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.
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"
Roberts is W's appointment, and Scalia is insane.
It isn't all that surprising to me. Fox's bias isn't about a stand for a particular set of beliefs, it is about making money for Rupert Murdock. Fox (the broadcast channel) has long pushed the envelope on broadcasting decency(especially measured by conservatives) more than any other broadcast channel because that separates them from the other broadcast channels and is what gets them viewers in the context. Fox news promotes a deeply conservative environment because it separates them from the other cable-news channels and that is what gets them viewers in that context.
RIP George, and thank you for those 7 words!
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
"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".
You're forgetting that Fox made famous The Simpsons, Family Guy, Married...with Children, and many other shows which wouldn't have been given chances on other networks.
Incidentally most consumers of Fox News are too narrow-minded to realize this...or maybe being bad is okay only when it applies to them!
Do the erasers represent the FCC?
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?
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
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.
The key point isn't if those words are harmful or not or by how much. Your example is perfectly fine -- they are your kids, your decision. Now, no one should do any jail time or be thrown out of anything for cursing around them, its really your job to remove the children not the other way around. But above and beyond that, it isn't the government's job to set a law ahead of time regulating this exchange for both of us.
You never know, the parent standing next to you might prefer me to explain teen pregnancy to their daughter like, "If you fuck that guy it could ruin your goddamned life!" Silly example, yes, but the point is that in the one hand, you and I both get to choose. When the government does it, the choise is pre-made for everybody.
And fuck that.
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
Hush.
You'd make them feel stupid if they realized they could just change the damned channel.
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
or
5. Make as much money as possible, consistency be damned.
Personally, I believe that it is - free speech on talk radio, that is. All of the proposals revolve around re-regulating the AM band of the radio so that it is "evenly" balanced - like it was in the 1970's. The problem with that is that talk radio (which is heavily weighted towards conservative viewpoints) does compete with other forms of communication (like TV) that tends to more liberal viewpoints.
If the "Fairness Doctrine" is reimposed by Congress (contrary to what I believe free speech should be) or the other proposal floated by the Obama campaign (forcing radio stations to reapply for their license every two years, but mandating a panel that must "solicit public input on how the station is meeting community needs"), I predict that AM radio will be what I remember it to be - a wasteland of traffic reports, weather reports and the daily stockyard figures.
Yes, you may feel that Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/ shouldn't be on the radio, but if you feel that words on TV shouldn't be censored, then why should the conservative talk radio's words be censored? Let them all be on, and let the people (rather than Congress) decide.
Explain how that is different from the current "free speech zone" nonsense.
Both strike me as a clear and obvious violation.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Many conservatives don't like Fox any more than the rest of the liberal media. They consider them a shil for the 'neo-Republicans' like Bush and pals, and are no better than CNN, MSNBC, etc.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
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
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.
Indeed. .. as long as the pharma lobby has more money than the comedians
I am amazed to hear that "For the children" is a viable argument when we are blasted with commercials for cialis and viagra... not to mentioned those hideous "mucus" commercials that seem to only be on during dinner time.
Commercials using language that any 5 year old can easily decipher given context clues, but hey, thats ok!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
It's called protecting my desire to not be surrounded by it.
Sorry, but that's one of the things you have to put up with in a free society. Why is your desire to not be around such language inherently more important than someone else's desire to express themselves in their own words?
It pisses me off to no end that so many people love to wave the flag and talk about how much they love "freedom" and want to protect it, without the first thought to what freedom really entails. Just because you disagree or are offended with someone's speech gives you NO right to silence them.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
"Incidentally most consumers of Fox News are too narrow-minded to realize this..."
On the other hand, lots of the criticism I've seen aimed at the Fox network has been pretty narrow-minded, too. There are plenty of broad brushes to go around, it seems.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
You have a point, Fox is not "conservative", they are just trying to be either entertaining or shocking and their kind of conservatism is deliberately trying to be outrageous and offending because that means people are watching.
Or pandering to people who actually believe it.
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.
There's something called respect which it seems that a lot of people are missing these days. If by exercising your right to free speech you deliberately offend others - that is, you could have said what you meant without using language that you know will offend others - then what happens to their freedoms?
Absolutely nothing happens to their freedoms. No one is guaranteed the right to go through life without being offended, and it's just too bad for those folks that are too thin-skinned to deal with it. Being offended is a *conscious* reaction to an external stimulus, so it's really more the problem of the person being offended than anyone else's. Saying that respect should essentially be enforced at the point of a gun is hypocritical beyond measure, because you're saying that the rights of the other party are not worthy of respect themselves.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If you like Family guy yo are not a social conservative. Really, you might want to look into social conservatives. You would be more of a moderate or liberal.
Call your self what you want, but it doesn't fit the definition.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bit of advise, Scalia, the federalist society, and the constitutionality party, are historical revisionists that claim the constitution says the US is a solely Christian nation, and believe in the divine right of the US government. You only reaffirm Scalia's insanity if the federalist society endorsed him.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
You can call them what you want, but if you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or Fox are a reliable way to get unbiased news, you need to open up your eyes a bit. That's all I'm implying. They're fine to catch recent developments, but I would never rely on any of them to report a complete account of any story. Just like most Slashdot summaries...they're designed to be a little sensationalist and one-sided to appeal to their audience. You need to RTFA to catch the real story behind the news. And usually read comments by some people here who at least look like they know what they are talking about.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
'Many conservatives don't like Fox any more than the rest of the liberal media.'
Pray tell where is this liberal media? There is no shortage of bias on the major media outlets but its hardly biased toward liberal or conservative.
If you want to hope to see real news you have to read foreign reporting.