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.
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.
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
I hope they would... it would be utterly tangential in a case about the banning of specific words in any context they might be used in.
Prove that the word "fuck", in all contexts, can actually cause harm to a person. Prove that for each of the words in question.
Prove harm, show the scope of harm. Isn't it up to those claiming harm to prove harm? So prove it, how can it be so much to ask to just prove that your not making stuff up and talking out your ass?
I mean, my mother believed that sitting too close to the TV was bad for kids eyes. Any eye doctor will tell you that its an old wives tale and kids sit so close really cuz their eyes are perfectly capable of focusing comfortably at that distance.
So... I would argue my mothers old wives tale belief doesn't prove harm, even in absence eye doctors professional opinions. Why? because its not based on data, its based on conjecture.
These arguments used by the FCCs supporters sound no more concrete to me.
Urban legends have no place in public policy.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
I think Lewis Black put it best on one of his Back In Black segments on The Daily Show. People tune in to Fox (News) to seethe in outrage over what they saw on Fox (broadcast) the night before. It's a self-perpetuating business!
Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
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
Teen pregnancy didn't become normal until... oh wait... thats right... it was always normal. Its not getting pregnant until later thats a new development. A good one if you ask me but...
teens having sex is well... pretty much them doing exactly what they are "supposed to do" from any reasonable biological standpoint.
We can put all the morality around it we want.... the human animal hasn't really changed much in the past few tens of thousands of years.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well.
In a fundamental, biological sense, how are they not?