[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Supreme Court upholds TV profanity crackdown( an d says f**k you to the 1st amendment) WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court upheld a government crackdown on profanity on television, a policy that subjects broadcasters to fines for airing a single expletive blurted out on a live show. In its first ruling on broadcast indecency standards in more than 30 years, the high court handed a victory on Tuesday to the Federal Communications Commission, which adopted the crackdown against the one-time use of profanity on live television when children are likely to be watching. The case stemmed from an FCC ruling in 2006 that found News Corp's Fox television network violated decency rules when singer Cher blurted out an expletive during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards broadcast and actress Nicole Richie used two expletives during the 2003 awards. No fines were imposed, but Fox challenged the decision. A U.S. appeals court in New York struck down the new policy as "arbitrary and capricious" and sent the case back to the FCC for a more reasoned explanation of its policy. The FCC, under the administration of President George W. Bush, had embarked on a crackdown of indecent content on broadcast TV and radio after pop star Janet Jackson briefly exposed her bare breast during the 2004 broadcast of the Super Bowl halftime show. Before 2004, the FCC did not usually enforce prohibitions against indecency unless there were repeated occurrences. By a 5-4 vote and splitting along conservative-liberal lines, the justices upheld the FCC's new policy. "The agency's reasons for expanding its enforcement activity, moreover, were entirely rational," Justice Antonin Scalia said in summarizing the court's majority ruling from the bench. 'F-WORD'S POWER' "Even when used as an expletive, the F-word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning," Scalia said. Government lawyers in the case have said the policy covered so-called "fleeting expletives," such as the "F-word" and the "S-word" that denote "sexual or excretory activities," respectively. Critics said the FCC has been inconsistent in enforcing its new policy. It allowed the television broadcast of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" even though it contained the same expletives. Lawyers for the television networks also argued the policy violated their constitutional free-speech rights, amounting to a form of censorship. The ruling only decided that the FCC's new policy was reasonable under the Administrative Procedure Act. It did not address the constitutional issue, and the networks can still challenge the policy as unconstitutional. The policy applies only to broadcasts. Neither cable nor satellite channels are subject to FCC content regulation. A recent study by the Parents Television Council, a group that supports the FCC's crackdown, found that the use of expletives have nearly doubled in prime-time broadcast television since 1998. Scalia said the fact that technological advances have made it easier for broadcasters to bleep out offending words further supported the FCC's stepped-up enforcement policy. Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. "The FCC's shifting and impermissibly vague indecency policy only imperils these broadcasters and muddles the regulatory landscape," Stevens wrote, adding that the networks face the threat of crippling financial penalties. Stevens said it is ironic that the FCC patrols the airwaves for words that have a tenuous link with sex and excrement while commercials during prime-time hours ask viewers if they "are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom." Critics of the policy, like Andrew Jay Schwartzman of the Media Access Project, said the impact would be especially severe on smaller independent and public broadcasters. "Writers, artists and directors on the front lines of the First Amendment face continuing pressure to err on the side of the blandness," he said. (Editing by Dave Zimmerman and Lisa Von Ahn)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
GOOD FOR THE USSC! Children WON ONE (for a change)>
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||