Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

alp227

(33,326 posts)
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 11:39 PM Jan 2012

Supreme Court case tests FCC’s power to police TV indecency [View all]

...the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Tuesday about whether the FCC should still have a role in policing the nation’s airwaves or whether its indecency regulations violate guarantees of free speech and due process.

The networks have argued successfully in lower courts that in a revolutionized world in which they exist “side by side” with cable channels that are beyond the FCC’s regulation, singling them out is not only nonsensical but unconstitutional.

(...)

The Obama administration is defending the FCC’s powers. If anything, it told the court, the new media world requires continued federal oversight of the public airwaves to provide a haven for parents and children from the anything-goes world of cable and the Internet.

(...)

The “uniquely pervasive” language in Fox’s brief comes from the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, in which it...found that the FCC was within constitutional boundaries to police the radio and television airwaves during the times children would probably be listening, which was interpreted as meaning between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

(...)

With the right to the public airwaves, (Parents Television Council president Tim) Winter said, come responsibilities.

“If they want to be indecent, as we’ve said in the past, they can wait until 10 o’clock and be as indecent as they want,” Winter said.

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-case-tests-fccs-power-to-police-tv-indecency/2012/01/03/gIQANAEujP_singlePage.html

The article also quoted Winter: "I’m a lifelong Democrat; I haven’t checked a Republican box on a presidential ballot since 1984." Former FCC officials now with the American Bar Association, in an amicus brief filed with SCOTUS, wrote: "The commission’s complaints policy has become so artificial that it naturally prompts the question, why does the Commission not simply turn the monitoring function over to the Parents Television Council?" (in reference to PTC's mass-complaint campaigns)

Other background info: in the FCC v. Fox case in 2009, the Sup Ct upheld the FCC's rights to regulate (in terms of administrative law) but deferred to lower courts in regard to constitutionality. The following year, the 2nd circuit court of appeals ruled that the policy had 1st amendment issues. The programming of concern included:
- the 2002 Billboard Music Awards (Fox), where Cher said "fuck 'em" to her critics,
- and the 2003 Billboard Music Awards (Fox), where Nicole Richie said in reference to her reality show "The Simple Life": "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple." In both years, the network failed to mute the bad words out of the live broadcast in the Eastern and Central time zones but later edited the show for the tape-delayed Mountain and westward broadcasts.
- the NYPD Blue episode "Nude Awakening" (2003 on ABC) that showed a woman's naked buttocks for 7 seconds. That show aired at 10PM in the Eastern and Pacific time zones (thus exempt from the FCC decency timeslot) but an hour earlier in other time zones.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I hope scotus rules against the FCC mr_liberal Jan 2012 #1
As socially liberal as I am it's unwise to allow Scarface to be played uncut on ABC during daytime alp227 Jan 2012 #5
Show me some scientific studies demonstrating how bad words harm children please. n/t backscatter712 Jan 2012 #11
I can show you the general degradation of manners in modern society, for one. alp227 Jan 2012 #12
Show me an article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. backscatter712 Jan 2012 #14
OK then, using profanity in front of children is usually a crime under 'disturbing the peace' alp227 Jan 2012 #16
Children learn bad language Politicalboi Jan 2012 #2
Good point, but if I can't cuss at a public place if kids are present, alp227 Jan 2012 #4
It has nothing to do with morals. It's about control. Gregorian Jan 2012 #3
+1 Its always 'about saving the children.' I don't buy it, and I'm sick of it n/t Joe Shlabotnik Jan 2012 #6
I have to agree with this. Heywood J Jan 2012 #7
Also, I've always believed that censorship was about protecting adults from being embarrassed. Gregorian Jan 2012 #8
Exactly. I'm wondering if children read DU. backscatter712 Jan 2012 #10
FCC v. Pacifica is an abomination against the First Amendment THAT MUST FUCKING DIE! backscatter712 Jan 2012 #9
Similar to how young people insert "like" as a filler word all the time, young people use cuss words alp227 Jan 2012 #13
This is different from how kids and teens have acted since the beginning of time how? n/t backscatter712 Jan 2012 #15
Let's just drop the pretense, our media is awash in sex and violence, and not much else. nt bemildred Jan 2012 #17
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Supreme Court case tests ...