Senate Committee Passes FCC Indecency Bill 507
An anonymous reader writes "US Senate Commerce Committee today passed a bill that would allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for slip of the tongue expletives, negating a ruling by federal appeals court in New York that commission's policy on 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious. 'A mandate by Congress that a "fleeting expletive" can now be found indecent will create a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech, the advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology claims. CDT points out that prior to this bill and the FCC's policy change, the FCC exercised discretion in determining which utterances were indecent, and consistently found that one-time uses of curse words were not indecent.'"
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Speaking of BEEP (Score:5, Insightful)
Time for carlin's list to make a comeback
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment, emphasis mine:
There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment. Therefore, this law is illegitimate. Because it is illegitimate, it is also without authority — no authority is provided by the constitution, therefore no authority transfers to the law. Consequently it is a law of coercion, using only force and the threat of force as the means to accomplish its goal, which is specifically abridging freedom of speech.
The 14th amendment extends the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) to the states; that is, the states must make law according to the dictates of the bill of rights, just as the federal government must. So laws abridging freedom of speech cannot be legitimately created at the state level, either.
Note that there is a path that could make this kind of action legitimate; that would require amendment of the constitution. Without such amendment, the federal government is not legally authorized to make a law of this type. Amendment is a procedure that is defined in Article Five of the constitution.
One more ironclad example of our federal government wildly out of control.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Either that or they will just have a massive "failure to recall" when questioned on the point.
Mal-2
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, there are. And every one of them is illegitimate. There is nothing to "interpret" about Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. anyone who thinks there is has simply demonstrated they are unqualified to read, much less "interpret" basic English. And that includes partisan, special-interest sycophants who we have had the misfortune of having appointed to the supreme court.
You seem to be of the persuasion that if it is law, it is OK. The fact is, if the constitution forbids it, and it is done anyway, it is wrong and illegitimate and coercive, and no amount of "interpretation" can make it any better. There is no authority given to abridge the freedom of speech; congress is not allowed to make any such law. End of story as far as legitimacy goes, barring constitutional amendment.
The evil CDT (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
perhaps it's because we dont use these words casually that they have so much more of an effect, and if we stopped giving them special emotional status the problem would resolve itself.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as there are people cutting other people off in traffic, there'll be a search for something to yell at them. Language is funny like that.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Interesting)
We use 'fuck' extremely casually: 'ah fuck!' is often used when a native english speaker would say "Ah, geez!", and 'fuck it!' is used just as casually...
Just wanted to add another example to your argument that the actual word has nothing to do with it, rather it's the way people are used to hearing/saying it in their culture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So now, as a double whammy, we've got the evil Canadians throwing around "fuck" like it's candy.
Guess I should start making peace with God soon...
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
There are local laws against cursing in public, here and there, often dating back to the 1800s. Enforced? Rarely, if ever. You'd have to arrest everyone, sooner or later.
As you note, these words exist for a reason, and if banned or deprecated, something else takes their place.
And for those who say "I don't NEED to curse", they apparently don't understand nuances
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
If my child hears me say "shit" about twice a year when I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer or zap myself with an ignition coil, he will possibly use the word when in a similar situation. Fine. But if he hears people throwing it around in casual conversation multiple times a day, there is going to be a problem.
That being said, I don't think broadcasters should have to worry about the occasional swear during live interviews and such. However, if they are doing an interview with somebody with a dirty mouth who has cursed 3 times in the last minute, they should stop the interview or warn the guy that they will stop the interview if he doesn't cut it out.
I don't think broadcasters should be allowed to show Pulp Fiction at 4 in the afternoon. I would also argue that they shouldn't be allowed to show content with bleeps every 15 seconds. Every 7 year old knows what they are bleeping out, and that they hear "bleep" instead of "shit" isn't going to have any less of a negative impact on their functional language.
BTW, has anybody seen the episode of Arthur with the bleeps? Hilarious.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Grow a set a fucking balls and get the fuck over the fucking F word. While your at it, stop shitting yourself about the S world also.
*YOU* have control of your TV / radio / . You don't need the FCC to babysit your kid for you. *I* certainly do not want the FCC baby sitting mine. I am quite capable of telling my son that when (not if) he should use the FUCK word.
Example:
We are driving down the road and some dick head is protesting that the FCC isn't tight enough on foul language: "FUCK you dick head!" would be perfectly acceptable.
Oh, in case I didn't get my point across -- FUCK YOU!
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait you can't use X either...
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
See, it's not the inappropriate words that are the problem, it's the inappropriate behaviour. There's no difference between your seven year old telling to the teacher to 'fuck off' and the seven year old telling the teacher rudely to 'go away'. Until people see that it's rude and inappropriate behaviour that is the problem, not words, we'll always be stuck in the 1950s.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indecency laws for broadcasting is one thing, but a kid making references to genitals or masturbation to a teacher is way out of line in my book. In school, it's okay to ask someone to go away, if not rude. It's not at all appr
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Funny)
oh cmon, you couldve have typed that without knowing it would be taken out of context.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "Bad" words are only bad becaus they are bad. The idea that there are "bad" words follows the most innane circular logic since "The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again. If noone cared and noone was offended then noone would use the word to be offensive eh?
2. The more you censor "Bad" words, the more "Bad" they become. The more "Bad" they become the more likely someone is going to use the "Bad" word to attempt to be offensive. Their level of offensiveness was amplified by the stupid attempt to censor said "Bad" word.
3. Any of these fools that support this crap obviously have spent very little time around children (not to say they don't have them, but I imagine most career politicians are probably too busy getting handjobs from hookers on business trips paid for by lobbyists to spend much time bothering to raise their kids). You tell a kid "You can't do X" and the first thing they do when you aren't looking is what exactly? Same goes for "You can't say Y". Good job, you just made it more attractive for them to say "bad" words.
4. An earlier poster had it exactly right, while the verbage may be less offensive (again only made offensive by silly attempts to declare it offensive and taboo), the real problem is rudeness. I don't care what my children say to me, if its a real "bad" word, if its a made up word, or if its normal language, if they are being rude about it they are going to be dealt with swiftly and severely (no not beating, but a good quick barked command will make any kid jump out of his skin). The words used themselves are irrelevant it is about what the intent was when they said them.
"Go hork yourself you sheeprag" and "Go fuck yourself you whore" are going to get equally punished in my book, and only one of them used "bad" words.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. "Bad" words are only bad becaus they are bad. The idea that there are "bad" words follows the most innane circular logic since "The Bible is true because it was inspired by God and I know that because the Bible says so". The moral police use the most bizaar circular logic and this is it again. If noone cared and noone was offended then noone would use the word to be offensive eh?
That's not true. All of the 'bad' words or swear words refer to taboo subjects -- stuff we don't physically deal with in every day life.
Swear words are always one of these subjects:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cannot differentiate between the two things, and the "inherent badness" between them, then you simply are one step away from advocating for thought police.
Taboo subjects ar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a rational response. I likewise, have some irrational responses myself, to racist o
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd definitely agree with other posters with the sentiment being more important than the actual words used. I don't know why we're stuck on the student-teacher dynamic, but it works there too. I can definitely say that I've never used a 'vulgar' word as an insult to a teacher (or any elder), but I'd be lying if I said I've never had my mouth washed out with soup for mouthing off to one. Just take sarcasm for instance: if someone does something stupid and you call him a genius for it, the insult is clear and yet no foul words were used--quite the opposite in fact.
Behavior really is the most important thing to correct. If you have a respectful child, he's going to know when it is not appropriate to use certain words, even if he has no objection to any of them. I have no studies or evidence to back it up, but I'd definitely put money on the argument that the children you see crying, carrying on, and generally just being disrespectful to their parents and elders are also the ones that are going to use vulgar language. Even more so if they know that it will get them more attention because it is offensive.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm. Goatse!
Yes, I am a jerk.
P.S. Almost said "Yes, I am an asshole." but I figured Goatse covered that. Or uncovered it, as the case may be.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Hating blacks and minorities? that comes from daddy and mommy.
a 7 year old that says "fuck off" I'll bet you $80.00 that daddy says it on a regular basis.
The faults lie directly in the hands of the parents.
Yes you parents, your kids behavior is YOUR FAULT. you TEACH THEM TO ACT THAT WAY. Dont act suprised when little stevie says "fuck you" to someone when you say it daily. The guy that wears the "let's go fuck some whores" T shirt out with his kids and scolds them for swearing blows my mind.
now teenagers, all bets are off, children become mentally insane from age 13 to age 25 and should be treated as special needs, specifically girls. good god the drama..... save me from the drama.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Interesting)
You're neglecting to consider the power of peer influence. None of my adult relatives swore in my presence, but I sure knew how to cuss by the time I was in 5th grade. This was solely because a lot of my friends did. I never swore in front of my adult relatives, but I'd cuss outside of their ear shot.
One time, when my son was in kindergarten, he was sitting at home with me, my wife and my parents. A series of jokes were told, and everyone was laughing. All of a sudden my son blurts out 'you can kiss my fuckin' pussy!' Everyone gets quiet and looks over at my son. He knew at that point that perhaps he had said something inappropriate. I calmly asked my son why he had just said what had said. He said that all the older girls on the school bus shouted that at each other and then laughed, and he thought as long as we were all being so jovial he'd contribute. I had made it a point of never swearing in my son's presence, and I know none of his other adult relatives did. He was evidently picking up quite the vocabulary outside of the house, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy crap (shit?)! You have really hit this one right on the nose. It's soooo easy for people to bitch and moan about "society" turning their children into little monsters, when in fact it's their own damn fault for not establishing healthy boundaries (i.e. "parental guidance") and setting good examples.
I speak as the parent of a 4yo who has had plenty of time to observe lots of rugrats and munchkins.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That has very little to do with television, as shitty and monotonous as it is. The fault is squarely on the parents for not realizing their kid is acting like a douche-bag, and punishing him/her accordingly. Hell, it's probably something you enabled!
Oh but I forgot, in this day and age, we blame everyone but ourselves, right? DISCIPLINE YOUR KID AND STOP CENSORING MY ENTERTAINMENT.
Stupid parents, I swear, 75% - 85% of them are complete failures as role models.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you're saying you're incapable of properly raising your kids (e.g. by turning off the TV when it's playing something you don't want them to see)? Fine, then you're an incompetant, bad parent and we should have DFACS take them away from you! How's that sound?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to change the channel to Showtime when you want porn?
Holy shit! I didn't realize that wanting some channels to be free of "indecency" was so indecent! What's wrong with letting you hav
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all...the market will provide programs with appropriate content for all ages/interests. That is there today, you're kids can happily watch sesame street, blues clues or whatever today.
"No. I'm saying I shouldn't have to. Are you too incompetent to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in any way shape or form. It's definitely you.
If you don't like, you don't have to watch TV.
Exactly. It is that simple. Try being a parent instead of letting the TV do it for you. It's called personal responsibility. Try it some time.
Why should The Sopranos get to show nipple and guts and Sesame Street can't?
Exactly. Of course I doubt many parents would like that, so they wouldn't let their kids watch Sesame street so it would get pulled since it has no audience. Simpl
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry. I didn't realize there was anything wrong with being gay or that it was some sort of an insult.
Actually, *you* clearly intended it as an insult. I don't take it that way...merely as yet another indication of your small minded ignorance.
Censorship is the same whether it's telling you and your wife what you can do in your yard or what CBS can put on TV.
Of course it isn't. You have to actively decide to buy a TV. you then have to actively decide to turn it on. Then you have to actively decide to tune in
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I have children, and I don't really mind if they say 'fuck', or whatever. The words themselves aren't evil. I do try to teach them that there is a time and a place for it, and that they have to use good judgement about how using vulgar language affects other people's perception of them. That, to me, is the main issue with so-called profanity.
And yes, I understand that the younger they are, the harder it is for them to make those distinctions. I do deal w
Re: (Score:2)
You know where I learned the word "fuck?" In a church. I was second grade, which would place me about seven years old.
Guess what - I never told a teacher to fuck off or started cursing in a Wal-Mart.
I'd expect that a seven year old can figure out what times are appropriate to use curse words (e.g., when trying to tick off your parents) and what times are not (e.g., when trying to act polite).
Censoring television isn't going to help anything. What type of TV are you planning on watching with your seven
Re:The evil CDT (Score:5, Insightful)
I know a kid who has been allowed to cuss at home since he was like six. He's never had a public cussing problem because he was explicitly taught by his mother when it is and is not appropriate, and the instruction was approached from a position of respect and reason, and above all responsibility, rather than by treating the child like a slave and instructing them as to what they will do (from my own experience I can tell you that the "orders" approach is very hit and miss. certainly it did not work at all on me.)
This is entirely a matter of parenting. Period, the end, thank you! Most parents swear inappropriately and so their children learn to do so as well. And most parents use fear, not respect, to keep children in line. They use an appeal to authority, not one to respect, to guide their behavior.
Lots of people have told me "you'd feel differently if you had children". Yet I seem to have better results dealing with children than most people do. I talk to them like humans, not like we talk to animals (actually, in most cases that's a disservice to the animal, let alone what it's like when we do it to a child) and the results are typically positive. Children are more willing to listen to you when you're not treating them like a monkey. (Even if they're acting like one.)
I never really had the issue addressed for me at all, except having my mouth washed out with soap at a day care once because before I even understood it I used the word "hump", no joke. This mountain of a woman named Jennifer ran (or runs) a day care across the street from Mar Vista elementary school. She had two or three spoiled kids and decided to add a bunch of others to the mix. One kid accused me of humping one of the others, so I told him he did it, and I got a mouthful of palmolive as a reward. Guess how I reacted to her henceforth? Dumb bitch. (They did instruct me to swallow the soap, but I spit it out. Even as a kid I wasn't an idiot. It says right on the bottle not to drink it.) This event taught me that stupid people are offended by certain words, but I cuss up a storm today. And I enjoy it.
Bottom line: Parenting from a position of respect and responsibility makes more sense than parenting from fear.
Postscript: Most parents seem to treat Walmart as a children's play area anyway. I don't think most of them give a shit if they start cussing. Walmart is the least classy place on earth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Period, the end, thank you!" I'm not sure that means what you think it means :)
Seriously, though:
What I'd say to you is that you'd know differently if you had children. Acting from an authority position is just as important as acting with respect -- and the two are not mu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In one way, it is shear stupidity that we need to have this kind of rule. There's a race to the bottom in most entertainment. Keeping swear words out of bottom feeding entertainment (Jackass anyone?) is a good idea. I would be most concerned if more resources were given to the FCC to enforce this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand there are traditional societal expectations, but being upset about "cursing" is really just as arbitrary and useless as being upset about people that wear blue socks.
Re: (Score:2)
My comment applies doubly in Walmart. Kids WILL learn curse words if they are on TV or not, try being a parent and teaching them that they are
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, because parents can't be expected to take the time to explain to their children that even though these words exist, they are not always appropriate - especially for children. Nor can parents be expected take responsibility for their children's behavior. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
p.s. My youngest son used the word "fucking" correctly and in context at the age of 5. I was proud, not horrified. At 12 he still asks sometimes if the word he wishes to use is appropriate for the situation and context before saying something.
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Interesting)
My grandmother, another (English) teacher in the building, got to meet me at the principal's office with my teacher. She asked about the situation, and stated, in no uncertain terms, that I'd used the (sic) appropriate language for the situation and she'd have told my teacher the same thing. Though she said that she'd prefer that language wasn't used in school, it at least had not been for pure folly. The principal agreed.
Gotta love us some English teachers
Fuck the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
You think that is funny until it's your own seven year old that tells a teacher to fuck off, or starts cursing in a WalMart.
The idea that an entire form of media should be censored because you don't want to suffer the embarrassment (and that is all it is) of your kid acting like a little shit head in WalMart is fucking ridiculous beyond words. We do not censor entire fucking forms of media so that parents don't have to worry about disciplining their kids.
What SHOULD happen is that on the off chance your kid is watching TV well past his bed time, and on the off chance someone swears on TV, and on the off chance that kid decides
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who has absolutely no interest whatsoever in raising children and isn't gonna have any ...
:-P
I find it absolutely hilarious when someone's seven year old starts spouting profanity in public places. It bloody well amuses me to no end. It's like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.
It's all a matter of perspective.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm is noted.
Are you saying "fuck the children"? What's wrong with decency standards on public airwaves? It's not like you can't get cable. It's not like the outlets this affects can't get a cable channel of their own and do nothing but say "fuck" over and over while showing a nipple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The evil CDT (Score:4, Insightful)
After reading several of your posts I've determined that I'm morally opposed to most of your opinions, however, I'm going to try to provide what advice I can in a reasonable and logical fashion.
If you're concerned that your child will have access to TV content you don't approve of, then the TV probably shouldn't be in the childes bedroom, and if it is, you may want to invest in one of those timer power switches that shuts an appliance off between certain hours (although the child could probably bypass this easily, but then again, they will gain access to virtually anything they want to anyway, not much point censoring really). Most current appliances also have parental lock codes (that can't be disabled in some cases much to my annoyance) that will restrict certain content. Finally, maybe you should look into some sort of media PC, or maybe put together a MythBox. Doing that you could load up all the movies you approve of, and maybe schedule certain approved television shows to be recorded regularly, allowing the child to view approved content whenever he or she wishes.
As someone else pointed out, it's not societies job to approve what your child can see, but there are resources out there to help you perform that task yourself. It's up to you to use them.
Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bono says "fuck" on the Grammy awards and CBS foots the bill. If anything, this will help kill off what's left of "live" media coverage in favor of the rolling five or ten minute delay a lot of broadcasters use to catch and scrub things like this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course This will not apply to the politicians.
Can anyone tell me why this post is insightful?
Was there something in TFA that I didn't read?
If the parent is trying to say something, they need to back it up with proof and not just some vague insinuation.
Even now, this policy change will only allow the FCC to fine broadcasters for one word utterances, it won't mandate it. The FCC will still operate pretty much as it always has with regards to broadcast TV: in reaction to 'public' outrage.
If nobody complains, nothing happens.
Need we say more? (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately, due to my 15 second delay, I was able to self-censor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's necessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't understand it! (Score:2)
I mean, what exactly is gained by this? Are American children so stupid they can't make the connection between "f*bleep*" and "fuck"? "Daddy, why did that man just buzz? Is buzzing a bad thing?"
Is there anyone in the world stupid enough to look at one of these broa
Well, fuck (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost every radio station broadcasts on a delay of a few seconds. There's someone in the booth with their finger on a button to bleep your horrible, dirty, nasty word.
Your best bet is to learn a bunch of sci fi swear words and use them in common speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a radio engineer too, most of the smaller stations (non-commercial, college, etc.) don't have delays.
Fucking Republicans... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Fucking Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, if you want to hear "fuck" on TV, get cable.
Obvious name for the Act (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liability and A/V issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SLpqAymTE [youtube.com]
Who would be liable for this? Who SHOULD be liable?
Another issue is that even if it is bleeped out through human monitoring (with a 10 second delay or something), can mouthing of the word be considered as 'broadcasting' it? Communication is not only about sound, but given the weird laws regarding recording cops' audio/video output, it might be a similarly absurd law.
Or maybe I just don't understand TFA.
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Not a done deal (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is...
Once you take the strip club out of the community... you cant be the politician that runs on that platform of "i'm bringing back the whores to the community!"
We all act puritan, but in our bedrooms, we're choking on cock,
Have these people ever SEEN the Internet? (Score:2, Insightful)
All any of these congress people need to do is get on Google and search for "sex" and you will find so much pr0n that you could have a TV channel that played the word "FUCK" over and over 24/7 for a year and it could never match the "indecency" that you can find on the internet in 30 seconds.
These guys really are re-arranging the deck chairs on the T
Re: (Score:2)
START HERE: http://peopleagainstcensorship.org/pac/ [peopleagai...orship.org]
Third party expletives? (Score:2)
Damnit. (Score:2)
Why the fuck does the FCC even care? Why do the politicians care? What the fuck is the matter with these people?
Fuckshitfuck.
A vast chilling effect on broadcast speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
This will cause "a vast chilling effect on broadcast speech"? Oh, please.
Is it so bad to learn a little self control?
FCC (Score:4, Interesting)
This is so stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
The tighter you control, the more your kids will try to get away with. Everyone knows that from their own childhood, but forgets that when they become parents themselves!
My personal philosophy: Assume kids have access to every bad thing out there. Give them the tools to deal with it so they don't wind up killing themselves or doing something stupid. At the same time, tolerate a little bit of abnormal behavior. Any other control you try to impose is just going to turn them into a social retard or push them away from you.
Many assaults on free speech (Score:3, Informative)
- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine [firstamendmentcenter.org] to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens [washingtontimes.com] who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive [humanevents.com] to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents [thefire.org] on college campuses
Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).
Re:Many assaults on free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong, Sir. The Constitution should not be defended by only one branch of government, but by all *four*. There are three active branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The inactive branch is the People. We are the authority by which Congress enacts laws, the authority by which the President enforces those laws, and the authority by which SCOTUS interprets the laws.
Running to SCOTUS every time something unconstitutional happens is a hack. It has allowed the American People to become complacent with their obligation to ensure effective government. It has allowed Congress to enact laws that are sloppy and lets the judicial branch take the heat when something unpopular happens (SCOTUS said it, so it must be Constitutional). I hate to tell you this, but just because SCOTUS said it, does not make it Constitutional---look at the "Life of Mickey Mouse+90year" rule for copyright. SCOTUS is the non-political branch, so resorting to them is resorting to an anti-democratic solution.
What is required is for the American people to focus on the real issue in this country: of rampant bad governance. We're split into left-and-right factions and so don't notice how we're getting screwed. We need to supplant all the bozos---establish term limits with a requirement that a Congressman cannot serve as a lobbyist for as many years as he served in Congress. Maximum time served is 12 years.
Monty Python (Score:3, Interesting)
commitee? (Score:3, Insightful)
A counterpoint here (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, I know it isn't popular opinion around here, but I'm wondering exactly what the problem is with this.
The airwaves are a public medium. As in, they belong to the public, not to a private entity (in spite of the fact that many private interests behave as if they did own the airwaves... - but that's a different topic). Our democratically elected Congress passed this bill. This is what the public wants.
I understand if your definition of what is appropriate is different from mine. However, there are already alternatives available for those whose tastes lean toward the tawdry side. This isn't an issue of free speech, but rather, of how the public thinks its airwaves should be used. They belong to the public, and the people have spoken - through Congress - about what they want to hear on radio and see on tv. It's not censorship, but censureship - that is, the removal of something the people don't want to see or hear.
It's as simple as that.
You can call it absurd, fine. But there are things which, while they may be acceptable to certain individuals in society, are not appropriate for the public at large. And because the public owns the airwaves, they get to decide what's appropriate for them.
The seven words you cannot say on televsion... (Score:4, Funny)
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
These marvelous words brought to you by George Carlin.
Re:Fucking pricks (Score:4, Informative)
You're joking, but because of this law there's literally no way for radio news station to report what Dick Cheney said to Sen. Patrick Leathy on a Senate Floor [washingtonpost.com].
Re:Fucking pricks (Score:4, Informative)
Here's the scoop: Broadcasters get a license from the Government to use an extremely scarce public resource--a chunk of the EM spectrum. In exchange for that license they agree to be regulated by the FCC, which includes an agreement not to broadcast indecent speech.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that indecent broadcast speech can be restricted. Unlike ordinary public speech, which one can ignore simply by going home and closing the door, indecent speech (and images) can be broadcast through the walls of your home at any time of the day or night. It can even be inserted into an otherwise innocuous broadcast.
And while it's true that a motivated speaker with a bullhorn can make himself (or herself) heard inside your home, that speech is subject to normal content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Most municipalities have noise ordinances prohibiting that kind of amplified speech.
--AC
Re: (Score:2)
The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act introduced by Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) would effectively overturn the court decision on the Fox Television Stations v. FCC in which the court ruled: "We find the FCC's new policy sanctioning 'fleeting expletives' is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to articulate a reasoned basis for its change in policy."
This was started by a Democrat to push back against Fox.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I said to myself... You