U.S. Supreme Court hears case on broadcast indecency

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Citrix
most wetoddid post ever

You can insult, but can you provide any useful criticism?

Let me break up that statement.
1) FCC won it's first round in the US supreme court regarding the "arbitrary" fining of some acts and ignoring other acts. The supreme court ruled that the FCC can fine media as it sees fit. There can be a second supreme court case (assuming the media and the FCC keep fighting in court) regarding freedom of speech. Until that second case is resolved (if ever), the FCC can fine some incidences and let other incidences slide.

2) The FCC chairmen at the time of the incidences/lawsuits were strong republican supporters and pubically stated thier agenda to remove the ability to air certain words. The US Supreme court ruling was exactly on party lines (5 votes from the conservatives beat the 4 votes from the liberals). See my post above for more detail.

3) As it stands now, we do not have the right to air/listen to certain words over public airwaves. Protection of the "family" from these words is just about a perfect example of a nanny state.

So, which do you disagree with? Do you disagree that the FCC won the first round? Do you disagree that the FCC at the time in question was lead by republicans and that conservatives in the supreme court upheld the FCC? Or do you disagree that it is a nanny state movement?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Yay for the legislation of morality. :disgust:

Can you think of a non-moral reason to censor words like c**t, n****r, or others?

 

[jteef]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Yay for the legislation of morality. :disgust:

Can you think of a non-moral reason to censor words like c**t, n****r, or others?

yeah, if people stop watching your channel because they don't want their children hearing that language, you lose money and suddenly realize that you would rather stay in business.