Posted on 07/13/2010 2:48:19 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
WASHINGTON—A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy Tuesday, saying the agency's efforts to restrict the use of vulgar language on air were "unconstitutionally vague."
The decision was a major win for Fox Television, NBC Universal and other broadcasters who have complained that an FCC crackdown on fleeting obscenities was unfair and violated their First Amendment rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
*REPOST* from different content provider. Sorry, I didn’t realize “Business Week” and Bloomberg were one and the same.
This is such a nothing compared to their (illegal) effort to regulate the internet.
Will the FCC have to return the fines that it has collected? With interest?
Our courts have been so packed with Progressives! I will not watch a channel that is in the least offensive in it’s content. I want no filthy language or lewd “shows” playing in my home. The only power we have as viewers is to boycott the sponsors that offer them!
Our culture’s headfirst plunge to reach the lowest common denominator continues.
Soon we will all be equal - all equal and all at the bottom of the barrel.
I’m more concerned about Government and FCC overreach than an occasional cuss word on TV. If we let them have that power they’ll use it unjustly, punishing outlets they consider a threat to their power.
Thomas has all but promised that will happen in his concurring opinion from this case when it was first heard in 2007 (or maybe 2008, I forget). Pacifica is doomed, as it should be, if for no other reason - as you point out - because of the ubiquity of the V-Chip.
I have a feeling you and I will be in the minority, here.
if the FC prohibits smut and offensive language, then yes, I p[refer they have that right. There used to be something called decency, and the airways were safe for the impressionable to watch. No longer! Bring back the decency policy!
Yeah, don’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way policies you like! It’s perfectly okay for a federal regulatory agency (part of the executive branch, not Congress, mind you) to promulgate vague rules that allow them to arbitrarily pick and choose what speech they will punish, so long as the results are palatable to Paperdoll!
And you said the courts are “Progressive”? Somehow, I think Woodrow Wilson would be on your side, not Judge Pooler’s.
Excellent point - that is the new political reality, isn't it?
When we look at the current high level of governmental abuse of power and the Obama administration's politicization of anything and everything, Richard Nixon's feeble proposals to use his presidential authority to thwart his political enemies seem amateurish and quaint.
.
You certainly got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, didn’t you? :)
What about fleeting wardrobe malfunctions?
IIRC, back in the good ol' days, the broadcasters censored themselves.
The bigger question is why would you want the federal or any branch of government telling you what is permissible and what is indecent?
Do you really want the government deciding what your children may and may not watch? If so, then why would you abdicate that the decision-making and authority to control what your children watch to the government?
I guess what I'm really asking is why you are lobbying for more government control over our lives instead of less?
You have every right to feel that way and use that power to determine your behavior. I agree that the courts have been packed with progressives, but this ruling is correct and Constitutional.
While I defend your right to determine what you want to watch, I personally would rather have the right and freedom to say, hear, read or write whatever I want than have some busybody deciding those things for me.
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
— Thomas Jefferson (1791)
“As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.”
—Christoper Dawson
The government is NOT the force that should be involved in this type of *moral* determination.
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
— Daniel Webster
Court Strikes Down FCC’s Indecency Policy;
Michelle Obummer Restricted to Wearing Black or White Dresses in Public; Multicolored Outfits Banned For Life
Yeah, I suppose I was unduly aggressive there. I apologize for that.
The fact remains, though, that I take issue with characterization of this court decision as “progressive”, especially when use of the power of the federal government to enforce public morality was (and, in many ways, is) one of the hallmarks of the Progressive movement. While the version of “morality” promoted by today’s Progressives may differ from the version promoted by the Progressives of the early 20th century, the central principle is the same.
Also, you should know that Judge Pooler’s decision is quite a bit more modest than the headline might have led you to believe. Judge Pooler did not pass on what sort of content regulation the FCC may or may not engage in. All he said is that if they are going to regulate speech, they need to do so through clear rules that don’t leave broadcasters guessing as to what they will or will not be punished for.
Requiring federal regulators to stick to clear rules that don’t allow them to arbitrarily decide what they want to prohibit is something we all ought to be in favor of, and restraining the power of the federal government to regulate speech may not be your cup of tea, but it is hardly “Progressive”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.