lobby Congress to legislate away your temptations, it says to flee all lusts and temptations.
God's big into that "personal responsibility" thing that's out of fashion these days.
This case is largely about "incidental profanity" such as what comes out of the mouths of celebrities at awards shows or miked athletes in a football game. The networks have no way of preventing these sorts of occasional, often one-time outbursts from occurring. Blocking all live broadcasts with a V-chip or any other method is not a very practical solution.
Freakin' FCC was sung by Peter, Brian, and Stewie in FG417 "PTV":
Peter: They will clean up all your talking in a manner such as this
Brian: They will make you take a tinkle when you want to take a piss
Stewie: And they'll make you call fellatio a trouser-friendly kiss
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: It's the plain situation! There's no negotiation!
Peter: With the fellows at the freakin FCC!
Brian: They're as stuffy as the stuffiest of the special interest groups...
Peter: Make a joke about your bowels and they order in the troops
Stewie: Any baby with a brain could tell them everybody poops!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: Take a tip, take a lesson! You'll never win by messin'
Peter: With the fellas at the freakin' FCC And if you find yourself with some young sexy thing
You're gonna have to do her with your ding-a-ling, Cause you can't say penis!
So they sent this little warning they're prepared to do their worst
Brian: And they stuck it in your mailbox hoping you could be coerced
Stewie: I can think of quite another place they should have stuck it first!
Peter, Brian, & Stewie: They may just be neurotic Or possibly psychotic They're the fellas at the freakin FCC!
Scalia, who happens to be one of my favorite SCOTUS justices, is very reliable to uphold the originalist meaning of the Constitution. That is, unless he doesn't like the behavior that the law criminalizes.
See Gonzales v. Raich for a specific case where he throws his philosophy out the window because he doesn't like the idea of people getting high.
1. The entertainment and news divisions are run an operated separately, as they should be.
or
2. People that believe in social and/or financial conservativism (like me) can also appreciate off color humor (I own every season of Family Guy that's available on DVD).
or
3. Fox news and Fox entertainment division cater to different markets that they thought were being under served by their competitors
or
4. Some combination of the above 3.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
I'm pretty sure there are about 100 ways to prevent your kids from watching shows that are rated for language or whatever. What I want is a way to ban commercials for my kids without having to completely turn off the TV. Commercials are WAY more dangerous since they are about real life things that you can buy or do. Drugs, alcohol, sex, self-loathing, junk food... on a TV show is bad enough... but on a commercial that advertises crap you can get at the local fix Dr.'s office or buy at a convenience store is a whole different ballgame. Fuck all these drug advertisements on TV too... who needs that crap on TV? Go to a fucking M.D. or stop smoking if you are sick.
Besides, I don't want my kids nagging me about lame toys. Whatever happened to the cool violent toys of yesteryear? As much as I appreciate cartoons, I'm sick of all the ultra-cutsie stuff.
1. Fox believes in freedom of speach and is fighting to up hold it for the Moral and "Small Government" resons that seem so important to most conservatives
or
2. They are fighting to cut down on the overhead associated with getting everything approved by the FCC for purely financial and organizational reasons
or
3. They think that it is ok in principle for the FCC to censor TV in certain situations, but that the FCC is being Capricious and they need the clarity that can be brought by adjudication via the highest court in the land
or
4. some combination of the above.
If I had a penny for every time someone who didn't even watch Fox news made some derogitory comment about it's supposed bias I'd be richer than Bill Gates. If I got another penny for each attempt by those people to justify their belief by using a partisan reference to back it up I'd have enough money to pay of the National Debt.
If you've watched Fox News and don't like it, then don't watch it. I don't care for most of the personalities on Fox, but I also don't care for most of the personalities on CNN or MSNBC. I think most major news anchors are, for the most part, a bunch of pompus tools that aren't worth listeninging to no matter which station they are on.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Ok, you claim that the airwaves are "public" and that means that censorship there is ok?
I would say the opposite is true:
Since they ARE public airwaves, censorship there shouldn't be tolerated at all. Would public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used being applied to a public place also be acceptable?
What the fuck? That IS ABSOLUTELY censorship. You are LIMITING what they can say. THAT IS CENSORSHIP.
It is just censorship that you agree with.
Free speech means that I can say whatever the fuck I want to, with no restrictions. Add restrictions, and you no longer have free speech.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
There has been laws similar to these since the founding of our country. The prima facie case is against the 1st amendment being intended to prevent anti-profanity laws.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Rather than limit our fundamental constitutional rights, how about people get off their asses and pay some attention to their kids?
NEWS FLASH, your kids are going to discover "dirty" words. There is no way you can prevent it minus homeschooling, not allowing them unsupervised contact with other human beings for their entire lives, and keeping them away from the public library (To kill a mocking bird and all those other filthy Pulitzer winning books ya'know). Since there is no conscionable way to prevent your children from learning "dirty" words, how about teaching them that there are some words people find offensive, and that in many social contexts they are not acceptable and that you would prefer if they did not say them. If you are truly concerned with the language of your children that is a far more effective method of preventing them from swearing than trying to hide an elephant with a tea towel.
Screw rationality, cause that would actually require some parenting, lets trade in our first amendment rights instead!
Ya know what, I'm hardly a prude and I can swear enough to make a marine blush, but there are such things as class and couth. If one feels it's acceptable to resort to crude language because they think it's cool or they're being edgy or rebelling against the man, they are sadly mistaken.
Here's a recent cell phone call I was forced to overhear through my bedroom window at around 2:30 in the morning:
"Where the fuck are you? What? Fucking, what are you saying? I can't fucking hear you! No, I didn't say that fucker. Fuck off!"
That just oozes class and civility and yet, I'm sure this woman (in the loosest sense) wondered why she is continually treated like crap by whoever it was on the other end of the conversation.
It's about appropriateness. I'm sure Diddly Squat thought he was pushing the envelope when he was on stage and had the opportunity to impress upon the youngins in the crowd and in tv land, his mastery of language and how undeniably on the cusp of everything he is, but guess what. The shin biter from the ghetto hears him say it during some pathetic awards ceremony and the next day, there he is, talking to his teacher or the cab driver or someone telling them what a bunch of fucking idiots they are. This same person will then later complain that they aren't given any respect and because they're not white, it's the man wantin to keep him down.
While hardly a classic movie, "Kate and Leopold" has what, to me at least, is a memorable line which pretty much sums up why one need not resort to cursing or swearing simply for the sake of doing so:
"Some feel that to court a woman in one's employ is nothing more than a serpentine effort to transform a lady into a whore."
People complain about how annoying everyone but themselves are yet fail to realize they create their own environment.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Your shangri la is full of suppositions that have no relationship with human nature.
First and foremost, government rules and regs are a reflection of the values held by the nation. American history is full of government initiated sideways excursions into moralistic hubris.
Your sorry notion of 'highest bidder' somehow solving any problem is also deeply problematic. One of many problems with 'highest bidder' models in government is that it doesn't translate into anything useful for the citizens.
Maybe you are not old enough to remember when government's role was to provide services, not maximize "profit centers" like the Patent Office?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Don't Taze Me!
Two of them, anyway. From the article (emphasis mine):
GENERAL GARRE: It can be -- it certainly can be used in a non-literal way. It can be used in a metaphorical way, as Cher used it here, to say "F them" to her critics. But the -- the non-literal/literal distinction is not unique to the isolated expletives versus the repeated effort -- expletives.
JUSTICE STEVENS: You think it's equally --it's equally subject to being treated as indecent within the meaning of the statute regardless of which meaning was actually apparent to everybody who listened to it?
GENERAL GARRE: I wouldn't say equally, Justice Stevens, but what we would say is that it can qualify as indecent under the -- under the Commission's definition, because even the non-literal use of a word like the F-Word, because of the core meaning of that word as one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit words for sexual activity in the English language, it inevitably conjures up a core sexual image.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Which is, indeed, why it's used.
GENERAL GARRE: Which is, indeed, why it's used as an intensifier or as an insult
So who read the title of this posting and endured a "sexual image" of the Supreme Court justices? Anyone?
It's a bit worrying that they're ruling on language which some of them don't understand.
The whole idea behind FCC's censorship is to prevent upsetting somebody, what they don't understand is that we CHOOSE our feelings. When somebody says something upsetting, it is each one of us who CHOOSE to feel upset.
I found ridiculous that laws get written because a group of people decided to feel upset about something.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
In this country any piece of crap legislation can become law regardless of its constitutionality. The only way to overturn an unconstitutional law is to expend years and millions in court of appeals until the Supreme Court give you the rare honor of a hearing and rules it unconstitutional.
Some countries have procedures to pass a law that includes a check for compliance with the constitution. No legislation becomes law until this organism clears it. One example is the Constitutional Tribunal defined in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Since the airwaves are public you feel that any member of the public should be able to do anything he/she wants with them? There is an awful lot of public land ... do you think any member of the public (including those forming Exxon) should be allowed to clear-cut the trees on those public lands and strip mine the coal out of those public lands? If you place restrictions on access to or use of those trees, coal or land over the coal, you no longer have freedom of action. Right? Well, yes; and that's OK because freedom of action and freedom of speech are not absolutely unlimited rights even within the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Duh. The airwaves are a limited public resource (if you don't believe their "limited", go read about the chaos and near-unusability of the airwaves that existed back before the FCC regulated them) and like any public resource the government should be doing what it needs to (e.g. regulation) to ensure that the public resource is being used to produce as much total benefit for its society as the resource can offer. Sometimes that manifests as contributing airwave resources to primarily-educational broadcasters (PBS), sometimes it manifests as use-restrictions that ensure fair access for "all" candidates to the airwaves and sometimes (arguably) it manifests as use-restrictions that allow the airwaves' content to be relied upon as baby-sitters during times of the day when that would be most-useful. Perhaps you're unaware, but a broadcaster can "lose" (fail to receive renewal of) their license if the FCC decides the broadcaster has not been benefitting the public enough even if everything they broadcasted met the FCC rules at the moment they brodcast it.
Ensuring best use of a limited public resource (or, to put it in geek-speak terms you're more likely to claim support for, "preventing tragedy of the commons") is a good thing. On the other hand, when you speak in public the only limited public resource you're generally using is the space you're standing in so there's no justification for the government controlling what you say (sadly this does mean that they have some interest in where you stand when you say it).
An intelligent argument against the FCC's censorship rules would have centered on whether such censorship serves the public good. In our current society it would be impossible to win an argument claiming that zero restrictions on content sent over licensed airwave serves the public good better, but there is a lot to be said for the claim that there is no noticeable public benefit from the absolute prohibition of certain words/images which might be heard/seen in a a majority of today's public places during those same times of day.
Conservative Supreme Court judges want to uphold an FCC crackdown on the use of salty language during daytime and early evening hours.
U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Goatse said the strict regulation of broadcast TV preserved it as a "safety zone" for families with children. "They'll never hear the foul shit they'd hear on the Internet, on cable or, God fucking perish, the schoolyard."
The Federal Communication Commission imposes heavy fines on broadcasters who broadcast any of "shit," "piss", "fuck," "cunt," "cocksucker," "motherfucker" or "tits," though saying them in sequence functions as a First Amendment "cheat code" and is allowed as artistic expression. Broadcasters can be fined more than $325,000 for a single utterance of the F-word, even some fuckhead blurting it out on a live broadcast.
Chief Justice John G. Lemonparty Jr. and Justice Antonin Stilea dominated Tuesday's argument and strongly supported the FCC.
Stilea said he understood that foul words would be heard at a football or baseball game. "Those assholes ain't fit for polite company. But TV's a different fucking one cup of two girls. TV coarsens the public debate, not like that fucking Internet thing. I'm not persuaded by the argument that people are more accustomed to hearing this shit than they were in the past."
During Tuesday's argument, only Justice Ruth Bader Tubgirl, waving her naked hairy butt at the courtroom, suggested the court delve into the 1st Amendment issues that underlay this dispute. It is "the fucking huge pile of elephant dung in the room," she said. "I can't believe this fucking retarded goddamn bullshit."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The thing that was most in question was the supreme court positions. There are a number that will be dying soon. With another 8 years of Republicans, they would have packed the court with neo-cons and attacked the Constitution (not that the Democrats are better, but that a dominant court of either party is a bad thing for everyone). With the Democrats getting a chance to appoint a few, there will be balanced returned. Republicans controlled 20 of the past 28 years of appointments. In 8 years, hopefully it can be said that Republicans and Democrats each controlled 20 of the past 40 years for a balanced court. Too much of one or the other makes for a great imbalance.
Learn to love Alaska
I think what Fox is actually objecting to is that they can't be held responsible for what someone says in a live broadcast. And they can't, really, unless you want absolutely everything time-delayed.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
They consider them a shil for the 'neo-Republicans' like Bush and pals, and are no better than CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Especially on illegal immigration amnesty.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Many justices think their role - as un-elected, serve-for-life judges - is to make law and policy.
Scalia thinks otherwise. He thinks his role is to follow the Constitution. So much so, that the Federalist Society considers him a hero.
If that makes him insane, I want more crazies on SCOTUS.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Not really a law. A contractual agreement as part of the license to use those airwaves.
Like a EULA.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Using a previous languages words for shit and sex has always been considered polite, and the current languages words impolite.
It was the same way during the Roman Empire.
OK, it was interesting to me. Look it up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From people who can't spell it.
As a member since law school, show me where FS claims as an official position that America should be a non-secular, Christian nation.
Or STFU.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The only thing I have to say is that there are studys out there (Grammer is one of them) suggesting that during ovulation women are more likely to wear skimpy clothes without making a conscious decision to do so.
Assuming that is true, the subconscious decision to engage in such behaviour might make the previous posters comment true.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
OK, regardless of whether they censor words or not, at certain hours or all the time, they will almost certainly screw up on the context.
Imagine these two bits of TV audio:
"I'm gonna rip your *BEEP*in' panties off, bend you over this table, and *BEEP* you in the *BEEP* until you bleed."
Great! No dirty words, we must be OK!
Of course, this leads to the other extreme:
"Cancer of the *BEEP* is often caused by a viral infection, often caused by unprotected *BEEP*."
Hey, great. Again, we're safe--this time, from learning.
It sounds outrageous, but in reality it's not that different. Watch what gets visually blocked out (naughty bits on 70-year-olds undergoing life-saving surgery) vs. what gets shown ('stripper pole' exercise shows, simulated sex in music videos, all fine because there are clothes in the way).
Of course, censoring based on context requires continual thought and effort, so it's easier to just ban away what we don't like, and let the cutting edge ooze slowly forward.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
FYI, this is probably not going to be decided on the first amendment issue. Instead, it's going to be decided on administrative law principles. When the FCC suddenly changed its policy to penalize "fleeting expletives", it didn't articulate any rational reason for its change in behavior. This is "arbitrary and capricious", which means that it will be invalidated under the Administrative Procedure Act
I know that's less interesting than saying OMG free speech, but it is what the case is actually about.
If Fox is pushing this then I am highly skeptical of the motives. Someone who wants the lose to be hard and permanent has just as much reason to push the case to the SCOTUS as someone who wants to win.