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.
And again, as you pointed out, our rights come with responsibilities. Should we ban guns, even with the second amendment in place, because of illegal shootings? If people choose to act irresponsibly then your beef is with them. We know the government in general has a horrid track record of respecting individual rights. Allowing our current government to infringe on those rights isn't going to help.
The FCC licenses broadcasters to "serve" the public. How does the "F" bomb serve the public good?
It doesn't. That's why I do not watch TV or listen to radio programming which makes use of it. How hard is it to turn the thing off if you do not like it?
What are you going to do when conservative news outlets are silenced "to serve the public good?"
Strawman.
The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to be profane. The bottom line is that public airwaves need to be regulated. We have become a coarse society that will not get any better by allowing profane language on TV and radio.
Hardly. You're making the argument that our rights should be infringed for the public good. If we use your reasoning, then every right granted to us by our Creator is at risk for the same reasons, including our right to keep and bear firearms.
The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to be profane.
Nothing in the Constitution grants any rights to anyone. The first amendment says that Congress may not abridge our freedom of speech, among other things. How is the FCC's disallowing of certain content fitting in with that? It doesn't.
The original intent of the FCC was to regulate airwaves so that radio and later TV stations would not interfere with one another. As these airwaves span state lines, this is a perfectly reasonable and legal use of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to regulate who uses which frequency. This cannot, and must not, twist into the ability for the FCC to limit free speech.
You're on TV or radio? Tell me, what's the point of licensing broadcasters if anything goes? If anything is permissible? When their licenses are up, they have announcements that tell viewers they can make comments about renewing their license as to whether they serve "the public good". Why?
The whole point of licensing broadcasters should be to ensure that they do not interfere with each others' use of signal. That is a reasonable and constitutionally permissable exercise in the regulation fo interstate commerce by the Federal government.
When their licenses are up, they have announcements that tell viewers they can make comments about renewing their license as to whether they serve "the public good".
This is silly and it should be done away with. When "the public good" is defined as the silencing of conservative media outlets, this would be good?
But it isn't. They are also judged on content.
This is silly and it should be done away with. When "the public good" is defined as the silencing of conservative media outlets, this would be good?
It has been a rule since the first broadcast. Bet you're under 60.
And silencing conservative outlets is another strawman. Usually used to silence the conservative view.
Have a nice day!
Yo cant legislate morality.
_________________________
Garbage. You can legislate morality. Didn’t you read this article?
These three judges have just ruled on a moral issue. They used their liberal immoral logic to allow more profanity in our homes. So our children can learn the f-word by the time they start school.
And if it isn’t judges, then it is our state and federal lawmakers who are “legislating morality”. Or immorality, if you will.
It chafes my cheese to hear someone say “you can’t legislate morality”. This is either said from ignorance, or by someone who wants to see unlimited immorality in our culture.
And just who gets to decide what constitutes "The Public Good?"
The bottom line is the only criteria there should be for a broadcaster to stay in business is if they can make a profit.
And I guarantee in a true market, broadcasters who engage in filth for the most part would go out of business.
Unfortunately many of these channels are part of larger broadcasting conglomerates, like Viacom, who are subsidized. Also allowing cable companies the option to not have to go "a la carte" with channels would be a big help.
If one believes the Government, instead of the free market, should decide what gets shown on network TV then one should reconsider whether or not they believe in small government.
Yes -- among many other things.
Keep greasing that slippery slope.
From post 11: 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;
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.
I went to school when they didn't teach "many other things" but only the truth.
And silencing conservative outlets is another strawman. Usually used to silence the conservative view.
And I'll bet you're under 23.
Until 1987, conservative talk radio did not exist in the USA because of illegal content regulation by the FCC by way of the "Fairness" Doctrine.
My predictions that conservative media outlets would be targets for censorship by the government are not without historical precedent.
So, in your school what did they rely on when/if they claimed the speech provisions of the First Amendment are only to protect the right to "speak out against the government without fear of reprisal".
If it's that simple & limiting, why doesn't the First Amendment just say it in plain language?
I guess I hit a nerve.
Have a nice day.
Why doesn't the Constitution define Natural Born Citizen? Because they didn't think they had to when at that point in time people KNEW what it meant.
I’ll take that as a non-answer.
Because you have no response to being told to look at historical context. Look at post 11. I'm sure the President of the Constitutional Convention thought the 1st Amendment was about being allowed to cuss your brains out. And definitely not about avoiding prison or death for criticizing government. You know, like in England.
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.