"Fleeting expletives" indeed
At the risk of riling up the FCC even more, what the %&$@ ?
The U.S. Supreme Court was given the chance to rule on the constitutionality of the FCC's authority to regulate profanity on the airwaves - a power that's constitutionally suspect - and instead (as reported here by the Associated Press), the high court punted.
On a 5-4 ruling, the court threw out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York - which found in favor of a Fox Television-led challenge to the FCC policy of "fleeting expletives," the idea that one use of the F-bomb or the S-word was enough to get you fined, no matter what the usage.
The appeals court threw the case back to the FCC for a "reasoned analysis" of its tougher line on indecency. Instead, the FCC threw it to the Supreme Court - which promptly threw it back to the appelate level to decide on constitutional grounds.
Even Justice Clarence Thomas argued that past decisions in favor of the FCC policy "were unconvincing when they were issued, and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity." Still, he voted with the majority.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing one of the dissenting opinions, argued that context is key - and something missing from the FCC's draconian policy.
"As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows," said Stevens, an avid golfer, "it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement."
The problem is that the FCC's policy is arbitrary, and unfairly enforced - and who knows how long it will be before the Supreme Court gets another chance to clean up the bleeping mess.
The U.S. Supreme Court was given the chance to rule on the constitutionality of the FCC's authority to regulate profanity on the airwaves - a power that's constitutionally suspect - and instead (as reported here by the Associated Press), the high court punted.
On a 5-4 ruling, the court threw out a ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York - which found in favor of a Fox Television-led challenge to the FCC policy of "fleeting expletives," the idea that one use of the F-bomb or the S-word was enough to get you fined, no matter what the usage.
The appeals court threw the case back to the FCC for a "reasoned analysis" of its tougher line on indecency. Instead, the FCC threw it to the Supreme Court - which promptly threw it back to the appelate level to decide on constitutional grounds.
Even Justice Clarence Thomas argued that past decisions in favor of the FCC policy "were unconvincing when they were issued, and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity." Still, he voted with the majority.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing one of the dissenting opinions, argued that context is key - and something missing from the FCC's draconian policy.
"As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows," said Stevens, an avid golfer, "it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement."
The problem is that the FCC's policy is arbitrary, and unfairly enforced - and who knows how long it will be before the Supreme Court gets another chance to clean up the bleeping mess.
Labels: government, politics
posted by Sean P. Means @ 9:34 AM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home