- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles —
In a sharp rebuke of the Bush-era crackdown on foul language on broadcast television and radio, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down the government's near-zero-tolerance indecency policy as a violation of the 1st Amendment protection of free speech.
The ruling is a major victory for the broadcast TV networks, which jointly sued the Federal Communications Commission in 2006.
I can see some merit in limiting network and terrestrial radio in what times they can allow the strongest of language even though I personally consider those bad words to be of a very arbitrary nature. That said all it would take to lose a license under that bill would be someone a little too slow on the dump profanity button once and that is a chilling concept. The court got this exactly right.Score a victory for free speech.
FCC indecency rule: Court strikes down FCC indecency rule - latimes.com
Score a victory for free speech.
FCC indecency rule: Court strikes down FCC indecency rule - latimes.com
Oh god, I hope this gets taken to where it needs to go. The only legitimate power of the FCC is that to prevent piracy. All their rules about foul language and nudity and what have you is all unconstitutional.
Score a victory for free speech.
And a blow against family values...
The original argument came from the earlier part of the 1900's, been a while since I had to know that stuff but it involved a daytime droppage of strong language and a father was listening with his kids, the argument was there was no warning about the content and the exposure was something they couldn't prepare for. Personally I'm not a fan of limiting content but the points were sound in the argument, these days though I think a rejoin warning should be sufficient in the face of an overall ban but can still see the merits of either.Not at all, parents just need to be parents instead of letting the t.v. Be the babysitter. Don't like what's on t.v.? Grow up and be an adult and turn it off. Problem solved.
The original argument came from the earlier part of the 1900's, been a while since I had to know that stuff but it involved a daytime droppage of strong language and a father was listening with his kids, the argument was there was no warning about the content and the exposure was something they couldn't prepare for. Personally I'm not a fan of limiting content but the points were sound in the argument, these days though I think a rejoin warning should be sufficient in the face of an overall ban but can still see the merits of either.
The original argument came from the earlier part of the 1900's, been a while since I had to know that stuff but it involved a daytime droppage of strong language and a father was listening with his kids, the argument was there was no warning about the content and the exposure was something they couldn't prepare for. Personally I'm not a fan of limiting content but the points were sound in the argument, these days though I think a rejoin warning should be sufficient in the face of an overall ban but can still see the merits of either.
And a blow against family values...
Score a victory for free speech.
FCC indecency rule: Court strikes down FCC indecency rule - latimes.com
You know what? We should celebrate by having a **** so all of us ****ers can **** and **** each other until the ****ing **** **** **** with ****s until the ****ing can't ****ing go any ****ing more.
And a blow against family values...
I can see some merit in limiting network and terrestrial radio in what times they can allow the strongest of language even though I personally consider those bad words to be of a very arbitrary nature.
If there was uproar over violence in films then all movies would be edited to exclude graphic content. That would make us like Saudi Arabia.Personally, I think the free market should decide that. If there's enough of an uproar over a content, then that show won't get enough listeners to get enough sponsors to post advertisements to pay for their show.
I also think it would be a good idea if terrestrial radio programs had a rating system like we have for tv shows, movies, and video games. A little self-regulation will help out a long way.
I agree in full, but also had to read up in this exact matter when I was in the broadcasting curriculum. The arguments were very solid for the censure power versus the non-censure arguments at that time.Personally, I think the free market should decide that. If there's enough of an uproar over a content, then that show won't get enough listeners to get enough sponsors to post advertisements to pay for their show.
I also think it would be a good idea if terrestrial radio programs had a rating system like we have for tv shows, movies, and video games. A little self-regulation will help out a long way.
That is the type of behavior that gave so much power to the FCC and limited the value of good tv. I hate watching movies on FX that have been edited so that no swear words or too much violence will be shown. I like original content. I think networks should rate their shows or movies they show according to the rules already established. R means swear words, nudity, violence, PG-13 means whatever that means, etc, etc.
And a blow against family values...
I guess you'll have to do a little more work as a parent instead of infringing upon other's right to free speech.
I like how the majority here approve of this court rule. Which helps explain that the majority do not care for violence on tv. And that really this whole FCC indecency rule was a bunch of crap. But I bet you nothing will come of this ruling. Many of the news media outlets are owned by conservatives with family values.
I am a conservative with family values and I think this is a great ruling. Like I said before it is the parents job to decide what is appropriate for their kids to watch not the all knowing government.
I hate that editing as well. I like your idea of rating shows according to rules already established. With cable, parents can effectively screen those shows. And they should. I posted earlier it's a blow to family values and others disagreed. The rating system would make me happy, though.That is the type of behavior that gave so much power to the FCC and limited the value of good tv. I hate watching movies on FX that have been edited so that no swear words or too much violence will be shown. I like original content. I think networks should rate their shows or movies they show according to the rules already established. R means swear words, nudity, violence, PG-13 means whatever that means, etc, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?