U.S. Supreme Court to rule on TV expletives

US court to rule on TV expletives

They dropped the F-bomb on the Golden Girls? Sweet mother of mercy, Betty White and Rue McClanahan must be spinning in their graves! Although I'm left wondering what Bono was doing on that show.

I'm so glad they are spending their time tackling the important issues.. Between this and congress' tough work on the steroids case, our government is close to delivering us to utopia.

Shouldn't the free speech amendment of the US constitution already allow broadcasters to air whatever words they want?

There's a difference btw being able to yell fire in a crowded theater and being able to say what you want on a radio waves which are distributed by the FCC.

So then there's actually no real freedom of speech.

Or to be more precise, you can say what you want, but not using either radio or TV (or print media) to be able to reach a wider audience. So then you may as well not have this right, if it's going to be restricted in this way.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want wherever you want whenever you want.. I think the FCC laws are archaic and so do many others, which is why its being challenged in court. The problem comes from how public airwaves are defined in us jurisprudence.. Also note its just broadcast tv, on cable and satellite and print media you can say whatever you fuckign well please - aside from libel and slander.

I always thought freedom of speech meant exactly that...saying what you want, when you want.

What does it mean then?

Well, then quiet frankly, you've always been wrong. The classic examples (for the US) being: yelling fire in a crowded theater or making death threats against the president. There are also long standing laws against libel and perjury.

I'll add, for the non-USians in case it isn't clear: the FCC only regulates the TV/radio airwaves. They have jurisdiction over this, because the TV/radio broadcast frequencies are considered a public property that is basically loaned to these companies. Freedom of speech is still alive and well on private broadcast mediums (cable TV, internet, podcasts)

The larger problem is that the news organizations which use these airwaves are supposed to serve the public good... and this has not been enforced at all for quite some time.

OK - there are always going to be some limits. But it's not like saying "Fuck" on the radio comes anywhere close to the examples you've given.

Like every constitutional right, its been through the supreme court ringer for the past couple centuries so that its a bit more complicated then what it states, thats how common law systems work.

Simply put, while individual freedom of speech is almost universally upheld by the courts, mass publishing and broadcasting have faced some censorship issues, which are often challenged in court, like they are about to be.. The wiki article on it is a decent overview and theres about a billion and a half other resources just a google away if you actually care, but i'm not digging through more - my days of constitutional law classes are behind me and I want to keep it that way.

100% agreement from me... however, there are quite a few people out there that feel otherwise. There were people who complained that their children were "permanently ruined" after seeing the 1 second of Janet Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl.

A lot of people also feel that although one utterance of the word might not be wrong... allowing such things would lead to a "race to the bottom" among all shows, leading to a "deterioration of society"

Sure and that, as a non-USian is what can be difficult to understand. It looks to me like many Americans like to interpret the "Right to bear arms" to include automatic weapons, but the "Freedom of speech" doesn't allow certain words to be uttered - in any context, on mainstream media. That makes no sense to me.

Personally i don't have an issue with the F word on TV, I mean we see people everyday in films and series being killed, maimed and tortured.

I'd rather be Fucked than killed anyday of the week !

Again Hazzza... that isn't correct. The FCC only covers the broadcast airwaves. Cable television is exempt from these rules, and you can swear as much as you want. Newspapers, magazines, and movies do not suffer from outright bans either (they do have to prevent minors accessing some material, but that is not a ban, and in the case of movies, voluntary on the part of industry)

Well those are two separate constiutional issues with no bearing of each other, you have to look into the case law to understand it.

The broadcast nonsense (and i agree that the obscenitiy laws need to be modified) comes from the fact that public airwaves are considered owned by the public and thus subject to obscenity regulations.. Honestly, as less and less people actually use public airwaves in lieu of private television and parents have more and more tools for controlling what their little crotchfruit sees, the justification for this censorship is becoming less and less pertinent to modern society, thats why its being reviewed again by the court.

Bottom line, it doesnt matter how any american interprets a constitutional right, it matters how the courts do. Judicial review, like it or not, is the law of the land.

Banning words in the media will also make them cool to use amongst youth, so it's also quite self-defeating. There are many youths from English speaking countries that use "fuck" as every second word when they speak. You don't find that happening in Germany, where there appears to be little or no taboo with any words, although curiously, there are some German youths who over-use swear words when they speak English - probably because they know that they are taboo in English.

again, I agree... but that isn't the point. I'll also note (too lazy to find the article) that there was some concern that this exact effect was causing neo-Nazi symbols/bands/logos to gain a certain cachet among the youth of Germany

Same thing goes for binge drinking, or illegal drugs. However, it will always be like that, since running on a platform of "let our children hear more swears" or "drink at a younger age" is political suicide.

Wow, you've agreed with 2 things I've said - that must be some kind of a record

Yeah, I agree, I was actually thinking the same thing... wait, 3, damn!

Before you know it, we'll be friends...

eh, maybe... I'm a generally disagreeable person

I'd hope not, seeing as neither is actually dead.

They've each got one foot in the grave, though. They starred on a TV show about old people more than 20 years ago. They're card carrying members of the Abe Vigoda club, e.g. people that have always looked old and no one can remember if they're still alive.

Oh and I don't give a fuck who says fuck on TV. Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing here. Broadcasters already engage in a ridiculous amount of self-censorship. There's no need to make them more cautious.

No. Freedom of speech is not a an unlimited good. Other goods, such as the good of society, including protecting young children from certain content, must also be taken into account. Since the government owns the frequencies on which TV (and radio) stations broadcast, the courts have a right to consider this. I believe this is one reason Howard Stern moved to satellite radio.

So young kids hearing the word "fuck" on TV is worse than the violence they get to see?

Sure it's good to protect kids from certain stuff, but this is completely skewed. I can't remember who said it, but there was a quote about not being able to show a breast on TV in the US, unless it's being blown off...

Plus, it's up to parents to control what kids see. I shouldn't have to miss out on any content because some parents want to leave their job up to the government..

EDIT: Not that I have to, living in Germany, but it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make

Its public airwaves, so if the general public consensus is that children shouldnt be exposed to shit on public airwaves, then that is the basis they censor it on.. Its crap, but as i've repeatedly said its pretty irrelevent, because if you want uncensored transmissions there are dozens of options out there for you, and these laws come from a time when it was harder for parents to control what people said.

Its bullshit, but in the scheme of things its irrelevant bullshit. I've got no problems with them showing titties on basic cable here at night, I'm kinda pissed that when I was 11 we had to look through the lines on the scrambled channels.

This biggest bullshit is that although the 'public' owns the airwaves, the government gives the major media billions worth of broadcast licenses for nothing... Well not nothing, im sure the national association of broadcaster h as 1 or two political donations.