'n I ever 'n heard.
Posted on 07/16/2010 6:28:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
On July 12, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City warmly offered the TV networks exactly what they wanted: the shredding of the FCC's lamely enforced rules against broadcast indecency. As of now, the network stars can swear at will in front of impressionable children. These judges did not rule narrowly on the focus of the case -- "fleeting expletives" that networks aired unintentionally. They ruled broadly in favor of all expletives.
There's no other way to say this. The ruling is idiocy.
Judge Rosemary Pooler, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, concluded the FCC's prohibitions against F-bombs and S-words are somehow "unconstitutionally vague." She claimed they weren't suggesting it was impossible for the FCC to construct a constitutional decency regime. But the decision made it clear these judges don't think the FCC should even bother.
"The observation that people will always find a way to subvert censorship laws may expose a certain futility in the FCC's crusade against indecent speech," Pooler wrote. Note the wording. "Censorship laws." "Crusade." It is precisely the language of Hollywood lobbyists.
Pooler, a Bill Clinton appointee who ran for Congress as a liberal Democrat and lost in both 1986 and 1988, concluded the judicial opinion by actually trying to paint artistic gloss and literary glitter on profanity. She declared the FCC "chills a vast amount of protected speech dealing with some of the most important and universal themes in art and literature." How can we dress up the F-bomb in artistic terms? Here's how: "Sex and the magnetic power of sexual attraction are surely among the most predominant themes in the study of humanity since the Trojan War." How do we excuse the S-word? I am not making this up: "The digestive system and excretion are also important areas of human attention."
The judges ruled with lingo straight from the Hollywood playbook. When the Supreme Court allowed decency enforcement in 1978, it was in the prehistoric era of technology. The Internet was in its infancy and people didn't watch videos on laptops or mobile phones. New technology (and especially the ascent and even equivalency of cable TV) therefore makes decency enforcement as pointlessly passe as polyester leisure suits.
The more cars we put on the road, the more driving infractions we have. Should speeding laws be banned?
The judges had more to say, unfortunately. Trying to prevent dirty words is apparently outdated daily by the newest slang. "The English language is rife with creating ways of depicting sexual or excretory organs or activities," Pooler lectured, "and even if the FCC were able to provide a complete list of all such expressions, new offensive and indecent words are invented every day."
Therefore, it's OK to use language in front of a 6-year-old child that would have my syndicator fire me were I to include it in this newspaper column.
These judges clearly have a slant toward Hollywood excess. Pooler's opinion mocked the FCC for suggesting TV executives are more interesting in sleazy ratings gambits than decency: "While the FCC characterizes all broadcasters as consciously trying to push the envelope on what is permitted, much like a petulant teenager angling for a later curfew, the Networks have expressed a good faith desire to comply with the FCC's indecency regime."
Someone as naive -- no, someone as ignorant -- as this should not be writing opinions. I suspect the industry heads burst out laughing when they read it.
Anyone who's had half an eye on broadcast television in the last 10 years would not be so ridiculous as to suggest that Hollywood hasn't been trying to push the envelope on what frontier of dirty language, sex and violence it can surpass. Of course, broadcasters came into the courtroom to tell judges they've made a "good faith" effort. But the record shows -- the useless V-chip, the corrupted ratings system and so much else -- that they could care less.
After the decision, the broadcasters kept the phony routine going, insisting that nothing would change now on TV. "It's legally permissible for stations to air uncut R-rated movies after 10 p.m. -- or to have Letterman and Leno dropping F-bombs," said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, told The Washington Post. "But you never see or hear that material from broadcasters because of the relationships and expectations we've built with our audiences over decades."
If there were such an "expectation" over "decades," it was the expectation that the networks could at least draw a line of decency at the nastiest, dirtiest words in front of children. But they've spent years now and fortunes of money advocating in court for the right to proclaim profanities at children in every hour of the broadcast day, and when they win, they suggest they never intend to push that envelope? Please.
Won’t somebody please think of the children!!! A good parent can teach their children right from wrong regardless of television content, if the kid is getting their social norms from the television you’ve already failed.
The first amendment prevailed in this ruling. We are perfectly free to turn off our TVs and radios if we find the content offensive.
Giving government the power to regulate content is a terribly bad idea. We already know that the 0bama regime wants to shut down conservative talk radio by using existing rules which regulate content. Disallowing the government from doing that means that we're going to have to live with objectionable content on the air.
As long as we can turn it off, we'll be fine.
Give up the standard you will lose the heart of the country. We got it all wrong. Just because you have the RIGHT to do something does not mean you should always exercise that right.
And here we are 40 years later and pretty much anything goes. Mel Gibson's rant? [shrug] Play it on the 6 o'clock news. What's the harm????
Would anyone care to imagine where we will be in 20 more years? Our culture decided a while ago that anything smacking of censorship was bad, bad, bad. I'm really not so sure. I would love it if industries were self-policing, but they obviously are not. I am not opposed to decency laws that would help maintain some kind of family atmosphere in the entertainment business.
Sorry. Not the government’s job to regulate speech. Period. Don’t like what’s on TV, don’t watch it. Don’t like a particular music/talk radio channel, don’t listen. Find alternatives. It’s not like there’s two radio channels and three TV channels any more.
What we are doing is not much different from 40 years ago, just more visible.
Yo cant legislate morality. The times you describe had parents that would have thrown the tv out the door if two gay guys /gals kissed. Now it’s a shrug Cursing and sexual content is tolerated because we can turn off the tv but not pick and chose individual cable channels. If anybody wanted to really change things we need to make all of cable a pay per channel venue. That way if MTV offends you then its off your list and blocked unless the kids have a seperate account. Blocking channels is hard with cable unless you have a box.
No. Along with freedom comes responsibility. Our country was built on personal morality and not profanity. George Washington issued a proclamation to his troops against the use of profane language. I don't believe that he or any of the Founders thought verbal profanity was true freedom.
'n I ever 'n heard.
I certainly hope you see that we got here by "pushing the envelope". Bit by bit, the entertainment business de-sensitized people to the point where seeing homosexuals kiss is just a shrug. Once upon a time we had parents who watched over their kids and helped make good household decisions. Now, through several decades of de-sensitization and pushing the envelope, it's "anything goes" and the most that many can muster is a shrug.
If I were simply a self-centered person, I would be satisifed in turning off the TV in my own home. Unfortunately, my neighbors watch that stuff and the kids at school watch that stuff. I cannot turn off the world. My family exposed to the results of the de-sensitiztion. There is no knob for me to switch.
snip
The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.
A filthy mouth isn't freedom.
Part of that responsiblity involves us determining that a particular piece of content is objectionable and then making the choice to not indulge in said content. If we cannot demonstrate this responsibility, then we do not deserve freedom of speech.
George Washington issued a proclamation to his troops against the use of profane language.
And as commander, he had the authority to do this. But no government has the right to tell private citizens what they can and cannot say based on someone else's standards. I do agree that freedom of speech is not absolute, there are reasonable limits with regards to things like libel and slander.
I certainly am uncomfortable with objectionable content being allowed on airwaves, but the alternative, in which the government has the legal power to censor dissenting opinions because it deems them to be objectionable, is far, far worse.
Wholeheartedly agree! Excellent point!
The 1st Amendment applies to the freedom to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal. As with all our freedoms it has been bastardized to mean the freedom to cuss your head off.
But no government has the right to tell private citizens what they can and cannot say based on someone else's standards.
I see. So it REALLY is ok to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater just for fun.
I am sure that these judges would not allow use of profane language in their own courts. If you used profanity there, you would be slapped with contempt of court immediately. A court is the last place to allow free speech.
In a court, you must always pretend to show respect, and act as if the proceedings make perfect sense, even though they are usually run for the lawyer’s convenience and profit, with justice taking fourth place.
And again, if the government has the ability to regulate content, what is to say that it cannot simply regulate away our rights to be critical of it, because after all, saying "f**k 0bama" is "offesive."
So it REALLY is ok to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater just for fun.
First, you didn't read the rest of my post. Second, how is this related to you being able to turn off the TV or radio when something objectionable to you is being broadcast?
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
First, you didn't read the rest of my post.
Nope.
Second, how is this related to you being able to turn off the TV or radio
Because others won't. How big a cesspool do you want to swim in? The FCC licenses broadcasters to "serve" the public. How does the "F" bomb serve the public good?
What did you think the First Amendment was supposed to protect . . . criticism of Obama? [/sarc]
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.