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.

Comments

2 Elephants in the Room

[TheCarp]

Ginsberg said that there is an elephant in the room: The First Ammendment.

As I read it, I see another one:

The solicitor general was unswayed. When "celebrities use particularly graphic, vulgar, explicit, indecent language as part of the comedic routine," he said, there is "potentially greater harmful impact on children."

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

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[computational super]

Ok... PROVE HARM.

Not that I agree with them - but they'll point to a recent study that "links" teen pregnancy with sex on TV shows.

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[bill_mcgonigle]

When did vulgar profane speech become harmless and the Bible become harmful?

Let's compare body counts, shall we? We can skip everything before the Crusades if you'd like a handicap on this hole.

I belive that mom and dad should be allowed to determine what may or may not be harmful to their children. I deem it harmful. No proof necessary.

I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[sjames]

Only if you can demonstrate that the kids alleged to be harmed actually know what fuck means. If it's just "a word you can't say in church", then there's no significant connection with sex.

In general usage, it's definition seems to be "a generic expletive stronger than damn but not as funny as mongolian cluster fuck". A person who actually means to logically connect slamming their finger in the door with a sex act has deeper problems.

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[TubeSteak]

I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.

You'd think that the V-Chip would be a raging success with all the froth and fury that exists over "indecency" on Television....

Yet every survey has shown it to be a resounding failure.
Parents don't RTFM and they don't use the V-Chip.

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[fyngyrz]

It's not an elephant. It's a dead horse. The SCOTUS has been ignoring the constitution in favor of direct violations of it for many years.

The constitution is 100% clear on this matter: Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech. Anyone who is even nominally literate knows exactly what "abridge" means today; a few minutes research will turn up that it meant the same thing in 1788. The bottom line is simple — there is no constitutional authority available (to anyone at the federal level, including the judiciary) to abridge (curtail, shorten) the freedom to speak in any form or fashion* by law, directly or indirectly (as per legislative surrogates like the FCC.)

Further, as this is an element of the bill of rights, the states don't have this authority either as per the 14th amendment, and as cities, towns, counties etc. all must comply with the same things that states have to comply with, this authority devolves to the people, as per the 10th amendment.

The fact that this is not the analysis of the SCOTUS is a direct indicator of the justices violating their oaths.

Not that it's going to change. When Bush said the constitution is "just a piece of paper", he was speaking a truth no one wants to admit. The feds, because they want you to think you live in a constitutional republic, the people, because they want to think they have a reasonable government. But the fact is, the only remaining effective elements of the bill of rights are amendments three and seven. Sadly, this is not because they are well written or somehow better than the others; it is simply that the government has had no need to make exception to them.

(*) Yes, that means that libel and slander laws are unconstitutional, that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be perfectly OK (and by the way, it makes sense that it should be OK), and that the seven "dirty" words should be just as OK to say on the air as "kitten" and "politician." The founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the first amendment. They didn't mean "unless the government says otherwise", they were explicitly limiting federal power because they knew it would be abused. And they have turned out to be 100% correct. Unfortunately, the constitution isn't up to the task of stopping our political apparatus from doing whatever they want to. Welcome to the machine.

We all know how this will turn out

[Dracos]

Roberts is W's appointment, and Scalia is insane.

Re:How ironic

[internerdj]

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.

Re:Words

[joeytmann]

RIP George, and thank you for those 7 words!

This is bunk

[ShooterNeo]

"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".

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[Ethanol-fueled]

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!

Oh really?

[mweather]

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?

Re:Oh really?

[billius]

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?

Indeed. The literal meaning of "rape" is a million times worse than the literal meaning of "fuck," and yet we unfortunately hear the former quite often during news broadcasts.

Fun little fact...

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Or...

[Ethanol-fueled]

or

5. Make as much money as possible, consistency be damned.

Re:Fuck the FCC

[husker_man]

Do you think the "fairness doctrine" is an attempt to regulate free speech?

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.

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[Kamokazi]

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.

Absolutely restraint of free speech...

[corsec67]

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?

Limiting what content licensed broadcasters can send over the public airwaves is no more censorship

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.

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[timothy]

"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

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[Zerth]

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.