Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judges Find Dignity in Profanity
Townhall.com ^ | July 16, 2010 | Brent Bozell

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last
To: DJ MacWoW
I have shown NO contempt for the Constitution.

Sure you have. I cited Madison on First Amendment protection of licentiousness. Rather than dispute this, your response was to argue that the Constitution is wholly inadequate for governing the American people.

That gives a green light to government and its agents to walk right over the Constitution. Suppose the cops conduct an illegal search of your vehicle and rough you up in the process. The authorities can just use your argument and say "Sorry, but the Constitution is now wholly inadequate for governing. You're out of luck".

61 posted on 07/16/2010 9:48:25 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
your response was to argue that the Constitution is wholly inadequate for governing the American people.

I quoted John Adams. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

Answer my last post. See post 57 and tell me that those goals haven't been met. Try telling me that we are still a moral and religious nation. Women murder their babies before they are born. God is not allowed on public property or in the schools. Gays march with "pride". Sex has become the great American pastime. Even on FR, how many "I'd hit it" threads are there in one day? Go on. Tell me how moral and religious a country we are.

"Political interest [can] never be separated in the long run from moral right"

"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are a gift from God? Thomas Jefferson

62 posted on 07/16/2010 10:02:56 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Garbage. You can legislate morality. Didn’t you read this article?

yes I read the article. My statement is based on the fact that my morals aren't legislated. My family's values and the way they interact aren't legislated by the Congress or any legislative body. We don't murder, we don't steal, we don't lie, I try to honor my parents, I worship no idols...etc...

I don't need the legislature to tell me that teaching 6 year olds that anal sex is "ok", homosexuals are "normal" and that taking money from hard working people and giving it to parasites is bad.

I also don't think homosexuals should be murdered. I think that their lives are going to be judged by someone with a better prospective than mine about what and how they've lived their lives.

As for the cursing and the judges' ruling, I am of the opinion that my kids will be exposed to cursing, sexual depravity and other disgusting things in life and as part of the electronic entertainment options in our society. My job is to teach them that those things ARE DISGUSTING and just because everybody thinks that saying the "F" word or sleeping with multiple partners, using drugs or cheating is ok, doesn't make it so.

as for the

This is either said from ignorance, or by someone who wants to see unlimited immorality in our culture.

you don't know me, you don't know what I believe or my level of education as it pertains to this subject. So get your "cheese chafed" as much as you want, free country, etc....If your family needs a bureaucrat to regulate your morality I pity you and find you both ignorant and exposed to the whims of an amoral progressive government that will manipulate those that trust it.

63 posted on 07/18/2010 9:42:35 PM PDT by erman (Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: erman

So, OK. You admit that you CAN legislate morality.

Thank you.


64 posted on 07/19/2010 6:18:04 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
They cant do anything that you don't let them.

Oh, I see your point. They think they're legislating morality for the populace. Which is as effective as legislating that the sun shall stop shining and the earth to stop spinning.

It doesn't work. I'm not going to argue on semantics , you win. You are correct and I will do a complete reevaluation of my thoughts on the power that others have on me and my family's ability to conduct ourselves in a moral fashion or whether we should all look to Washington for moral guidance. They can legalize heroin, we won't use it, they can legalize prostitution and we wont use them , they can legalize cursing on TV, we don't need to watch it. For all I care Washington can do whatever they want and I can care less than if an ant was under foot. They have only the power that we allow them to have on material thing. Those matter of the human spirit are mine to give or use at my discretion.

65 posted on 07/19/2010 8:08:28 AM PDT by erman (Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson