FCC Indecency Ruling Struck Down

arbitraryaardvark writes "Reuters reports that the 2nd circuit has struck down the FCC's recent ruling on indecency, in a case brought by Fox. The court said the U.S. Federal Communications Commission was 'arbitrary and capricious' in setting a new standard for defining indecency. 'Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin angrily retorted that he found it "hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that 'sh*t' and 'f@ck' are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience ... If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want," Martin said in a statement.' No word yet on whether the agency will appeal.

But Wait...

[MarkPNeyer]

I thought fox was a republican lapdog?

Freedom of Speech?

[i_ate_god]

"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"

If I'm not mistaken, thats the whole idea of freedom of speech right?

Parents:

[Wicko]

You remember that little warning at the beginning of the show? This show contains coarse language, sexual content, and violence? Yeah, that means don't let your kids watch it. That wasn't too difficult I hope!

Sticks and Stones

[moehoward]

They are only words. Banning words is what gives the words power. My wife and I allow have told our kids that they are allowed to "cuss" around their friends and we don't have a problem with it. We'd like them to not cuss around us, but it is not "banned." We have asked that they not cuss around other adults, but it is not "banned." It is their own choice.

Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are. I don't have a problem with using those words, but I choose not to (except when one-on-one with my wife... go figure). I am 100% sure that my kids have never heard me use profanity, but I am 100% sure that they hear it every day in other places. I have no problem with others using profanity at all. Sometimes it is funny, mostly it says an awful lot about the person using it. It is just words.

Anyway, we have never heard any cussing from our kids and have never heard any comments from other parents/teachers.

disgraceful

[nomadic]

Look how he describes it not as a federal court, but as a "New York court" in order to exploit the biases of the rest of the country.

Re:Censorship is good?

[gadders]

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".

God forbid...

[OfficialReverendStev]

God forbid that our poor children's virgin ears should hear from their TV the same words that they hear every day at school. Or that they should ever see a *gasp* boobie. Oh no, that's horrible and will surely corrupt our youth.

Now, showing live video from the Virginia Tech massacre (you know, the camera phone that recorded the shootings from outside) or showing massive explosions and horrific, gory deaths, that's fine. Totally fine. We want to breed killers so we can send them to fight our wars... er... defend Freedom(TM)

Two small victories in one day.

[u-bend]

Today's starting off pretty well--first the RIAA gets a small smackdown, and now this. It would be nice to live in a country where parents are actually expected to make decisions for themselves about what their kids watch. As a previous poster stated, we already have the annoying warnings about the content of upcoming programs--that means that if you don't want your kids absorbing and regurgitating TV filth, then don't let them watch it.

Re:Censorship is good?

[grassy_knoll]

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".

So, public communication should be limited by government fiat to that which is acceptable for a two year old?

Re:Sticks and Stones

[Anonymous Coward]

When used properly, the words provide a sign of how emotionally involved one is with one's speech. It provides an extra cue to mood. The problem is when you overuse your anglo-saxon monosyllables, depriving them of their indicative value.

Re:Censorship is good?

[Jimmy King]

Yeah, because there is nothing cooler than hearing a two year old kid say "Fuck".

Are you arguing that censorship to protect the children IS a good thing?

While I tend to believe that the first amendment is more to protect our right to express any IDEA we want rather than say any specific word we want at any time, I still think that the FCC limiting this shit is stupid.

Here's a better idea.
Parent: "Little Bobby, that show/movie/whatever is inappropriate, let's watch this instead." Then change the channel.

or perhaps
Parent: "Little Bobby, I know they say those words on TV but those are actual bad things to say and some people find them very offensive. You shouldn't say those words."

You know, kind of like how parents are supposed to raise their children and teach them the difference between right and wrong.

Re:Parents:

[Gorm the DBA]

How's about parents understand that during events which are important and emotional enough to be broadcast "live", you realize that people may, maybe, just maybe, get excited and emotional enough as a result of something that their internal censors may temporarily shut off and unpleasant words may occur.

It's called life. The only reason "Fuck" is cool to say is because it gets such a huge reaction. If it was treated like any other word, say hemmoroid perhaps, then it wouldn't be used nearly as often.

Watch TV with your kid, or ensure it's turned off. It's called parenting, and it's been fairly effective for about 3,000,000 years. It's only been ineffective for the last 20 or so.

Why are words bad?

[Liquidrage]

I've never understood why you can watch someone get shot in a drama in prime time, someone could say something like "I'd like to put a fork into your eyeball" in prime time, yet a single word like the F-Bomb can't be said?

What is the actual purpose of "bad" words? Why not just consider that bad words don't exist and everyone can say any word they want and we just not "have a cow" over it?

Seems to me we're taught to take exception to the words. It's a learned behavior. How about just not learning it in the 1st place?

And the problem is...

[grasshoppa]

Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want

And the problem with this lies where? We do too much to shelter our children, it's a disservice to them from us who are supposed to be raising adults. Let them hear the words, learn their intent and meaning, with a parent to teach them when it is and isn't appropriate to use them.

*WE* are the parents, not the FCC. How dare they be so arrogant as to take the roll of parenting my children for me.

( 7, 5 and 3 year old girls )

The FCC missed the point -- as usual

[Xesdeeni]

Hey Kevin Martin! It's not that the FCC can't stop swear words from primetime TV, it's that the FCC has to define what constitutes a swear word (here's the hard part) BEFORE they can slap a fine on a TV station. You can't be intentionally vague with the definition of indecency and then come down hard (to the tune of millions of $$$) on the TV stations who have no idea where the line is drawn.

Kevin buddy, write down what indecency is, and everyone will comply. It's a neat idea...give it a try.

Xesdeeni

Re:Censorship is good?

[aussie_a]

Perhaps that 2 year old's parents should do their fucking job and fucking monitor what the fucking kid watches instead of putting them in front of the fucking television and walking away. Or perhaps people can grow the fuck up and realize that fuck is just a fucking word and it isn't going to hurt anyone unless the fuckers let it hurt themselves.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[bhirsch]

Where do you get your data from?

The sweeping executive powers of FDR dwarf anything fathomed by the current administration, and don't forget the massively high (at times around 1/3) portion of the GDP that was accounted for by government spending at points in the past. Not to mention the times when the top bracket income taxes were above 70%. Are you blaming Bush for the higher government revenue realized despite lower taxes?

If you want to bash Bush, fine. But don't do it for things that the progressive heroes of the past were far more guilty of.

Why don't you and the other slashbots stop being such drama queens?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech refers to ideas and meaningful dialog. You're free to have an opinion about profanity.

This issue is about protecting people's rights to have their children watch TV without being subjected to filth and degradation. If your opinion of profanity is different than mine, then I understand that. A pig wallowing in his own feces has the opinion that he's clean too.

TV is like inviting a stranger into your house, without knowing what they're like. With a stranger, I can set some ground rules before they enter. If they break those rules, I'll invite them to change, or to leave. With TV, society has set those ground rules. During prime-time, my children are awake and might like to visit with the stranger. Would you like that stranger to expose themselves to your children and pee on them while you're standing there, or as soon as you leave the room? I think not. If you welcome that, I pity you and you are in the minority.

Go ahead and wallow in your filth, but don't force it on me. If the majority declares themselves to be of your opinion, then so be it, but I'll continue to oppose it.

Fox a Republican lapdog...

[mollog]

Or is it the other way around; the Republicans are Fox's bitch. Either way, you're trying to be logical about politics, you yourself are being illogical.

Republicans are supposed to be political conservatives. Political conservatives are supposed to be against government interference in private lives. Terri Schaivo, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. show that they care more about their 'base', the social conservatives, than they care about political philosophy.

And the fact that Fox has been leading the charge when it comes to smutty, sensationalist television, which you think would offend the religious right, and they they get a free ride from the Republican Party because they're such whores about supporting the NeoCons is just another example of the hypocritical politics we have these days. Another reason why religion and politics are a bad, but historical, combination.

I'd love to support the Republicans (fiscal conservatives, political conservatives), but I don't dare support the whores and hypocrites in power right now.

Re:Sticks and Stones

[babyrat]

Our kids understand that the use of those words simply is a sign to people of how dumb and inarticulate you are.

Do you also teach them not to judge a book by its cover, and how generalizations and prejudice are wrong?

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'd hate to detract from a good healthy visceral hatred

Good. A man like GWB deserves to be hated. He has earned it.

The language

[techpawn]

As much as we kill it around here, we have a love for its strength. You can say exactly how you feel and be sure everyone knows how you feel. Unfortunetly, that sometimes requires the use of taboo explatives. By removing the taboo we remove their strength. I'm not sure about you but when the server crashes "Oh gosh and golly gee!" Does not express my feelings at the time. Then again, I don't want small children to hear me as I'm working on said pieces of crap.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[jedidiah]

The FCC didn't get put in place by making a blatant mockery of American Ideals.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in what Bush said, he's incompetent to express it and what comes out ends up being fascist. It's not necessary. It's just a failing of Bush in particular.

Nixon could defend the FCC and not use the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as toilet paper while doing it.

This is the difference between a bastard who is at least presidential and a total poser.

I don't give a shit what they say.

[Maxo-Texas]

Most of these words are in common usage on the street.

Shit is a particularly stupid example since we use it every day. It's like a rated "G" word which is peculiarly forbidden.

Re:Censorship is good?

[jedidiah]

That idea works GREAT with a 4 year old.

If your kid isn't old enough to ignore stupid stuff they see on TV, they should not be watching it without your active supervision PERIOD. You people are fixating on lame stuff like adults swearing and ignoring the more insidious things that MORONS like Valenti wouldn't even catch. The gross stuff is actually easy to deal with. It's the subtle stuff and trivialized misbehaivor of minors (often considered cute rather than dangerosu) that you have to watch out for.

Fuck is not a problem. Disney Children's movies with the main character casually committing felonies with no apparent consequences are a problem.

This isn't about children. This is about uptight old crones that will have a conniption fit if you violate their sheltered puritanical outlook on life.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[natoochtoniket]

$ grep -i privacy us_constitution |wc -w
0

That's quite right. The power to invade my privacy without a warrant is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution. Therefore, the federal government does not have that power.

The bill of rights is not a complete list of rights. The 9th and 10th amendment clearly state that other rights exist, beyond those that are enumerated. However, the constitution is the complete enumeration of the powers of the federal government. Any power not specifically enumerated in the constitution is not granted to the government.

Re:So now we're afraid of swearing on the internet

[August_zero]

Because a lot of people don't want to believe that we have poverty, violence and ignorance in this country because our social systems like public schools, medical care and social services are failing. It is much easier to say it is because there is violence in video games, swearing on television and gays trying to get married than admit that we as a people need to either make some changes or else accept the fact that a significant portion of our population is falling towards third world status.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[e4g4]

That's a fair point - but if the FCC is mandating the V-Chip, why then are they also enforcing censorship? Frankly, I don't give a crap what's being broadcast - I have no children in my house and if I find something offensive on television (like the Fox news channel) i just change the channel. If I were concerned about scarring the minds of small children - i'd make sure the TV filtered out content labelled TV-MA. If the issue is really about "think of the children", a system is already standardized and in place to "protect" them (should their parents choose to do so) - why do we need an additional layer of "protection"?

Re:Sticks and Stones

[willow]

Don't be an idiot. What people *say* isn't an appearance (except for politicians :^)) and it seems perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions about someone's intelligence based on their speech.

The parent is simply saying "When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate. Neither reflects well on you".

OMFG :)

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[MightyYar]

Glad I didn't put a dent in your hatred. Or that of the 4 people who moderated you up.

I still don't see what George Bush has to do with this discussion. You have never been able to say "Shit" or "Fuck" on the public airwaves during prime time. George Bush may not be a great president, but every discussion on Slashdot should not be viewed as an opportunity to flame him.

Re:The FCC missed the point -- as usual

[Kenrod]

You've just described the modus operandi of the entire government, not just the FCC. Define something vaguely, start issuing fines, and then see what sticks in the court system.

Re:Fox a Republican lapdog...

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, conservatives are technically resistant to change (although most self identified conservatives today are also in favor of minimal government). Opposition to "gay marriage" is opposition to change...that is marriage as currently defined (one man to one woman) works, why change it? If we need something like "gay marriage" why not create something new for that purpose instead of changing an existing social practice that works (BTW what I mean by "works" is a complex topic and defining that is completely off topic in this post)? Abortion rights is a question of whose rights, the mother's or the child's? You either believe that the mother's rights trump the child's, or that it is not a child, not everyone shares that opinion. If someone believes that a fetus is a child then it is logically consistent for them to expect the government to protect its right to live. This is not necessarily a question of government interference in private lives...unless you think that laws against murder are interference in private lives. There are similar arguments about the Schiavo case. One of the problems we have in this country is that many issues are couched to make one side or the other look bad instead of about the actual disagreement. "Abortion right" is not about government interference in private lives, it is about disagreement over when life becomes subject to government protection. For example, most people who think there should be no government regulation of abortion, think the government should regulate how a parent disciplines their child.

Re:But Wait...

[kalirion]

Simpsons, Family Guy and even South Park may be full of dirty jokes, but their "moral of the story" is almost always in favour of the conversative American Way, often injecting principles in such a straightforward manner as could only be applied to stereotypical idealised lives.

Gay tolerance, making fun of Christianity, making fun of immigration laws - yup, that has "GOP" written all over it.

Re:Sticks and Stones

[moeinvt]

"When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate."

What could be more appropriate than "FUCK!" when you hit your finger with a hammer, lock your car keys inside the car with the motor running or drop your laptop while walking up a flight of stairs?

I understand your point, but there are situations where expletives are definitely "appropriate".

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[russellh]

I still don't see what George Bush has to do with this discussion. You have never been able to say "Shit" or "Fuck" on the public airwaves during prime time. George Bush may not be a great president, but every discussion on Slashdot should not be viewed as an opportunity to flame him.

The president sets the tone of his administration; people do what he wants because he is the president. He appoints all the inexperienced loyal political operatives in key positions. And he fails to fire the incompetent ones and fails to hold people accountable for their mistakes. only the disloyal ones and the ones who just get fed up leave to spend more time with their families. Someone once told me that A quality people hire A people, while B quality people hire C quality people. So it seems to be.

Re:Why are words bad?

[misanthrope101]

Then you've never understood a basic fact about the culture in the USA. Violence is A-OK, but sex is dirty. Yes, it's a perverted way of looking at the world. We also have a fairly high murder rate, one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet, and we're in a select club (including Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia) who still practice capital punishment. We have a lot of people who think that civil rights laws were a usurpation of states' rights. We have a lot of people who think that child abuse laws are a usurpation of parental rights. We also have a lot of decent human beings, but you don't hear from them as much. I sort of wish they'd speak up more. We need more people saying "torture is wrong" and "no, we shouldn't keep people in prison forever without trial" and so on.

Re:Freedom of Speech?

[Rimbo]

"Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want,"

If I'm not mistaken, thats the whole idea of freedom of speech right?

Nope, you're not mistaken. The whole idea of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech that is offensive, for whatever reason, because no one's interested in restricting speech that's inoffensive.

What a Revolutionary idea.

The goal of course is not just to have freedom of speech but freedom after speech. You know, because you can say whatever you want in China, but you might lose your freedom afterwards. :)

Re:The FCC missed the point -- as usual

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a very simple "rule of thumb" -- which words would you not like to hear from your 5-year old?

Plenty. "African-Americans are stupid and lazy"? "Men who go to bed with other men should be stoned to death"? "I want to strap myself to a bomb and blow myself up in a crowded restaurant for the glory of God"?

Note (a) the total horror any right-minded parent would feel if their five-year-old uttered any of those phrases, and (b) the total absence of any actual taboo language.

It's what you say that counts, not the way you say it. Five-year-olds learning the word "fuck"? Big fucking deal. Let's worry about the attitudes they're learning, not the language.

Typical.

[JoshJ]

"If we can't restrict the use (of the two obscenities) during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."

Good. Fuck you. They should be able to say anything they want, whenever they want. Read the First Amendment sometime.

There's a reason I despise the Republican party. If you guessed "stripping away our constitutional rights for the sake of catering to the moral majority/religious right" you win.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion