- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
http://www.latimes.com/news/na...08nov05,0,457786.story
U.S. Supreme Court hears case on broadcast indecency
The justices discuss -- without uttering -- the sorts of words at issue in a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's crackdown on broadcast expletives.
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court justices talked about indecency and foul language today, but they did so without using any of the actual words that federal regulators hope to ban from television and radio broadcasts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that they strongly support the drive to keep the F-word and the S-word off broadcasts during the hours when children and families are likely to be watching.
But they may not speak for the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens commented that the F-word, in some formulations, can be "very funny." He also wondered whether the government could ban other words that refer to sex or excrement.
"Do you think use of the word 'dung' would be indecent?" he asked the government lawyer representing the Federal Communications Commission. No, he replied, because 'dung" is not as "patently offensive" as the S-word.
Roberts, who has two young children, said families who watch a Hollywood awards program should not have to hear foul words. It is different, he said, if a live sports broadcast picks up a foul word in the background. "The context makes all the difference in the world," the chief justice said. Under its policy, the FCC could fine the broadcasters who aired the awards program but spare the sports broadcaster.
Scalia blamed the broadcasters in general for the "coarsening" of society. "I'm not persuaded by the argument that people are more accustomed to hearing these words than they were in the past," he said.
At issue before the court today was a crackdown on broadcast expletives announced by the FCC four years ago. Broadcasters can face fines of more than $325,000 for airing an expletive, but they won a lower-court ruling that blocked the policy from being enforced.
U.S. Solicitor Gen. Gregory Garre, defending the FCC, urged the court to allow the new policy to go into effect. The rules against broadcast indecency create a "safety zone" for families, he said. Cable TV channels have edgier programs, but "broadcast TV is the one place where Americans can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock and not expect to be bombarded by indecent language," he said.
Chief Justice Roberts, agreeing, said that "all sorts of other media are available" for those who are not bothered by more open use of profanity, sex or violence.
But a lawyer for the Fox TV network said the FCC's abrupt shift in policy left broadcasters susceptible to being hit with huge fines, even when they inadvertently air an expletive during a live show.
"At the end of the day, you are regulating the content of speech," said Washington lawyer Carter Phillips. He said the court should block the FCC's new policy, either because it is arbitrary or because it violates the 1st Amendment.
Roberts and Scalia said it was neither.
"Why do you think the F-word has shock value? Because it's associated with sexual activity. That's what gives it its force," Roberts said, defending the FCC's policy as reasonable and not arbitrary.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the opposite tack. The FCC's policy has "no rhyme or reason," she said. Although the agency took no action against the TV broadcast of the movie "Saving Private Ryan," which includes loud cursing on the D-day beaches, it objected to a TV broadcast of a documentary "The Blues," in which musicians use curse words.
Ginsburg also said the court needed to consider the free-speech issue. That is "the big elephant in the room," she said.
The outcome was especially hard to forecast, however, because several justices said little or nothing. They include Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy.
Fox TV took the lead in challenging the FCC's policy because it had broadcast several of the awards programs that figured in the crackdown.
The government's policy will remain on hold until the high court rules in the case.
Ok, I meant to highlight some more of this bizarre sh*t but I am laughing so hard I am in tears.
What the f*ck is this country coming to? Can't the Supreme Court justices come out and say sh*t when they mean sh*t?
F*cking retarded, if you ask me.
btw look at what side Fox is on.
This takes the cake as the most bizarre Supreme Court discussion since, well, ever.
U.S. Supreme Court hears case on broadcast indecency
The justices discuss -- without uttering -- the sorts of words at issue in a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's crackdown on broadcast expletives.
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court justices talked about indecency and foul language today, but they did so without using any of the actual words that federal regulators hope to ban from television and radio broadcasts.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia made clear that they strongly support the drive to keep the F-word and the S-word off broadcasts during the hours when children and families are likely to be watching.
But they may not speak for the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens commented that the F-word, in some formulations, can be "very funny." He also wondered whether the government could ban other words that refer to sex or excrement.
"Do you think use of the word 'dung' would be indecent?" he asked the government lawyer representing the Federal Communications Commission. No, he replied, because 'dung" is not as "patently offensive" as the S-word.
Roberts, who has two young children, said families who watch a Hollywood awards program should not have to hear foul words. It is different, he said, if a live sports broadcast picks up a foul word in the background. "The context makes all the difference in the world," the chief justice said. Under its policy, the FCC could fine the broadcasters who aired the awards program but spare the sports broadcaster.
Scalia blamed the broadcasters in general for the "coarsening" of society. "I'm not persuaded by the argument that people are more accustomed to hearing these words than they were in the past," he said.
At issue before the court today was a crackdown on broadcast expletives announced by the FCC four years ago. Broadcasters can face fines of more than $325,000 for airing an expletive, but they won a lower-court ruling that blocked the policy from being enforced.
U.S. Solicitor Gen. Gregory Garre, defending the FCC, urged the court to allow the new policy to go into effect. The rules against broadcast indecency create a "safety zone" for families, he said. Cable TV channels have edgier programs, but "broadcast TV is the one place where Americans can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock and not expect to be bombarded by indecent language," he said.
Chief Justice Roberts, agreeing, said that "all sorts of other media are available" for those who are not bothered by more open use of profanity, sex or violence.
But a lawyer for the Fox TV network said the FCC's abrupt shift in policy left broadcasters susceptible to being hit with huge fines, even when they inadvertently air an expletive during a live show.
"At the end of the day, you are regulating the content of speech," said Washington lawyer Carter Phillips. He said the court should block the FCC's new policy, either because it is arbitrary or because it violates the 1st Amendment.
Roberts and Scalia said it was neither.
"Why do you think the F-word has shock value? Because it's associated with sexual activity. That's what gives it its force," Roberts said, defending the FCC's policy as reasonable and not arbitrary.
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the opposite tack. The FCC's policy has "no rhyme or reason," she said. Although the agency took no action against the TV broadcast of the movie "Saving Private Ryan," which includes loud cursing on the D-day beaches, it objected to a TV broadcast of a documentary "The Blues," in which musicians use curse words.
Ginsburg also said the court needed to consider the free-speech issue. That is "the big elephant in the room," she said.
The outcome was especially hard to forecast, however, because several justices said little or nothing. They include Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy.
Fox TV took the lead in challenging the FCC's policy because it had broadcast several of the awards programs that figured in the crackdown.
The government's policy will remain on hold until the high court rules in the case.
Ok, I meant to highlight some more of this bizarre sh*t but I am laughing so hard I am in tears.
What the f*ck is this country coming to? Can't the Supreme Court justices come out and say sh*t when they mean sh*t?
F*cking retarded, if you ask me.
btw look at what side Fox is on.
This takes the cake as the most bizarre Supreme Court discussion since, well, ever.
Facebook
Twitter