@#%$ Scalia

Mark1031

Deity
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
5,237
Location
San Diego
Today the Supreme court expanded the power of the FCC to limit obscenity to fleeting expletives. I wonder where it specifically mentions that power of the government to limit speech in the original Constitutional text. It was from some award where Bono said F****** Brilliant. Oh my civilization will crumble if we hear that.

Back in 2004, prompted by Bono's exclamation at the 60th Golden Globe Awards that his band's victory in Best Original Song for "The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York was "really, really, f***ing brilliant," the Federal Communications Commission looked into complaints as to whether to sanction NBC for indecency for this fleeting, unscripted, live expletive. In that case, they did not. While ruling that “Bono did not describe, in context, sexual or excretory organs or activities and . . . the utterance was fleeting and isolated,” it was still “patently offensive” because the term “is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language,” “ts use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image,” and because Bono’s use of the word was entirely “shocking and gratuitous.” However, since the FCC hadn't yet penalized a broadcaster for fleeting expletives before, they wouldn't yet -- but were putting future potential scofflaws on notice.

Enter Nicole Richie and Cher -- Richie at the 2003 Billboard Awards for asking the audience “Why do they even call it ‘The Simple Life?’ Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple"; Cher at the previous year's awards for noting, “I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** ‘em.” The FCC sanctioned Fox for both broadcasts, finding Richie's “explicit description of the handling of excrement” to be “vulgar and shocking,” and Cher to be "patently offensive" "because she metaphorically suggested a sexual act as a means of expressing hostility to her critics."

The Second Circuit said that the FCC overstepped its bounds by expanding its policy to include fleeting expletives. Today, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that this expansion of FCC policy was not arbitrary or capricious, but rather a rational way to regulate modern tv:


link
 
Local school board? Overturn. Local city council? Overturn. Federal agency regulating free speech? It's cool.
 
Moderator Action: Please do not use foul language. You are responsible for anything that you quote, since you are responsible for the content of your posts.

I recognise that it's amusing that the thread is about censorship. Please do not PDMA, though

Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
This is not a free speech issue. The feds own the electromagnetic spectrum, so they get to decide what is said on it.
 
This is not a free speech issue. The feds own the electromagnetic spectrum, so they get to decide what is said on it.

Why do they own this? Is that in the Constitution? Do they own the internets? Can they fine networks for lying? Can they ban Fox News? They certainly do not get to arbitrarily decide what is said on TV.
 
Why do they own this? Is that in the Constitution?

I suggest you brush up on your constitutional theory.

What constitutes vulgarity has been defined by certain perameters by constitutional law for decades. I am sorry you have a problem with Scalia enforcing the laws of the nation.
 
Back in 2004, prompted by Bono's exclamation at the 60th Golden Globe Awards that his band's victory in Best Original Song for "The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York was "really, really, f***ing brilliant," the Federal Communications Commission looked into complaints as to whether to sanction NBC for indecency for this fleeting, unscripted, live expletive. In that case, they did not. While ruling that “Bono did not describe, in context, sexual or excretory organs or activities and . . . the utterance was fleeting and isolated,” it was still “patently offensive” because the term “is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language,” “ts use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image,” and because Bono’s use of the word was entirely “shocking and gratuitous.” However, since the FCC hadn't yet penalized a broadcaster for fleeting expletives before, they wouldn't yet -- but were putting future potential scofflaws on notice.


aside from Bono sounding like a... a word describing procreation is taboo? The word adds emphasis, I dont visualize people having sex when someone says the SCOTUS is ******* stupid ;)
 
I suggest you brush up on your constitutional theory.

What constitutes vulgarity has been defined by certain perameters by constitutional law for decades. I am sorry you have a problem with Scalia enforcing the laws of the nation.

Maybe you should brush up on your constitutional theory.
 
This is not a free speech issue. The feds own the electromagnetic spectrum, so they get to decide what is said on it.

So the Feds can ban television, radio, the internet, etc... ? The Feds can claim ownership of the electromagnetic spectrum but it takes "us" to agree with that nonsense.

I suggest you brush up on your constitutional theory.

What constitutes vulgarity has been defined by certain perameters by constitutional law for decades. I am sorry you have a problem with Scalia enforcing the laws of the nation.

Constitutional theory aint the Constitution, its the path we took to get here from there. So you didn't answer his question...
 
Scalia has never indicated by word or by deed that he cares at all what the Constitution says. So no surprise there.
 
"Constitutional theory" sounds kind of activist to me, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes how do you go from:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

to: the government shall own and regulate certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum becasue if you freely buy a certain box then you can pick up speech on that box that is indiscriminantly beemed into your house due to the nature of electromagnetic radiation, and it is important that you not be offended by the content of that speech you might pick up so we will keep an eye on that for you.

The hypocrisy and bankruptcy of strict construction if just laughable.
 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"


A conservative who likes the commerce clause:crazyeye:? You realize in the extreme that could be used to justify a communist economic model?
 
I suggest you brush up on your constitutional theory.

What constitutes vulgarity has been defined by certain perameters by constitutional law for decades. I am sorry you have a problem with Scalia enforcing the laws of the nation.

Of course (as you know because you read the opinion, right Patroklos?), the case had nothing to do with the First Amendment. It was about the legal authority of the FCC -- that mysterious and beautiful thing known as "administrative law." The Court couldn't reach the merits without addressing the Ad Law question. Now it'll go back down to the Seconds, and they'll hear the merits (i.e., whether the ban violates the First Amendment). I wouldn't be surprised if they strike it down. Then, maybe, it'll come back to the Supremes, and they can apply the established-for-decades perameters of vulgarity theory.

Scalia's still a jerk, though.

Cleo
 
And doesn't the government hold the airwaves in trust for The People? That's really different from "the government owns the airwaves."

Cleo
 
Back
Top Bottom