Supreme Court to Hear FCC Indecency Case 453
MachineShedFred writes "The Supreme Court of the United States has announced that it will be hearing the FCC's appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the FCC has changed its policy on fleeting expletives without adequate explanation. It's now on the FCC to explain to the Supreme Court why its policy has changed. This is also the first time the Supreme Court has heard a major 'broadcast indecency' case in 30 years."
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Technology obviated the need for "decency timeslots" a long time ago...if only parents would use it.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called parenting. When I was growing up, there were no technological controls available. We didn't have TVs in our bedrooms, and we were only allowed to watch what we were told we were allowed to watch. You watch something else and you were going to get yourself into trouble.
The bottom line is that if you need technology to control what you're kids are watching -- you are doing something wrong.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with that mindset -- incidental exposure isn't too damaging -- but the FCC regulations aren't entirely intended simply to prevent children from viewing objectionable content while removing the need from parental supervision.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I doubt that would be covered by how most of these 'obscenities' are classified. Nor do I think it should.
After all, what part of that would be 'obscene'?
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is the point. YOU don't like it, so YOU wish to enforce YOUR MORALS on SOMEONE ELSE.
You are free to think it is filth. You are free to keep it out of your house. You are even free to bitch about it in public. But the moment you try to dictate what I can watch, you've stepped over the line. If you don't like it, or don't want your kid seeing it, you know what to do. But keep the hell out of MY living room.
Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, you speak as if you think the 'burden of proof' is on people to convince you that they should be allowed to watch what they want. That is totally backwards. You should be trying to prove why you have any right whatsoever to dictate the rules about what other people can watch, with your only justification thus far being that you wouldn't want to watch it so they shouldn't either. So far your arguments have not been very compelling.
On a related note, I lived in the USA all my life but moved to New Zealand a bit over a year ago. I was really surprised to see that they have almost no "broadcast standards" here. They do keep the racy stuff off the air until 8 or 9 pm but after that it seems anything goes. I have seen full frontal nudity (male and female), simulated sex, gore, every swear word there is and just about any tasteless joke you can think of (actually all of this was accomplished in pretty much one movie shown in the late evening time slot - Scary Movie 3 (or was it 4?)), all broadcast over the free airwaves that anyone at all can pick up just by turning on their TV.
I find it completely and entirely refreshing after having grown up in the USA where I wouldn't even bother watching movies on TV because they are so edited and bleeped out that it's not even like watching the original. I wholeheartedly support New Zealand's much less fascist (when compared to the USA) broadcasting standards. It is Yet Another Thing to love about this great country of New Zealand, that you will not find in the stone age culture of the USA.
I have young children and I don't fret the fact that these R rated movies (and R rated TV shows - you should see some of the stuff that comes out of the U.K.!) are shown on TV. When I need to exercise parental control to ensure that my kids don't see it, I will. I don't need the government to do it for me, I am a perfectly capable parent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What value-add is there for obscenities to be aired? Why do I need to hear a detective on Law and Order call a suspect a "dick" instead of an "idiot" or even an "asshole"?
When the detective thinks the suspect is a dick, of course.
That's high school talk; that isn't adult. Using that show as an example, are you trying to relive your high school years? Does it give you a rush to hear "dick" instead? Or maybe hearing it makes you feel like more of a man?
Law & Order does now, and always has dealt with some very controversial topics, and as such you're going to find examples of heightened emotions and when there are emotions present you're going to get emotional (re)actions from the characters.
n.b. Expletives are so prevalent in high school because it makes the students feel more like the adults they're impersonating.
One last thing I'll ask about is at what level would you stop wanting to see/hear obscenities on TV? Would you stop at seeing simulated homosexual acts?
Well, if one is homophobic, I suppose this would disturb them. But then
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. And how long before we see heterosexual sex on TV? Is homosexual sex somehow more damaging? Or are you just scared that seeing other options might let your children, and others, be able to choose something different? Cults tend to tell their members to avoid differing viewpoints, or, more to the point, prevent them from seeing differing viewpoints. I'm sure that you would hate it if som
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exposing a child to an unclothed human body (of an adult) is horrible parenting and can certainly be psychogically damaging... As a juvenile court judge for over 14 years...
I weep for our judicial system. Nudity in and of itself shouldn't be damaging. Shocking, maybe. Repulsive, probably. But if simple nudity can be considered psychologically damaging in the long-term, then that tells me that there is something wrong with our society as a whole, not with parents or television or the internet or whatever.
I hate to break this to you, your honor, but we are all naked under our clothes. Your example of a woman saving herself for marriage is completely absurd. Are you ser
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh oh, there goes breast feeding, and showering with mom and dad.
Sarcasm aside, you're full of bs. Exposing a child to an unclothed adult is not horrible parenting and is in no way psychogically (sic) damaging.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How are you able to read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech/B" and still think that the FCC, which is granted authority by Congress, isn't violating it?
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how the world is full of 2-year-olds who see tits all the time, yet show those same tits to an 8-year-old and suddenly they've been scarred for life.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
There are very few things that are irreparably damaging, and they all require a lot more exposure than "incidental". Catching a half-second shot of a breast is not going to turn a child into a serial killer or even make them mildly anti-social. At BEST, it'll generate some giggles on the school yard the following morning and be forgotten moments later. While home from school, I was one of the "fortunate" few who caught the Bud Dwyer [wikipedia.org] incident, live on the air. It was freaky, but didn't even bring about a nightmare.
But, beyond that, in Europe, one can expect to find hard core pornography on broadcast television, and yet it's only the US where you find the highest incidence of serial killers and sociopaths. I would attribute that to the ridiculous, puritanical, half-assed armchair psychology from people like you who believe such stupid statements like the one italicized above.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Most reality programming for example is deliberately set up to exploit the participants as the producers torture the participants for ratings.
Dramas that portray the criminal justice system through fictional stories. In pretty much all the cases I know of they use deliberately unrealistic portrayals of both the pretty much everything involved in order to make it catchy to the sort of people that thoroughly enjoy schadenfreude.
Reality programs which cover real crimes or real accidents.
Realistically if you're going to try and suggest that "incidental exposure" is harmful you're going to have to demonstrate that it is more harmful than the slew of demeaning, degrading, perverse shows that the FCC thinks are A-OK for viewing.
And I find it hard to believe that a couple of seconds of breasts on TV or a few expletives that slip through are going to cause more harm than the other programing which is already on the air.
Really the only way for parents to deal with this is either to sit in the same room and monitor the programming, cut off anything but approved DVDs or just remove the TV and internet completely from places that kids can access.
Re: (Score:3)
Or they could accept the fact that the world is a nasty place, and sooner or later their children will encounter something unsavory. They should be preparing their children to handle uncouth imagery responsibly, not sheltering them from it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could accept the fact that the world is a nasty place, and sooner or later their children will encounter something unsavory. They should be preparing their children to handle uncouth imagery responsibly, not sheltering them from it.
Agreed - but when and where? A 4-year-old child is not an 8-year old child, and no two children of the same age are equally mature, nor equally intelligent enough to comprehend what they just saw or heard. No two sets of parents would easily agree on when and where kids should be allowed to come across such topics and subjects. Also, what happens when there's more than one kid in the house, and their ages differ greatly?
I already know the argument: "you still control the remote, so..." Sure, a parent c
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not true. You have a certain right to not be forced to be subjected to objectionable material (the corollary to the right to free speech is the right to walk away), but this doesn't extend to any claim that public resources must be restricted to conform to some mutually-agreed-upon idea of "acceptable". If the option to turn off the television is reasonable, then your right to not listen/view is satisfied.
Don't tack the word "absolute" onto a discussion of rights just because you happen to think that right is particularly important.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
What is wrong with nudity?
Re: (Score:3)
When my daughters got computers, we sat down and had a talk. I told them that I didn't have filtering software installed on their machines, because I believed I had raised them properly.
I then informed them that i retained the right to inspect their computers at any time, and if I found something that I considered troublesome, there would be a huge problem.
It's worked so far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It absolutely is the consumer's responsibility to manage their own familial censorship/monitoring, including pa
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where this originated, but the Bellamy Brothers have a very similar song that Google can't seem to find the lyrics to.
I had a drug problem when I was young: I was drug to church on Sunday morning. I was drug to church for weddings and funerals. I was drug to family reunions and community socials no matter the weather.
I was drug by my ears when I was disrespectful to adults. I was also drug to the woodshed when I disobeyed my parents, told a lie, brought home a bad report card, did not speak with respect, spoke ill of the teacher or the preacher. Or if I didn't put forth my best effort in everything that was asked of me. I was drug to the kitchen sink to have my mouth washed out with soap if I uttered a profane four letter word. I was drug out to pull weeds in mom's garden and flower beds and cockleburs
out of dad's fields.
I was drug to the homes of family, friends, and neighbors to help out some poor soul who had no one to mow the yard, repair the clothesline or chop some fire wood. And if my mother had ever known that I took a single dime as a tip for this kindness, she would have drug me back to the wood shed.
Those drugs are still in my veins; and they affect my behavior in everything I do, say, and think. They are stronger than cocaine, crack, or heroin, and if today's children had this kind of drug problem, America might be a better place today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me (and my wife) crazy, but we've got this totally out-there idea that we'll raise o
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, it is not. Wait... yes it is.
Also incompetance.
You could'nt be futher from the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FAIL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
So in a situation that doesn't even have to be perfect, the whole premise of indecency is moot.
Lot's of people complain about neocons, or corporations, or illegal immigrants, or terrorists, or deviants ruining our country. They are so far off. Unfit and downright harmful parents are far worse.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't profanity that prompted us to do this. It was the violent promos for the local and national news. But we didn't need the government to solve that for us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, the rating is also in the show's broadcast, buried in the signal. It's how the v-chip understands wether or not to block the show. You want control? Simply TURN ON THE V-CHIP.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Informative)
So, in fact, I would be shocked and outraged if a public park did not allow a rapper to curse and swear at a public playground. Regardless of how I might feel about the rapper, his rights -- and by extension, everyone's rights -- are paramount. As for a supposed right to not be offended in a public place, there's just no such animal.
Please read the Court's opinion and educate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, I'm seeing a new lady who likes dirty talk and has a daughter.
I think... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He is right when he says "about fucking time", as that is exactly the verbiage that reflects on the problems we're having with indecency lately. Fleeting expletives are almost impossible to control and had it not been for "puritanical" views being shoved onto broadcast TV and radio, such wouldn't be a concern. It would also give radio a better selling point versus XM/Sirius as well, considerin
Where does it stop? (Score:5, Interesting)
On a related note( possibly straying offtopic) this was a big issue in L.A. and elsewhere across the US with Spanish-language radio stations that were getting away with their equivalent [puertorico-herald.org] of uncensored Howard Stern. How will the FCC go after them? What about Korean radio curses? When does it end? Hopefully the FCC will be so swamped with complaints that they'll be unable to investigate them all, and then they'll quit being our mommy and focus their efforts towards the future of spectral management.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the FCC only regulates over the air broadcasts. The FCC *is* arbitrary, unfair, and evil, but you should learn a bit before criticizing them, or no one will take you seriously.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
And why are your feelings more important than mine?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no objective measure of what language is lower or higher than another. It's all just words.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they don't. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would have nothing to rule upon.
Example: Is the word "nigger" allowed?
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
And profanity absolutely can be used for powerful artistic effect. Case in point, Alan Ginsberg's "Howl" [tripod.com], ruled not obscene by the Supreme Court 50 years ago.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're advocating adding obscenities, or perhaps also profanities.
The problem here is nit-picking what's obscene/profane. I think that reality shows are at least as insulting as the occasional dirty word. And, I don't want my kids exposed to mind-numbing Paris Hilton garbage or Big Brother or any of that other tripe. I choose not to "color my world with such muck", so I either watch a different channel or just turn the TV off. It should not be a major hurdle to figure out which shows are likely to offend you and avoid them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? What is it about certain words constitutes "vandalism of the language"?
"I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity."
Why?
"If you want to color your world with such muck, it is your choice to lower yourself to this standard
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For every group you can define that would find offense to the word fuck used in public - I can find a larger one who is not offended created using the criteria used to define yours. And by the time you create a definition that disallows a comparison group worthy of notice, you will have so over defined your social standard that it will be nothing more than a minority.
Common civility is defined by common action. If the action is becoming so
Bad words (Score:5, Interesting)
- Intercourse (blowjob, cock, cooter, cum, cunt, dick, dong, fuck, jizz, pussy, screw). This brings VD [wikipedia.org] and extra mouths to feed [wikipedia.org].
- Elimination of waste material from the body (ass, fart, peter, piss, shit, turd). These spread disease.
- Religion (damn, god, hell). Names referring to spirits considered good are said to cheapen the name; names referring to spirits considered evil are said to make them more powerful.
Restrictions apply much less strictly to words in Childish (e.g. call the stork, poop, wee, etc.) because children have to have some name for their own parts and functions. They also apply less strictly to words in Medicalese (e.g. feces, flatulence, intercourse, penis, urine, vagina) which symbolize intent to apply a serious tone to the discussion of serious business.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet what if I feel that the extreme degree of my displeasure can only properly be expressed by utilizing very specific words.
If this were over private airwaves, I could understand censorship. But these ar
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. But in modern American society, most people, in casual conversation amongst equals, do not take offense at mere profanity which is not uttered with the intent to offend. To compare this with modems, there is a kind of handshaking that goes on in which people beginning to converse with one another work out what is mutually acceptable. The thing is, you're talking about an old protocol in which profanity is not used until both sides are clearly comfortable with it, and I'm pointing out that the new protocol is one in which profanity often is used on the rebuttable assumption that both sides are comfortable with it already.
On the public airwaves, we don't have the opportunity to weigh idiom. Therefore a denominator that eschews initial offense and considers sensibilities is in order.
No.
On the public airwaves there is no conversation at all; the broadcaster speaks, and we either listen or don't. You want him to speak to the lowest common denominator, and offer us pablum. Furthermore, you intend to force the broadcaster to do so or else to muzzle him altogether! Censorship is never in keeping with our values as a society or a polity. Free speech for all is one of our most cherished and central values. And we deliberately protect not merely the inoffensive nothings you like and which no one objects to, because they don't need protecting anyway, but the offensive speech that no one likes at all, but which nevertheless is essential.
Let the broadcaster speak whatever he likes. It may have wide appeal, or it may offend everyone. The audience may choose to listen, or may choose not to.
To do otherwise, to follow your proposal -- that is the most deeply offensive, senseless thing of all.
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to.
So you're Humpty Dumpty now?
I use the word 'fie' precisely because it conveys what I want it to. People will use the word 'fuck' to do the same thing. In my case, it has nothing to do with a euphemism regarding the sex act. Why the sex act must be used to banally emphasis is only part of that word-- it's a negative exclamatory. Bad word. Conveys negative meaning at best. There are better choices.
No. You've disproven your own argument, I think. If the word is of arbitrary meaning, and you don't object to the meaning, and if the word isn't used in reference to sex, then all you're left to object to is a mere sound: fk. You cannot credibly say that the sound itself, regardless of meaning, is offensive enough for anyone to take notice or care. And there's nothing even slightly wrong in English with negative exclamatory words or sentences. It's not even as bad a split infinitive, and those aren't actually bad either.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it bothered me, I'd watch something else. If enough people watched something else, broadcasters would stop saying things that drove away their viewers.
There are many other things I could fit in instead of the n-word. Isn't preventing certain kinds of... let's call it deviant pornography... from being shown on TV censorship? Are you arguing against that as well?
Yes, of course. Let the viewers decide.
Which is more likely to be harmful: no cursing, or tons of it?
Censorship is immeasurably more harmful. We cannot let the government get in the habit of prohibiting speech it doesn't like.
"And why are your feelings more important than mine?"
Think about it this way, people who advocate censorship believe they have a right not to be offended. That right should apply equally to me and my offense at censorship. It's an inherently contradictory position. As for me, I don't think I have a right not to be offended, but we do have rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from religion, etc, that should be sufficient to prevent the government from censoring.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have the right to not be offended.
You can, however, criticize them for their impotence in linguistic capabilities. This is the nature of free speech and freedom of expression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because obviously someone uses a profane word because they lack the eloquence to call someone a bumbling ignorant uncultured swine of a simpleton. And obviously when someone wishes to damn someones soul to eternally burn in the fires of hell, they must say so in such verbage, instead of just simplifying it to "damn you" with the rest understood.
Obviously people use profane words because they lack the vocabulary to use others words, and NOT because certain words have three key features:
1. understood nearly universally within the culture
2. carry a weight to them, especially when said very sparsly
3. convey the point they are intended with little room for misunderstanding
True one could be complex with their insults and verbose with their exclamations, but that would truly render them useless.
What good is it to call someone a hedonistic glutton if they don't understand what you're saying?
You would feel good you've insulted someone who can't understand what you're saying, and that is a worthless act. At least if you call them a lazy fatass they understand that they need to get up and move, in your opinion.
I would argue that a well placed fuck or damn is more important than a good vocabulary. More so when you reserve your usage of them, as people notice when someone who rarely does so, curses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't w
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, my father told me that a good reason not to use expletives in casual speech is that you won't have anything effectively shocking left to use as emphasis if and when the need arises. I was 16 at the time, and though I should have listened just because he was a writer by trade (and a Hugo-winning one at that), I found that his point made sense in and of itself. I took it to heart without having to look for additional justification.
In the last decade or so (I'm 50-ish), I find the urge to u
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with profanity, and government censorship thereof, is that profane speech is such a slippery topic. An example: Fark is a moderated forum, and there's nothing particularly wrong with a privately-controlled forum exercising censorship. But as a whole, it's doubtful that restricting profanity has elevated the level of discourse. People seem encouraged to write "shiat", though there is no possible
Re: (Score:2)
Note: the filter ignores context and spacing, leading to some unintentionally mangled posts.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7301244.stm [bbc.co.uk]
This bbc story about it mentions this information.
Re: (Score:2)
[expletive deleted] != Fuck
Just kidding.
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where does it stop? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, a lot of things which are allowed on TV are designed to bypass the rational mind and evoke emotional responses in other people against their will. They're called ads.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The example is terrible and contrived but that's not surprising because there is no realistic way you can argue that overhearing a swear can cause anyone any harm.
Re: (Score:2)
They only react to complaints. The only complaints they get are from a single Christian Asshole group "Family Television Council". The vast majority of individual complainants having never seen the broadcast they are complaining about.
It is also not surprising than non English broadcasts don't have similar complaints (despite Latinos being largely conservative... this is because there is high correlation between Christian Assholism and the racism
Crazy society (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Crazy society (Score:5, Insightful)
- Colonel Kurtz, Apocalypse Now
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not this logic again (Score:2)
Fucking FCC (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fucking FCC (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Strange visions (Score:2)
=======
"f------ brilliant." The FCC said the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can trigger enforcement.
=======
Self censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bono (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm optimistic. (Score:4, Interesting)
My bet is that, while the basic principle that the FCC can regulate public airwaves won't be challenged, the court will chastise them for inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement and their unclear guidelines.
v-chip (Score:2)
IOW, why have both the FCC and V-chips. One shoul
Re:v-chip (Score:5, Insightful)
Appearently is okay to let your children watch the news reports of school shootings so they get the idea to do it themselves rather be responsible and in touch with your child enough to know that A) watching such thing isn't the brightest of ideas for your unstable goth brat, B) you might actually notice they are an unstable goth brat who has no idea how good their life is compared to someone with real problems.
Slightly in line with this rant
Or you could just do like us (Score:3, Interesting)
I would much rather have my child playing video games for 20 hours a week than watching TV for 20 hours a week. At least by playing video games, they are learning hand-eye coordination, problem solving, strategic thinking, and awareness of their surroundings. Granted, there is the whole "violent video games" argument, but that's neither here nor there insofar as what I think of TV.
I don't object to TV because it's violent or anything like that...I object to it because you are doing literally nothing while sitting in front of it. Try beating Ninja Gaiden Black on Master Ninja difficulty and tell me you weren't just doing something involved.
The FCC is destructive (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a DJ for a very large college radio station (broadcasting all over the Boston metropolitan area in the middle of FM dial) and the most disconcerting facet of the post-wardrobe malfunction FCC crackdowns is the fact that even a single incident would result in my station being shut down. We got one complaint a few years ago (in the more tolerant era), so now, if we were to become a repeat offender, the fine--several hundred thousand dollars--would completely bankrupt the station. SInce we're independently funded through ad revenue, there's no way we could pay, and we'd be off the air--just if somebody complained to the FCC because a late-night DJ slipped up and said "Fuck" on air, even when we're actually allowed to play music containing the same word.
To me, at least, it seems incredibly obvious that the punishments are beyond the limits of sanity. The FCC is trying to look out for the standards of our community? Yes, my station plays underground rock and hip-hop at night (I DJ for those programs), but during the day, it's exclusively jazz and classical. If, at 3am, a hip-hop DJ curses, leading to a complaint and the end of the station, who really loses? I suspect that the thousands of classical and jazz listeners would be more on the losing end than the asshole who called in the complaint or any of the other people who happened to hear the word "Fuck" in the middle of the night.
The FCC is just one manifestation of how colossally fucked up governmental regulation is becoming. I'm all for the government trying to help out the people, but not when there's clearly no understanding of how the real world actually operates.
Why was certiorari granted? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Appeals Court did not rule that the FCC had abridged speech or press freedoms in these cases, but instead that the FCC's policy was not sufficiently well justified. There are standards for the behavior of regulatory agencies like the FCC that require them to spell out in sufficient detail why they've made a change in the rules. The Appeals Court ruled that the FCC had failed to meet these standards. That Court also advised the FCC it didn't think there was a way the Commission could implement its intended policy consititutionally. Since the Supremes are really ruling on the procedural matter, the question of why they took this case becomes even more cloudy.
I suspect the Bushies are defending other cases where the issue is whether a regulatory agency has provided sufficient justification for changing course. Rules like these restrict the president's ability to change the regulatory regime since opponents of the changes can go to court claiming the agency didn't fulfill its obligations. All those proponents of a strong Executive in the Administration like Dick Cheney would probably love to see the Supremes agree that the FCC had done its job.
I wish we could learn who voted for cert, but those votes are secret.
Drat this darn old friggin' profanity shite (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC has pending before it "hundreds of thousands of complaints" regarding the broadcast of expletives, Clement said. He argued that the appeals court decision has left the agency "accountable for the coarsening of the airwaves while simultaneously denying it effective tools to address the problem."
I think "hundreds of thousands" is hyperbole -- I can imagine MAYBE a few tens of thousands at most. And it has been shown in the past that the vast majority of these are usually automated "copy, sign, and send" complaints coming from a very tiny group of people associated with some of the right-wing Christian watchdog groups. I seem to recall that of the complaints that came in about the infamous "wardrobe malfunction," all but a tiny handful came from ONE group's members.
I guess I'm someone who just never understood the whole concept of certain words arbitrarily being designated as "naughty." Profanity serves a purpose in language -- it can be overdone, but there are also times when it is entirely appropriate. I cringe every time I watch "Law and Order" or other crime shows and hear some gang member or drug dealer use the contrived euphemism "friggin'" -- it rings SO false and destroys the credibility of the character.
And I guess I don't understand people who are offended to the point of pathology by words. Just words. Not even necessarily the idea behind the words (which can be offensive, for much better reasons) but the words themselves. It's like hearing or using those words is some sort of magical incantation that will corrupt their children, compromise their salvation, and spell the doom of Western civilization.
The best of the bunch are the folks who condescendingly say, "The English language is so rich, there are plenty of words and synonyms -- why so you have to use THOSE words?" And my response is: if you truly appreciate the breadth and variety of the language, why are you trying to LIMIT the number of words that can be used?
fleeting expletives? (Score:3, Funny)
There, fixed it.
I'm more worried... (Score:5, Funny)
Who [the fuck] are you? (Score:3, Interesting)
Need to replace the FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC's power has grown far beyond it's original intention (regulating airwaves frequencies in the U.S.). Apparently they only do things in response to complaints. Or at least that's how it once was. But the really fucked up thing is 99% of complaints come from one organization [arstechnica.com].
So essentially this one single organization is responsible for most of the - detrimental in my opinion - changes to what is allowed to be broadcast or not.
It's not the popular decision. People just think it is because this one fucked up organization has such broad powers and people just assume that it's the popular opinion. It is not.
The organization responsible for all this? The Parent's Television Council [parentstv.org]. The sick thing is they're proud to be the nation's most influential advocacy organization [parentstv.org] yet have barely a million members [parentstv.org]. That's right one million uptight fucks are responsible for 99.8-99.9% of all FCC regulation that affects 303 million people [census.gov].
And the FCC allows it.
To other countries: The US is not up tight! Most of us love a good nipple on TV. It's this one organization that has been acting via the screwed up joke that is our FCC that has watered down our TV, not popular opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)