Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Federal Court Ruling “Guts” FCC’s Ability To Regulate Speech On Radio, Broadcast Television

And that’s a good thing, as far as I’m concerned.

WASHINGTON, June 4 — If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.

Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.

Kind of funny how the President and Vice President’s potty mouth led us to this, especially given the Bush administration’s expansion of the FCC’s powers to punish obscenity.  I haven’t read the ruling so can’t judge this ruling based on the legal justifications used, but it’s an outcome I’m glad to see regardless.

Broadcast media, be it television or radio, once dominated but now only represents a fraction of the sources from which Americans get their entertainment and news.  With alternatives like satellite television, cable television, satellite radio and the internet Americans just aren’t watching or listening to broadcast radio or television.

The FCC has no sway over these other mediums, so why should we spend millions of tax dollars for that bureaucracy to monitor a fraction of the channels on our television?  Especially when it’s clear, from America’s satisfaction with satellite and cable television, that we’re all capable of “censoring” our own entertainment and news simply by changing the channel.

I say scrap the FCC’s content censorship powers and replace it with a mandatory ratings/content warning system that allows Americans to know what sort of show or program they’re going to be watching or listening to before they watch it or listen to it.  That way we can all watch or listen to what we want without having a bunch of unelected bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot see/listen to.

Comments

Yeah, right. Let’s just turn the whole country into a ghetto.

Before you think that’s some kind of racist remark, the first ghettos in this country were filled with primarily Irish people who arrived to signs saying “Irish Need Not Apply” and “Irish Not Allowed”.

The problem with not regulating what’s on our public communications infrastructure is that you can’t guarantee that children and people who might be offended won’t hear or see what’s being presented. Those people have just as much right to not see or hear offensive matter as the people who would disrespect their freedom and present it.

Freedom without respect is anarchy and anarchy is not freedom.

Since this government isn’t working too well, let’s let the PGA run the country. They fine their players, no matter who they are, for cussing on TV after hitting a bad shot. Ask Tiger.

ews48 on June 5, 2007 at 10:58 am

My buddy the judge was on the majority side of this decision. Leval is way off. I think he’s a Reagan appointee too. Disappointing.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on June 5, 2007 at 11:07 am
Avatar for Michael Brutsch

Those people have just as much right to not see or hear offensive matter as the people who would disrespect their freedom and present it.

Present it, not “demand” it, or “force” it.  Unless you remote is broken, you can change the channel.

Michael Brutsch on June 5, 2007 at 11:15 am
Avatar for skh.pcola

“Those people have just as much right to not see or hear offensive matter...”

That isn’t in the Constitution, hate to inform you.

skh.pcola on June 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Avatar for Dave

If you do read the opinion, you might not be as satisfied.  Basically, the judges ruled that the FCC changed a long-standing policy excusing “fleeting” obscenities without offering any real justification, so the new rule was tossed out as arbitrary and capricious.  They explicitly didn’t rule on the challenges on any other grounds, including the constitutional issues that Fox raised (although they wrote a bunch of dicta in support of those arguments).

Link to opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/061760p.pdf

Dave on June 5, 2007 at 01:15 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.