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

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. :(

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

[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.

Words

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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: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?

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.

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?!?

[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