Supreme Court To Rule On TV Censorship 426
Khashishi writes "The LA times and the Associated Press report that the FCC v. Fox Television Stations case is being heard in the Supreme Court. The FCC policy would impose a heavy fine on use of 'indecent' words on broadcast television, which Fox and others are claiming is a violation of free speech. The case was appealed after being ruled in Fox's favor in a federal appeals court in New York. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia support the FCC policy of censorship." Here's a transcript (PDF) of the oral arguments.
2 Elephants in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
Ginsberg said that there is an elephant in the room: The First Ammendment.
As I read it, I see another one:
Potential Harmful impact? Ok... PROVE HARM.
Thats all, prove harm. Even prove potential for harm. Whats the scope of this supposed "harm"? How does this "harm" happen? How do we even know its real?
-Steve
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
He doesn't believe in his own bullshit. He's just trying to win court battles to further his own career.
We all know how this will turn out (Score:4, Insightful)
Roberts is W's appointment, and Scalia is insane.
Re:How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Words (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bunk (Score:5, Insightful)
"Think of the children."
Precisely how does the use of expletives ever harm children? Arguments against sex and violence do hold a small amount of water. After all, many people who watch scenes of sex will feel various biological cues to engage in it. There are links between sex on TV and teen pregnancy. Of course, given the existence of the internet and cable television, access to contraceptives would probably be a more effective strategy to prevent teen pregnancy...
The same, to a less extent, with violence. The reason television violence is not as harmful is that it is difficult for the 'children' watching it to actually engage in violence, even if watching it on TV makes them want to. While almost anyone can have sex, assuming they find a partner, it takes training and practice to hit someone and cause real damage. Firearms are usually not just lying around, either, and also take practice before they can be used effectively.
So there isn't a neurological pattern in your brain that lets a person go from the couch to doing whatever violence that person sees on TV.
But course language? It never was the word that was offensive, it was the meaning...and there are plenty of messages to get the meaning out without using the words.
Heck, the F word is so over-used that it really isn't that offensive. "We fucked" can mean "we had sex in a lustful, vigorous manner". "fuck you, I'm quitting" can mean "this job does not compensate me at what I consider market value for my services, good day sir".
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incidentally most consumers of Fox News are too narrow-minded to realize this...or maybe being bad is okay only when it applies to them!
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I agree with them - but they'll point to a recent study that "links" teen pregnancy with sex on TV shows.
Re:A monument to free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the erasers represent the FCC?
Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them. "The reason these words shock is because of their association with a literal meaning," Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting his support for the policy
Then why are we allowed to say copulation and feces on TV?
saveusobama? (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume the "saveusobama" tag is a joke, since that's referring to the guy who's about to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
What everybody else does (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not do what everybody else does? If it's on at a time when kids are likely to be watching, take it easy on the profanity. If it's on later, when kids should be in bed anyway, don't worry about it.
This works fine in other countries. Why doesn't the U.S. do it?
...laura
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
But the issue isn't sex in this instance. It's "offensive language" particularly, the use of the words "fuck" and "shit".
So... PROVE HARM.
Re:What everybody else does (Score:3, Insightful)
Define "should be".
I think it's all Nanny-state crap anyway. Let people have a CHOICE, naked and naughty vs clean and sober.
If the majority don't want to watch it, it will die a natural death.
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them. "The reason these words shock is because of their association with a literal meaning," Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting his support for the policy
Then why are we allowed to say copulation and feces on TV?
Indeed. The literal meaning of "rape" is a million times worse than the literal meaning of "fuck," and yet we unfortunately hear the former quite often during news broadcasts.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:2, Insightful)
The key point isn't if those words are harmful or not or by how much. Your example is perfectly fine -- they are your kids, your decision. Now, no one should do any jail time or be thrown out of anything for cursing around them, its really your job to remove the children not the other way around. But above and beyond that, it isn't the government's job to set a law ahead of time regulating this exchange for both of us.
You never know, the parent standing next to you might prefer me to explain teen pregnancy to their daughter like, "If you fuck that guy it could ruin your goddamned life!" Silly example, yes, but the point is that in the one hand, you and I both get to choose. When the government does it, the choise is pre-made for everybody.
And fuck that.
Re:V-Chip (Score:2, Insightful)
Hush.
You'd make them feel stupid if they realized they could just change the damned channel.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:5, Insightful)
When did vulgar profane speech become harmless and the Bible become harmful?
Let's compare body counts, shall we? We can skip everything before the Crusades if you'd like a handicap on this hole.
I belive that mom and dad should be allowed to determine what may or may not be harmful to their children. I deem it harmful. No proof necessary.
I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
5. Make as much money as possible, consistency be damned.
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I believe that it is - free speech on talk radio, that is. All of the proposals revolve around re-regulating the AM band of the radio so that it is "evenly" balanced - like it was in the 1970's. The problem with that is that talk radio (which is heavily weighted towards conservative viewpoints) does compete with other forms of communication (like TV) that tends to more liberal viewpoints.
If the "Fairness Doctrine" is reimposed by Congress (contrary to what I believe free speech should be) or the other proposal floated by the Obama campaign (forcing radio stations to reapply for their license every two years, but mandating a panel that must "solicit public input on how the station is meeting community needs"), I predict that AM radio will be what I remember it to be - a wasteland of traffic reports, weather reports and the daily stockyard figures.
Yes, you may feel that Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/ shouldn't be on the radio, but if you feel that words on TV shouldn't be censored, then why should the conservative talk radio's words be censored? Let them all be on, and let the people (rather than Congress) decide.
Re:No restraint of free speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain how that is different from the current "free speech zone" nonsense.
Both strike me as a clear and obvious violation.
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely restraint of free speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, you claim that the airwaves are "public" and that means that censorship there is ok?
I would say the opposite is true:
Since they ARE public airwaves, censorship there shouldn't be tolerated at all. Would public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used being applied to a public place also be acceptable?
What the fuck? That IS ABSOLUTELY censorship. You are LIMITING what they can say. THAT IS CENSORSHIP.
It is just censorship that you agree with.
Free speech means that I can say whatever the fuck I want to, with no restrictions. Add restrictions, and you no longer have free speech.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
Only if you can demonstrate that the kids alleged to be harmed actually know what fuck means. If it's just "a word you can't say in church", then there's no significant connection with sex.
In general usage, it's definition seems to be "a generic expletive stronger than damn but not as funny as mongolian cluster fuck". A person who actually means to logically connect slamming their finger in the door with a sex act has deeper problems.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you can demonstrate that the kids alleged to be harmed actually know what fuck means. If it's just "a word you can't say in church", then there's no significant connection with sex.
A similar point is brought up in that transcript. Personally, I would like to know why any word is considered vulgar. Context is the only thing that gives meaning to the human language. You can say the same thing in two different contexts, and one way will really hurt someone's feelings, and the other hurts no one. I partially blame this way of looking at words for the lack of tact in much of society.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, everytime you say "fuck", 10 million teens get pregnant.
On the other hand I don't see whats so bad about sex. Yes, it can be overdone on the media, but I find it a little more tasteful than trying to raise our children as little Rambos.
As for "shit", not even my parents got mad at me for using that one, when I was growing up.
They're just words, words don't hurt, only our perceptions of them hurt us.
Re:Censor commercials instead (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure there are about 100 ways to prevent your kids from watching shows that are rated for language or whatever. What I want is a way to ban commercials for my kids without having to completely turn off the TV. Commercials are WAY more dangerous since they are about real life things that you can buy or do. Drugs, alcohol, sex, self-loathing, junk food... on a TV show is bad enough... but on a commercial that advertises crap you can get at the local fix Dr.'s office or buy at a convenience store is a whole different ballgame. Fuck all these drug advertisements on TV too... who needs that crap on TV? Go to a fucking M.D. or stop smoking if you are sick.
Besides, I don't want my kids nagging me about lame toys. Whatever happened to the cool violent toys of yesteryear? As much as I appreciate cartoons, I'm sick of all the ultra-cutsie stuff.
Indeed. .. as long as the pharma lobby has more money than the comedians
I am amazed to hear that "For the children" is a viable argument when we are blasted with commercials for cialis and viagra... not to mentioned those hideous "mucus" commercials that seem to only be on during dinner time.
Commercials using language that any 5 year old can easily decipher given context clues, but hey, thats ok!
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's one of the things you have to put up with in a free society. Why is your desire to not be around such language inherently more important than someone else's desire to express themselves in their own words?
It pisses me off to no end that so many people love to wave the flag and talk about how much they love "freedom" and want to protect it, without the first thought to what freedom really entails. Just because you disagree or are offended with someone's speech gives you NO right to silence them.
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why are we allowed to say copulation and feces on TV?
Because those words are latin derived, and they have specific meanings.
"Vulgar" words in English are typically old english derived, where vulgar means from the mob, or common people.
Basically, this all boils down to a social status thing.
A judge does not say "Fuck you, I'm going to send you to the ass slamming prison, and that will teach you!", he says, "I sentence you to a sentence of no less than X years and no more than Y years in prison, blah blah".
Its the guy who gets sentenced, that says, "Fuck you", and then the judge slaps him with a contempt of court charge.
In a nutshell, it all comes down to a power trip. I mean, its now at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land as to whether you can say fuck or not. The court wants to defend themselves and their authority by saying "NO, you can't say fuck", but then they are also bound to that silly Constitution thing.
So, we end up with controversy, which makes great discussion and news.
The Supreme Court knows fuck all about swearing (Score:3, Insightful)
Two of them, anyway. From the article (emphasis mine):
GENERAL GARRE: It can be -- it certainly can be used in a non-literal way. It can be used in a metaphorical way, as Cher used it here, to say "F them" to her critics. But the -- the non-literal/literal distinction is not unique to the isolated expletives versus the repeated effort -- expletives.
JUSTICE STEVENS: You think it's equally --it's equally subject to being treated as indecent within the meaning of the statute regardless of which meaning was actually apparent to everybody who listened to it?
GENERAL GARRE: I wouldn't say equally, Justice Stevens, but what we would say is that it can qualify as indecent under the -- under the Commission's definition, because even the non-literal use of a word like the F-Word, because of the core meaning of that word as one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit words for sexual activity in the English language, it inevitably conjures up a core sexual image.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Which is, indeed, why it's used.
GENERAL GARRE: Which is, indeed, why it's used as an intensifier or as an insult
So who read the title of this posting and endured a "sexual image" of the Supreme Court justices? Anyone?
It's a bit worrying that they're ruling on language which some of them don't understand.
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Incidentally most consumers of Fox News are too narrow-minded to realize this..."
On the other hand, lots of the criticism I've seen aimed at the Fox network has been pretty narrow-minded, too. There are plenty of broad brushes to go around, it seems.
timothy
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.
You'd think that the V-Chip [fcc.gov] would be a raging success with all the froth and fury that exists over "indecency" on Television....
Yet every survey has shown it to be a resounding failure.
Parents don't RTFM and they don't use the V-Chip.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
I always followed the studies that said you're supposed to sit 8 feet away from the TV and had perfect eyes. Then I got a computer, and a year later, I needed glasses.
I always sat 18 inches from a monitor from the time I was a nubbin of a proto-geek and my eyes were perfect. I turned 30 and bam! Out came the astigmatism.
In other words, aging past your prime starts to suck.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:1, Insightful)
The only thing excessive use of "offensive language" hurts is... the "offensive language" itself.
But yeah, if it becomes more common in usage, it just doesn't command that vulgarity in context that it once did. Eventually it ends up watered down to where it's not really that offensive anymore.
So if "offensive" language is to hold any actual verbal power that can affect people, somehow its use needs to be restricted.
I see some irony in the fact that if they uphold a ban on some types of language, they're actually giving it more power in it's social context.
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
You have a point, Fox is not "conservative", they are just trying to be either entertaining or shocking and their kind of conservatism is deliberately trying to be outrageous and offending because that means people are watching.
Or pandering to people who actually believe it.
Offending is relative (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole idea behind FCC's censorship is to prevent upsetting somebody, what they don't understand is that we CHOOSE our feelings. When somebody says something upsetting, it is each one of us who CHOOSE to feel upset.
I found ridiculous that laws get written because a group of people decided to feel upset about something.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not an elephant. It's a dead horse. The SCOTUS has been ignoring the constitution in favor of direct violations of it for many years.
The constitution is 100% clear on this matter: Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech. Anyone who is even nominally literate knows exactly what "abridge" means today; a few minutes research will turn up that it meant the same thing in 1788. The bottom line is simple — there is no constitutional authority available (to anyone at the federal level, including the judiciary) to abridge (curtail, shorten) the freedom to speak in any form or fashion* by law, directly or indirectly (as per legislative surrogates like the FCC.)
Further, as this is an element of the bill of rights, the states don't have this authority either as per the 14th amendment, and as cities, towns, counties etc. all must comply with the same things that states have to comply with, this authority devolves to the people, as per the 10th amendment.
The fact that this is not the analysis of the SCOTUS is a direct indicator of the justices violating their oaths.
Not that it's going to change. When Bush said the constitution is "just a piece of paper", he was speaking a truth no one wants to admit. The feds, because they want you to think you live in a constitutional republic, the people, because they want to think they have a reasonable government. But the fact is, the only remaining effective elements of the bill of rights are amendments three and seven. Sadly, this is not because they are well written or somehow better than the others; it is simply that the government has had no need to make exception to them.
(*) Yes, that means that libel and slander laws are unconstitutional, that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be perfectly OK (and by the way, it makes sense that it should be OK), and that the seven "dirty" words should be just as OK to say on the air as "kitten" and "politician." The founders knew what they were doing when they wrote the first amendment. They didn't mean "unless the government says otherwise", they were explicitly limiting federal power because they knew it would be abused. And they have turned out to be 100% correct. Unfortunately, the constitution isn't up to the task of stopping our political apparatus from doing whatever they want to. Welcome to the machine.
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely nothing happens to their freedoms. No one is guaranteed the right to go through life without being offended, and it's just too bad for those folks that are too thin-skinned to deal with it. Being offended is a *conscious* reaction to an external stimulus, so it's really more the problem of the person being offended than anyone else's. Saying that respect should essentially be enforced at the point of a gun is hypocritical beyond measure, because you're saying that the rights of the other party are not worthy of respect themselves.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you blame that "way of looking at words" for the "lack of tact", when that way of looking at words is itself part of what society considers tactful?
I'm not trying to make a circular argument.
from m-w.com
tact
1 : sensitive mental or aesthetic perception
2 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you like Family guy yo are not a social conservative. Really, you might want to look into social conservatives. You would be more of a moderate or liberal.
Call your self what you want, but it doesn't fit the definition.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice anecdote. Come back when you ahve data.
BTW, I always sat close to the TV, and have been using computers since before the PC.
My eyes were fine until I was 42. My need for close up reading glasses is perfectly normal.
I hate it, becasue I ahve 20/15 vision. I miss being able to thread a needle at arms distance on the first try. Sigh.
Gad damn scientist, get on the cloning I want new body parts.
Re:Because he wants to follow the Constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bit of advise, Scalia, the federalist society, and the constitutionality party, are historical revisionists that claim the constitution says the US is a solely Christian nation, and believe in the divine right of the US government. You only reaffirm Scalia's insanity if the federalist society endorsed him.
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
'Many conservatives don't like Fox any more than the rest of the liberal media.'
Pray tell where is this liberal media? There is no shortage of bias on the major media outlets but its hardly biased toward liberal or conservative.
If you want to hope to see real news you have to read foreign reporting.