Supreme Court Divided On TV Profanity
This image taken from CCTV obtained by Associated Press video shows Luka Rocco Magnotta entering the Internet cafe in the district of Neukoelln in Berlin, Germany, Monday, June 4, 2012, where Kadir Anlayisli, who works in the cafe recognized him. "I looked at him and thought I knew him from somewhere, because I read newspapers every day," Anlayisli said. Luka Rocco Magnotta was apprehended on Monday in an Internet cafe in Berlin after an employee there recognized him and alerted police, Berlin police spokeswoman Kerstin Ziesmer said. The 29-year-old Canadian porn actor is accused of videotaping a killing and mailing the victim's body parts to the country's top political parties. (AP Photo/AP Video)
A divided Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday talking about dirty words on television without once using any.
There was no apparent consensus on the court about what to do in the dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission over celebrities' one-time uses of profanity on live television during hours when children are likely to be watching.
The court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years deals with whether the government can ban these "fleeting expletives." The court could avoid deciding whether the FCC policy violates the Constitution and instead determine that the FCC did not adequately explain why it changed its mind in 2004 and instituted the ban.
The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them.
"The reason these words shock is because of their association with a literal meaning," Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting his support for the policy. Roberts is the only justice with young children at home.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who has more than 20 grandchildren, also said he sees nothing wrong with clamping down on the use of bad words on television and blamed the networks for coarsening the language.
On the other side, Justice John Paul Stevens indicated that he believes Americans are more tolerant of vulgarities than they were when the court ruled 30 years ago that the FCC could keep profanities off the airwaves between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It was hard to tell where the court is heading because three justices - Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas - said little or nothing.
For many years, the FCC did not ordinarily enforce prohibitions against indecency unless there were repeated occurrences. But in 2004, the commission changed the rules after Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie used familiar but profane words during awards programs in 2002 and 2003.
A federal appeals court in New York threw out the ban, saying the FCC didn't provide enough explanation, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals court also said, but did not rule, that the new policy probably is unconstitutional.
The FCC has authority to regulate speech on broadcast radio and television stations, but not the Internet, cable and satellite TV.
C-SPAN asked the court to release a recording of the arguments for airing shortly after their conclusion. The court grants such requests from time to time, but turned down C-SPAN with no explanation.
The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582. Fox Television Stations is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. There was no apparent consensus on the court about what to do in the dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal Communications Commission over celebrities' one-time uses of profanity on live television during hours when children are likely to be watching.
The court's first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years deals with whether the government can ban these "fleeting expletives." The court could avoid deciding whether the FCC policy violates the Constitution and instead determine that the FCC did not adequately explain why it changed its mind in 2004 and instituted the ban.
The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S." The Associated Press typically does not use them.
"The reason these words shock is because of their association with a literal meaning," Chief Justice John Roberts said, suggesting his support for the policy. Roberts is the only justice with young children at home.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who has more than 20 grandchildren, also said he sees nothing wrong with clamping down on the use of bad words on television and blamed the networks for coarsening the language.
On the other side, Justice John Paul Stevens indicated that he believes Americans are more tolerant of vulgarities than they were when the court ruled 30 years ago that the FCC could keep profanities off the airwaves between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It was hard to tell where the court is heading because three justices - Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas - said little or nothing.
For many years, the FCC did not ordinarily enforce prohibitions against indecency unless there were repeated occurrences. But in 2004, the commission changed the rules after Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie used familiar but profane words during awards programs in 2002 and 2003.
A federal appeals court in New York threw out the ban, saying the FCC didn't provide enough explanation, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals court also said, but did not rule, that the new policy probably is unconstitutional.
The FCC has authority to regulate speech on broadcast radio and television stations, but not the Internet, cable and satellite TV.
C-SPAN asked the court to release a recording of the arguments for airing shortly after their conclusion. The court grants such requests from time to time, but turned down C-SPAN with no explanation.
The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582. Fox Television Stations is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
as always yer right..Another poster asked who is going turn the TV on/off. Do ye need the answer ,,well here it is..Ye as adults do..Ye set the standands in the home, It is not up to the court in this matter. ever heard of the v-chip. I have a TV and my computer has TV card. I have not set it up. Parents are the care givers . If a show is not what ye want them to watch..ye Mum/Dad change the the channel..I don''t care for alot what is on..I don''t watch.
To get back to the subject of the article, frankly doesn''t the Supreme Court have anything more important to decide than the protection of our virginal ears? If I don''t like what I hear, I change the channel and, if that fails to bring a more agreeable program, there is always the power button. We aren''t a nation of infants and can -and do- lead our lives as we see fit.
As I am consistently against the courts making up rights that are not explicitly given in the Constitution, I would be against censoring these things. Of course, I would need to think this through......so called "hate speech"? Or is that another invented thing?
In any case, I agree with those who say "you don''t have to watch if you don''t like what happens" just as much as I agree with those who say "then don''t have *** if you don''t like what happens".
The important point here is the phrase ''offensive to viewers''. What offends you may not offend me, and vice versa. We are supposed to have freedom of speech, and government has no place deciding what should or should not be considered offensive or obscene language.
Movies, TV shows, video games, and music all come with content ratings. No one forces anyone to watch or listen to any of it.