High court weighs policy against curse words on TV

[dipsydoodle]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is considering whether government regulators may still police the airwaves for curse words and other coarse content at a time when so many Americans have unregulated cable television, and the Internet is awash in easily accessible adult material.

The justices are hearing arguments Tuesday in a First Amendment case that pits the Obama administration against the nation's television networks. The material at issue includes the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The broadcasters want the court to overturn a 1978 decision that upheld the Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate both radio and television content, at least during the hours when children are likely to be watching or listening. That period includes the prime-time hours before 10 p.m.

At the very least, the networks say the FCC's current policy is too hard to figure out, penalizing the use of particular curse words on awards programming but not in the airing of the movie "Saving Private Ryan," for example.

Associated Press : Jan 10, 7:21 AM EST http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BROADCAST_INDECENCY?SITE=DEWIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[Trillo]

1. I was just thinking about this in relation to this DU thread,

where kids in Texas schools are reportedly cited and put through the court system for using a swear word.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10166325

[dipsydoodle]

2. Coincidental but timely

That article serves the purpose of linking issues in Texan schools with issues here in the UK.

[Trillo]

4. "That article serves the purpose of linking issues in Texan schools with issues here in the UK."

Could be.

The link I found fascinating is the lack of violence associated with a police citation for "swearing" on school grounds. Most kids probably watch some TV movies at home, even in Texas. Then they go to school, where they likely emulate the speech they learned on TV, then are cited by Big-Badged Brother on school grounds for "speaking".

It seems entirely unreasonable that money = speech for corporations but "profane" speech = punishment for kids using words they could have learned by watching TV movies.

[alp227]

6. thing is, how much in constitutional rights do children even have?

recently the supreme court ruled (Brown v. EMA) against the california law against kids buying violent video games, on the grounds of free speech. but you could go to any public school and find that the code of conduct for students may arguably encroach upon their 1st amendment rights. for example the zero tolerance rules. I've heard stories of kids who've been sent to the office over T-shirts with controversial messages such as "straight pride" and another local case about a group of boys who wore T-shirts emblazoned with American flags on Cinco de Mayo, and admins caught the dog-whistle message they conveyed.

also does free speech mean that TV networks can use the public airwaves...a medium owned and operated and regulated by We the People...to play a movie like Scarface or The Hangover at a time when kids are likely to be watching? I like those movies but if I ran a broadcast TV station I'd play those movies edited during evenings. If I can get a citation and fine for using profanity at a public park where 8- and 9-year old kids are around, TV stations shouldn't be allowed to use the F-word on the air either (at least before 10PM).

[rurallib]

3. considering the sexual content that is all over the place

seems like a few curse words would be mild.

[Tippy]

5. Agree....