FCC Wants Supreme Court to Decide indecency

[Cornflake the Destroyer]

Hmmm...is the FCC thinking about morals and decency or are they strictly thinking about their bankbook?

The Federal Communications Commission has asked the Supreme Court to review a federal appellate court decision that rejected an effort by the commission to enforce indecency standards.

In a filing submitted late Thursday night, the F.C.C. argued that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not follow the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in a 1978 case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/b...312c4741a93b68&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[SirRoxalot]

Somebody Should Decide

I suspect that the FCC would like nothing better than to have someone else - like Congress, or especially the Supreme Court - define indecency. The weight of case law is immense compared to an FCC rule, or even a section of the statute that defines the rights and responsibilities of the FCC.

The FCC is in the uncomfortable position of having to define concrete rules regulating broad concepts written into communications law by Congress. Whatever they decide is subject to Congressional scrutiny - which changed based on the current time and party in power. Both communications law and FCC rules are subject to review by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court - which itself undergoes subtle shifts in opinion over time - defines the limits of protected speech, the FCC has the less onerous job of simple enforcement.

 

[4dude]

Hmmm...is the FCC thinking about morals and decency or are they strictly thinking about their bankbook?

They are thinking about NOTHING BUT HOW TO EXTRACT THE MOST $$$

 

[FredRichards]

Y'know.... the thing that I find the most interesting is that other countries are not as "retentive" as the US on what goes on the air. I find it humorous that in Europe you can see bare breasts on TV and nobody blinks. Let Janet flash one, and we're looking for blood from 100 TV stations, and have every politician in a twitter wasting taxpayer dollars on studies and committees.

I wonder if you're not right, it's for the money. Pick up a "cause", and then beat it to death by spending money, requesting money, and shaking down licensees for money.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The FCC is caught between grand-standing Congresspersons (both liberal and conservative) and the Supreme Court. The FCC has to decide what the intent of Congress was when they wrote the laws, and/or is at this moment in time. The Supreme Court has to decide what's constitutional - according to the current make-up of the court.

Congress sets the limits on fines, not the FCC. The FCC responds to complaints. It really doesn't do much enforcement on its own.

 

[audiophile.]

Y'know.... the thing that I find the most interesting is that other countries are not as "retentive" as the US on what goes on the air. I find it humorous that in Europe you can see bare breasts on TV and nobody blinks. Let Janet flash one, and we're looking for blood from 100 TV stations, and have every politician in a twitter wasting taxpayer dollars on studies and committees.

I wonder if you're not right, it's for the money. Pick up a "cause", and then beat it to death by spending money, requesting money, and shaking down licensees for money.

I'm convinced that the Janet incident might have only received an admonisment if it was an accident. What blew that was the song they sang...

 

[dhett]

Y'know.... the thing that I find the most interesting is that other countries are not as "retentive" as the US on what goes on the air. I find it humorous that in Europe you can see bare breasts on TV and nobody blinks. Let Janet flash one, and we're looking for blood from 100 TV stations, and have every politician in a twitter wasting taxpayer dollars on studies and committees.

European standards for Europeans, American standards for Americans. In some European countries, you have to pay a tax on every TV you own - do you want that here too? If you want to see breasts, there is a level of television service that provides it. Also, indecency standards do not apply during the overnight hours, after 10PM. But we also have a choice that the Europeans don't have: a level of service free of that. I'm glad we're not like the Europeans.

 

[FRR]

Amen dhett! Europe, I've been there. There is nothing there that I would trade for one thing here for. Their television programming is worse than ours, (if that is possible)

 

[genius]

Really I blame it on the Bozells and Wildmons and their organizations and ilk who think the nanny state should control what people watch. Ask Peggy Charren about how trying to get government regulation involved with television can backfire on you quickly.

By the way I agree about the European television thing. Except for the UK, many European countries offer nothing of substantial quality when it comes to programming, which why they often rely on picking up American and British soaps to fill up the schedule.

 

[dhett]

Really I blame it on the Bozells and Wildmons and their organizations and ilk who think the nanny state should control what people watch. Ask Peggy Charren about how trying to get government regulation involved with television can backfire on you quickly.

Although neither a member of nor donor to their organizations, I imagine many would consider me part of their "ilk" in that I agree with the standards they champion. I despise the dreck that passes for entertainment today. I'm tired of the Hollywood elite trying to force their perverse "standards" on me and my community. And yes, I know where my off switch is - I use it often, much more often than I should have to use it.

Network television used to police themselves through their own boards of standards. Although some of their actions now seem a little silly, we still refer to the programs of that era as "the golden age of television". Somehow, writers were able to deliver the desired adult content with class. Today, we've traded class for crass and - surprise of surprises! - the quality of the overall product has diminished. The networks are no longer policing themselves.

As for "the nanny state", the federal government, through the FCC, is the proper authority to police broadcasters, and the FCC is properly seeking guidance from the Supreme Court. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are crying for the FCC to put application limits in place to stop Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls or Advance Ministries from loading up on NCE LPFM stations. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are clamoring for the reinstatement of "the fairness doctrine" because the American public prefers conservative talk on the radio.

The public airwaves belong to the public, and if the broadcasters won't listen to us, we'll find someone to whom they will listen. If people want to lay blame on the AFA and similar organizations, I accept it gladly. I'm proud of what they're doing.

 

[robbbc]

Really I blame it on the Bozells and Wildmons and their organizations and ilk who think the nanny state should control what people watch. Ask Peggy Charren about how trying to get government regulation involved with television can backfire on you quickly.

Although neither a member of nor donor to their organizations, I imagine many would consider me part of their "ilk" in that I agree with the standards they champion. I despise the dreck that passes for entertainment today. I'm tired of the Hollywood elite trying to force their perverse "standards" on me and my community. And yes, I know where my off switch is - I use it often, much more often than I should have to use it.

Network television used to police themselves through their own boards of standards. Although some of their actions now seem a little silly, we still refer to the programs of that era as "the golden age of television". Somehow, writers were able to deliver the desired adult content with class. Today, we've traded class for crass and - surprise of surprises! - the quality of the overall product has diminished. The networks are no longer policing themselves.

As for "the nanny state", the federal government, through the FCC, is the proper authority to police broadcasters, and the FCC is properly seeking guidance from the Supreme Court. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are crying for the FCC to put application limits in place to stop Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls or Advance Ministries from loading up on NCE LPFM stations. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are clamoring for the reinstatement of "the fairness doctrine" because the American public prefers conservative talk on the radio.

The public airwaves belong to the public, and if the broadcasters won't listen to us, we'll find someone to whom they will listen. If people want to lay blame on the AFA and similar organizations, I accept it gladly. I'm proud of what they're doing.

If you haven't been hearing "the nanny state" used when discussing the fairness doctrine than you haven't been paying close attention. It gets mentioned all the time.

The solution dhett, is not more active government regulation- it's passive government regulation. Setting ownership caps, seperating content providers from broadcasters and local stations. Breaking up monopolies and entertainment "silos". Basic antitrust our forefathers figured out 100 years ago that has slowly been eroded over the last 25 years by one congressional action after another. The networks didn't police themselves during the golden age, so much as the local TV owner wouldn't play the stuff if he didn't think it was acceptable. The network wouldn't buy the stuff from the studio if they thought the local stations wouldn't play it. And that owner sent his kids to your school, went to your church, and shopped at your grocery store; a member of your community. Now owners are conglomerates in Texas and New York who own the content and could care less if the community is offended or doesn't listen.

 

[raydofan]

Y'know.... the thing that I find the most interesting is that other countries are not as "retentive" as the US on what goes on the air. I find it humorous that in Europe you can see bare breasts on TV and nobody blinks. Let Janet flash one, and we're looking for blood from 100 TV stations, and have every politician in a twitter wasting taxpayer dollars on studies and committees.

European standards for Europeans, American standards for Americans. In some European countries, you have to pay a tax on every TV you own - do you want that here too? If you want to see breasts, there is a level of television service that provides it. Also, indecency standards do not apply during the overnight hours, after 10PM. But we also have a choice that the Europeans don't have: a level of service free of that. I'm glad we're not like the Europeans.

(In Peter Griffin voice)

"Yeah, screw you Europeans, with your prime-boobies, your working transit systems not uprooted by various automotive interests; your cutting-edge technologies, normal sized carcasses and better educated people."

So, what can I air after 10PM that is 'indecent' (but not obscene)?

And it's not the boob per se-we like to relegate our titillation as you describe. We feel better as 'Muricans paying for boobs, rather than having them foisted upon us in 'the family hour' on 'family-type channels'. It throws our schema out of wack: "Free boobs? Looks like a trap!" And then go through the complex areola discussion...

We could all use a soft, fleshy part on TV...as a cushion to the presented violence.

 

[JayR]

An update...

From Broadcasting & Cable:

Justice Department Tells Supreme Court Federal Communications Commission's Power to Enforce Profanity, Indecency Policies Is in Jeopardy

I say it's time to repeal the decency laws (which are indecent in their own right).

 

[kc0ltv]

Re: An update...

From Broadcasting & Cable:

Justice Department Tells Supreme Court Federal Communications Commission's Power to Enforce Profanity, Indecency Policies Is in Jeopardy

I say it's time to repeal the decency laws (which are indecent in their own right).

I would say the opposite. With songs about oral sex and lesbian promiscuity now regular staples of the airwaves, I think it's time that the commission is granted a little bit more power to buckle down on stations (especially CHR and "urban" radio stations....they seem the worse) playing such crap, though that's probably hoping for too much. If not, broadcasters ought to gain a sense of responsibility and exercise much-needed self-censorship.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

Really I blame it on the Bozells and Wildmons and their organizations and ilk who think the nanny state should control what people watch. Ask Peggy Charren about how trying to get government regulation involved with television can backfire on you quickly.

Although neither a member of nor donor to their organizations, I imagine many would consider me part of their "ilk" in that I agree with the standards they champion. I despise the dreck that passes for entertainment today. I'm tired of the Hollywood elite trying to force their perverse "standards" on me and my community. And yes, I know where my off switch is - I use it often, much more often than I should have to use it.

Network television used to police themselves through their own boards of standards. Although some of their actions now seem a little silly, we still refer to the programs of that era as "the golden age of television". Somehow, writers were able to deliver the desired adult content with class. Today, we've traded class for crass and - surprise of surprises! - the quality of the overall product has diminished. The networks are no longer policing themselves.

As for "the nanny state", the federal government, through the FCC, is the proper authority to police broadcasters, and the FCC is properly seeking guidance from the Supreme Court. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are crying for the FCC to put application limits in place to stop Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls or Advance Ministries from loading up on NCE LPFM stations. Funny that I don't hear about "the nanny state" when people are clamoring for the reinstatement of "the fairness doctrine" because the American public prefers conservative talk on the radio.

The public airwaves belong to the public, and if the broadcasters won't listen to us, we'll find someone to whom they will listen. If people want to lay blame on the AFA and similar organizations, I accept it gladly. I'm proud of what they're doing.

Funny how the pro-censorship crowd never actually get around to defining "dreck," "trash," etc...I guess they just figure that their definition is the right one for eveyone (after all, god is on their side). : Oh, and for the record, as a free speech libertarian, I'm also opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, so let's put that red herring to rest here and now... ;D

 

[smedge2006]

I thank Dave for indirectly supporting one of my contentions: the same arguments for regulating indecency can also be used to justify the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and it's inconsistent to argue for one and not the other.

 

[Slambang]

Ive been to the UK/EU and seen how it works there when it comes to TV/Radio. Id rather have a OFCOM-type organization who takes the proper actions on things that seriously matter(i.e. rigged/joke radio contests, IBOC bleedovers, Payola, ect..) and making those broadcasters pay through the nose, than push a 1930's moral mentality upon people telling you that you cant curse or refer/show any natural activity. Ive always been a big believer in the 1st amendment and letting the public decide how and what they watch. If you're offended, then turn it off and go outside, noone is stopping you.

Also, alot of these issues would be settled if we could find a gravel pit to throw in the Bozelles, Wildmons, Dobsons and Robertsons of the world. Less of them means a safer existance for all of us.

 

[softmachine]

Ive been to the UK/EU and seen how it works there when it comes to TV/Radio. Id rather have a OFCOM-type organization who takes the proper actions on things that seriously matter(i.e. rigged/joke radio contests, IBOC bleedovers, Payola, ect..) and making those broadcasters pay through the nose, than push a 1930's moral mentality upon people telling you that you cant curse or refer/show any natural activity. Ive always been a big believer in the 1st amendment and letting the public decide how and what they watch. If you're offended, then turn it off and go outside, noone is stopping you.

Also, alot of these issues would be settled if we could find a gravel pit to throw in the Bozelles, Wildmons, Dobsons and Robertsons of the world. Less of them means a safer existance for all of us.

Well said. And as my fellow American Chris Hitchens once stated: "If Jerry Falwell had received an enema, he could've been buried in a shoebox."

 

[MarkLaRoi]

No matter how many complaints are filed the FCC is doing very little to curb any of the garbage on tv and radio these days. So there's the once in a while case where they do something, big deal. Everyday the standards fall lower and lower and we will be like Europe before too long.

People keep complaining about how some people want broadcast filth limited, but these same people are too dense to see that the filth spreads every single year. That's the problem: you can't give some people an inch because they're too greedy to stop there and will always want more. Even if they have to play the victim card to get it.

"Oh, poor us! We can't hear people cuss on the radio whenever we feel like it and that's not fair!"

Just stop whining and open your eyes and you'll see that vulgar language has infest most primetime shows, nudity or near nudity is pushed everywhere, limits of human decency in song and talk fall lower every year. Look at each year for the last 15 and try to tell me that every year hasn't produced a looser idea of decency, and that fewer and fewer topics are considered taboo.

You'd have to blind or stupid or something to miss that.

 

[TheBigA]

No matter how many complaints are filed the FCC is doing very little to curb any of the garbage on tv and radio these days.

Who should sit in judgement over that which is vulgar and obscene? I think that's what this case is about.