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.
A monument to free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember listening to an interview with an artist who had been commissioned to create a monument to free speech. This is what he came up with: A giant outdoor blackboard. Free chalk and erasers provided.
In response to the question "Won't people write obscenities? Draw porn? Offend people?", he said "Of course they will. And that's part of what free speech does."
Which definition of Conservative do we go with? (Score:5, Interesting)
In the 80's, the Rhenquist Court time and time again decided that federal agencies did not have the power to create meaningful rules (i.e. agency rules and agency "law" could not carry the weight of, never mind trump, Federal law).
That was the "true" Conservative position. Funny how we've come full circle, deciding that now a federal agency is free to engage in prior restraint. Instead of, you know, just doing what they're supposed to do, which is to make sure people are using the right frequencies that they're supposed to use.
Fuck the FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
How?
The first amendment seems pretty clear that congress can't make any laws restricting speech, so how could it make a law delegating authority on speech either?
The FCC should ONLY be responsible for regulating who can use specific airwaves, not what can be sent over the airwaves. (And ideally the "who can use the airwaves" would be based on highest bidder to prevent any "you allow 'shit' and 'fuck' to be used on your program, you can't renew your license")
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that these licenses should always be reauctioned every year.
Winning the bid means you get to use the airwaves for the next year.
Proceeds should be parcelled out to towns and counties for the development of internet infrastructure.
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope they would... it would be utterly tangential in a case about the banning of specific words in any context they might be used in.
Prove that the word "fuck", in all contexts, can actually cause harm to a person. Prove that for each of the words in question.
Prove harm, show the scope of harm. Isn't it up to those claiming harm to prove harm? So prove it, how can it be so much to ask to just prove that your not making stuff up and talking out your ass?
I mean, my mother believed that sitting too close to the TV was bad for kids eyes. Any eye doctor will tell you that its an old wives tale and kids sit so close really cuz their eyes are perfectly capable of focusing comfortably at that distance.
So... I would argue my mothers old wives tale belief doesn't prove harm, even in absence eye doctors professional opinions. Why? because its not based on data, its based on conjecture.
These arguments used by the FCCs supporters sound no more concrete to me.
Urban legends have no place in public policy.
-Steve
No restraint of free speech... (Score:2, Interesting)
These are public airwaves, and the public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used. Saying you can't broadcast porno over the public airwaves doesn't limit free speech, it just means you have to find somewhere else to do it.
Limiting what content licensed broadcasters can send over the public airwaves is no more censorship than the fact that I'm not allowed to broadcast my speech on any frequency I want.
Unreliable Scalia (Score:5, Interesting)
Scalia, who happens to be one of my favorite SCOTUS justices, is very reliable to uphold the originalist meaning of the Constitution. That is, unless he doesn't like the behavior that the law criminalizes.
See Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org] for a specific case where he throws his philosophy out the window because he doesn't like the idea of people getting high.
Re:Conservative moralists vs. Fox?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Lewis Black put it best on one of his Back In Black segments on The Daily Show. People tune in to Fox (News) to seethe in outrage over what they saw on Fox (broadcast) the night before. It's a self-perpetuating business!
Re:A monument to free speech (Score:2, Interesting)
Hm. A more curious question than it seems. At first, I was going to say that the people can use their own erasers on their own stuff. Except, really, can you really take back something you've said? I mean, once you've said it, it's been said, and you're not going to un-say it.
Maybe the piece would've been better without any erasers.
Or... (Score:4, Interesting)
or
2. They are fighting to cut down on the overhead associated with getting everything approved by the FCC for purely financial and organizational reasons
or
3. They think that it is ok in principle for the FCC to censor TV in certain situations, but that the FCC is being Capricious and they need the clarity that can be brought by adjudication via the highest court in the land
or
4. some combination of the above.
If I had a penny for every time someone who didn't even watch Fox news made some derogitory comment about it's supposed bias I'd be richer than Bill Gates. If I got another penny for each attempt by those people to justify their belief by using a partisan reference to back it up I'd have enough money to pay of the National Debt.
If you've watched Fox News and don't like it, then don't watch it. I don't care for most of the personalities on Fox, but I also don't care for most of the personalities on CNN or MSNBC. I think most major news anchors are, for the most part, a bunch of pompus tools that aren't worth listeninging to no matter which station they are on.
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:2, Interesting)
People that enjoy sex like sexual content? Color me not suprised.
FWIW, pretty much my entire class grew up watching porn, stuff we found in our parents room. If TV "caused" teen pregnancy, you'd expect most (well, almost half) of my class to have been knocked up.. yet it wasn't. I strongly suspect this is the norm in many places... and teen pregnancy has been dropping steadly until recently. Oh.. and recently they also started to focus more on abstence than birth control. Hmm... I wonder...
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:4, Interesting)
Teen pregnancy didn't become normal until... oh wait... thats right... it was always normal. Its not getting pregnant until later thats a new development. A good one if you ask me but...
teens having sex is well... pretty much them doing exactly what they are "supposed to do" from any reasonable biological standpoint.
We can put all the morality around it we want.... the human animal hasn't really changed much in the past few tens of thousands of years.
-Steve
Re:My two cents (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well.
In a fundamental, biological sense, how are they not?
Re:2 Elephants in the Room (Score:2, Interesting)
I fully back you on this. Now, control your children.
What if i believe the best way to control my children is to keep them locked up in the basement for 30 years? Do you fully back me on that? What if i believe water harms my children, but physical abuse doesn't? Lets get a bit less black and white. What if i believe watching television is harmful so my children never see a tv show in their life. What if i deem their friends to be harmful and don't allow them friends, then i homeschool them? do you back me on that?
I don't like this "I own your life and am not to be questioned" mentality a lot of parents seem to have here on slashdot. Isn't raising children the one place where adhering to safe, legal, proven practices is most important?
There was an interesting and disturbing story posted on somethingawful about a guy whos parents' and their friends are high ranking officials and many are into something called "unschooling" which basically means homeschooling but instead of learning real things you dance around sing songs and bullshit all day long. its based on the idea that the child will learn when they want to learn. The children only see people in their family group. Among the children this guy met, his brother was like 13 and couldnt speak properly and was completely illiterate, a lot of the kids would only speak to their parents and were so shy they would run when they saw a strnager at 10 years old, and basically were all without education and fucked up for life, or at the very least had some extremely tough times ahead to get back on track if they managed to escape that system. The guy had called social services a number of times but they refused to do anything because it was the parent's right to homeschool their children and deem what is and isn't harmful.
According to your point of view an abused child should never tell anyone they are being abused or complain and if they do you should pay no heed because the abusive parent's judgment is immune to public scrutiny and the ideals of proof.
Re:Fuck the FCC (Score:2, Interesting)
Not really IMHO
In that case, the transmitters themselves would become leasable.
Naturally, I'd rather the entire spectrum be outsourced like white-space recently was. Excepting such things as military usage, of course.
I think spectrum should be divided into 9 bands.
all 9 combinations of short vs medium vs long wave, and individual vs business vs government.
individual is a free-for-all, with the restriction that commercial entities such as corporations can't touch it without getting hefty fines
business gets licensed on auction basis for periods of 5 years.
And government is treated like .gov, only for government use only.