Tuesday, April 28, 2009

speaking of free speech

Here's the article on cnn.com about the FCC and the Supreme Court.

So, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) sued the major TV networks for indecency. The FCC is trying to make it a crime to be "indecent" on network TV. The networks won in Appeals Court where the judges called the regulations the FCC arbitrary. But the FCC appealed again and the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, overturning the appeals court's decision to not penalize the networks for a few F-bombs and stuff.

So here's a couple of things I found funny, first, The Court wouldn't decide on the free-speech issue the networks brought up. They sent that issue back to the lower court. Second there were a few comments by the Court in their decision and the FCC in their comments (and the responses to them) after that I kind of laughed at. I normally like Scalia because he's kind of a dick, but when in his concurrence he he says, "Even when used as an expletive, the F-word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning." Wait, really? There are plenty of other meanings for the F-Bomb and honestly he doesn't seem to have a clue here as to what insults people. Considering the fact that if it didn't sell, the networks wouldn't have ran it. After the "wardrobe malfunction" during the Superbowl a few years ago, ALL live TV is on 15 second delay. So the examples given in the article about things said on live TV were actually let through by the producers. Yes, I understand that what sells may not be what EVERYONE wants, but that means that more people want it, or simply don't care, than the number of people that do care or make a big deal about it.

In response to the Scalia comment Justice Stevens, in his descent said, "As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent. But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency."

Dude, that's one of the best arguments I've ever heard. Partly because I golf, and even if you read my last blog and know that it is my meditation, I still get mad at bad shots, when I hit them. And partly because it makes sense. If I say, "holy shit," does anyone really think I'm talking about God dropping a deuce?

The FCC is lame. At least they don't have control over cable TV and they can't FUCK with my South Park, or Eastbound and Down.

8 comments:

  1. I heard about this on the news. Seems so out of touch in many ways given all the kinds of media we have out there now. No one has accused the law of moving too quickly. Okay, I guess the Patriot Act is the exception that proves the rule. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. one thing...
    F.ornication
    U.nder
    C.onsent of the
    K.ing
    technically it does have "sexual" meaning...but not a whole lot of people even know the meaning of that anyways...i just thought it was fun to point out. interesting argument though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah Syb, exactly. Originally, the word "f**k" was not a bad word. It was a word royalty used all the time. They (royalty) made it indecent to say it when the commoners started to use it and they didn't want to be associated with the common folk.

    And Professor, yeah, the Patriot Act was definitely the exception to change in law moving slowly. But they had a chance to get rid of it and they voted to keep it a few months later, even adding to it. So the test failed, and law could have moved slowly, but they left it in place. Also, I agree, totally out of place considering the head of the FCC said after that, "it's a great victory for the American Family." Really? My family watches some of that stuff and if we don't want our 8 year-old to watch something we don't let him. I don't need the FCC to fight for my family. Because, now my choices are limited by them because they think they know what's right for my family.

    As the world moves so must the law, right? Or their wouldn't be any civil rights laws or whatever either, but I guess that's Scalia, the textualist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Justice Stevens seems to almost always be at odds with Scalia. I too like Stevens answer. It just makes sense. I enjoy law that makes sense and is just plain logical.

    ReplyDelete
  5. good thing they didn't mess with southpark. Wouldn't want to upset your world...

    ReplyDelete
  6. funny how people can point out what they consider selfish in others, but don't see it in themselves

    ReplyDelete
  7. in response to your comment on my blog: you wont dialog because you know your incapable of engaging in an intelligent dialog.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and by the way ILLEST:

    the word wont is spelled won't.
    and your is actually you are.

    I hate to correct you but I just didn't want you to look ignorant and stupid.

    ReplyDelete