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

Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[elrous0]

Just what kind of topsy-turvy world is this new Obama era producing?!?!

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!

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[kachakaach]

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.

Those shows aren't really bad, they're just drawn that way.

Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!?

[Captain Spam]

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!

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.

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.

Hardocre Sex Channel

[sexconker]

You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice!

Awww, So Much Headline Potential Wasted

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked my submission's headline more. :(

Re:Awww, So Much Headline Potential Wasted

[pushing-robot]

CENSORSHIP!

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

[TheCarp]

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

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

[TheCarp]

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

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.

Re:2 Elephants in the Room

[sjames]

Personally, I would like to know why any word is considered vulgar. Context is the only thing that gives meaning to the human language. You can say the same thing in two different contexts, and one way will really hurt someone's feelings, and the other hurts no one. I partially blame this way of looking at words for the lack of tact in much of society.

I know some of the reasons that some words were originally problematic, but since their subtly shaded meanings have been lost in time, even in those cases it no longer makes any sort of sense.

Even the meta words have lost all shade of meaning, curse word, vulgarity, and expletive are different things (or were at one time).

For example, to say that someone was damned was to say they were literally so horrible that even God could never forgive them. That's a strong statement in a pious Christian society. Naturally, that makes the phrase "God damn you" a curse. Literally (amongst believers) a hope that God will find your immortal soul irredeemable and that you will spend eternity in hell.

To not give a damn was quite a different thing. Tinkers in the day had the same stereotype of emitting a constant stream of curses, expletives, and vulgarities that a sailor has today. Thus their curses were exceedingly common and of little value. So to not give a tinker's damn was just saying you felt the situation didn't have even that minimal value to you. It wasn't a curse. The willingness to utter a vulgar word to make the point did convey additional strength to the statement.

Mere vulgarities were simply less imaginative word choices that said more about the speaker than the person spoken to, implying poor breeding. However, in the right context, you could be implying that the person you're speaking to hasn't the breeding to understand a better word choice or that they simply do not warrant more refined language. Naturally, in some social circles that's quite offensive. Either way, you wouldn't want your children to say those words as it would reflect poorly on them and their parents.

Oddly enough, when people show great offense at words without even knowing why their use would be offensive they reveal mostly their own ignorance and "lack of breeding".

At the same time, constant use of expletives really weakens them. If you drop the F bomb every other sentence, how can you express a more extreme displeasure?

Personally, I think expletives in general tend to be over-used but at the same time I can't agree with censorship or claiming some special harm to children. Censure and watching something else are much more appropriate.

Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, piss, cunt, fuck, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits

Re:Words

[joeytmann]

RIP George, and thank you for those 7 words!

A monument to free speech

[dkleinsc]

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."

Re:A monument to free speech

[dkleinsc]

A video on this very monument (I'm not intentionally karma whoring, I promise):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kV0xRcC1aA

Re:A monument to free speech

[lilomar]

And we shall call it: "the internet".

Which definition of Conservative do we go with?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fuck the FCC

[corsec67]

The FCC has authority to regulate speech on broadcast radio and television stations, but not the Internet, cable and satellite TV.

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")

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.

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.

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".

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.

V-Chip

[Applekid]

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?

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.

Obligatory

[Yvan256]

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!

Unreliable Scalia

[stinerman]

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.

Or...

[crmarvin42]

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.

Re:Or...

[Ethanol-fueled]

or

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

Or...

[crmarvin42]

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.

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:My two cents

[nsayer]

I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well.

In a fundamental, biological sense, how are they not?