The Supreme Court takes more of our Freedoms

Hoffman

Guess who's back? Hoffman's back
Sep 28, 2006
34,674
2,022
458
Northern VA
#1
...oh...wait.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18539003

US broadcasters who broke the rules on swearing and nudity should not be penalised, the US Supreme Court has ruled.

Several broadcasters were issued with fines totalling some $1.24m (£800,000) for breaching decency standards.

Swearing uttered by celebrities on awards shows, and a brief glimpse of a woman's buttock during an episode of NYPD Blue were deemed inappropriate.

But judges overturned the fines and said that policies should be revised.

Television networks Fox and ABC had challenged fines issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They argued that the commission's use of penalties was inconsistent.

'One free expletive'
For years the FCC did not take action against broadcasters for one-off incidents of swearing, or for brief nudity.

But the FCC toughened its stance following several incidents in 2002 and 2003.

They include:

Singer Cher's use of the F word during the Billboard Music Awards show
U2 lead singer Bono's use of the same word during the Golden Globes
Reality show star Nicole Richie's use of two expletives during the Billboard awards show
A seven-second shot of a woman's buttock on a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue
The FCC concluded that its "one-free-expletive" rule had not kept the airwaves free of indecency when children were likely to be watching.

Lawyers for Fox and ABC argued that the FCC had allowed broadcasters to air profanities in the movie Saving Private Ryan and nudity in Schindler's List.

They also said that the arrival of satellite, internet and cable TV had rendered the regulations, that only apply to broadcast channels, obsolete.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court judges declared that the FCC had not given broadcasters fair warning of a change in its stance.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the commission did not adequately explain that "a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent".

The crackdown on indecency came in part after Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show.

That incident is still being considered by the courts.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,925
8,998
763
Loveland, CO
#2
They also said that the arrival of satellite, internet and cable TV had rendered the regulations, that only apply to broadcast channels, obsolete.
I hope this finally gets addressed. Fuck the FCC.
 

Psychopath

I want to fuck your girlfriend.
Dec 28, 2008
19,230
3,714
393
Constant sate of misery
#3
The FCC is good for one thing and one thing only, making sure tv and satellite signals don't get fucked with. Can't wait for this censorship organization to die.
 
Dec 8, 2004
49,859
21,454
763
Maine
#4
And from the spoil sports...

PTC Applauds Supreme Court for Siding with Decency Law

Urges FCC to Clear Out More Than 1.5 Million Pending Indecency Complaints



LOS ANGELES (June 21, 2012) – Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Federal Communications Commission v. Fox case. The Parents Television Council™ praised the Court for refusing to side with the networks’ years-long campaign to overturn the broadcast decency law, and upholding the authority of the FCC to enforce broadcast decency standards between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are likely watching.

PTC President Tim Winter issued the following statement:

“Once again the Supreme Court has ruled against the networks in their years-long campaign to obliterate broadcast decency standards. Contrary to some erroneous media reports, the Court today did not strike down the FCC’s broadcast decency policy, but in fact only ruled against the timing and order of events related to the FCC’s enforcement.

“The Court today specifically acknowledged the FCC’s ability to continue broadcast decency enforcement as part of its public interest obligation. Pacifica is still good law. The FCC must now rule on the merits of more than 1.5 million backlogged indecency complaints. The ‘notice’ requirement, which allowed Fox and ABC to slip off the hook in these two cases at issue today, has already been satisfied for all the pending complaints.

“Broadcast decency rules have existed to protect children since the dawn of the broadcast medium. It is for their sake that there will still be decency rules and the TV networks will be required to abide by them.”

Link


Hmmm they don't seem to like prime time programming....

http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/familyguide/weekly.asp
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#5
The FCC is good for one thing and one thing only, making sure tv and satellite signals don't get fucked with. Can't wait for this censorship organization to die.
Never happen. The best we can hope for is for them to keep the censorship to "indecent" content as opposed to "offensive".

That and we need to make sure they keep their hands of the fucking Internet. THAT'S the next big fight.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,456
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Never happen. The best we can hope for is for them to keep the censorship to "indecent" content as opposed to "offensive".

That and we need to make sure they keep their hands of the fucking Internet. THAT'S the next big fight.
That's not what net neutrality is about. We've been over this before.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,327
13,009
438
Atlanta, GA
#8

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,712
22,328
398
Northern California
#9
The Parents Television Council
Maybe if these fuckers were at home monitoring what their own kids were watching, rather than attending council meetings, we wouldn't need the FCC to be as intrusive.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#10
That's not what net neutrality is about. We've been over this before.
Google the term "foothold" and meditate on its meaning in this old argument. Maybe you'll come to the truth somehow.

You forget whom you're talking to.
Yeah, someone who doesn't want the FCC anywhere near the Internet. We dodged a bullet this time. Stop siding with these pricks.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#12
That's not what net neutrality is about. We've been over this before.
The Internet is a global network of communication among individuals and companies. Net neutrality is a power grab over the free flow of information on the Internet. All government interference with the free flow of information is censorship.

Net neutrality is just as much censorship as telling HBO that they have no right to sell their service for profit. The only difference between that plan and the PTC's demands is the motivation: the PTC seeks to impose religious values on everyone, the Democratic Party seeks to impose socialism.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,456
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
Google the term "foothold" and meditate on its meaning in this old argument. Maybe you'll come to the truth somehow.

Yeah, someone who doesn't want the FCC anywhere near the Internet. We dodged a bullet this time. Stop siding with these pricks.
Enjoy your bandwidth caps, throttling, and tiered service plans.