@#%$ Scalia

[Mark1031]

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

Thanks and interesting. How is the FCC, government control of the airwaves or holding in control for the people (whatever that means), constitutionally justified?

 

[Berzerker]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

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

Speech aint commerce...

 

[GinandTonic]

Never ceases to astound me that graphic violence is seen as just fine over there but sex or naughty language cause such knicker twisting.

It's an award bash. Everyone is drunk on the free bar. No-one claimed to be fisting Normand Lamont in the green room, invaded the stage to moon Michael Jackson or dumped a jug of water over the DPM so whats the problem? Would have been an awful lot more entertaining if they had done.

 

[mangxema]

Yes how do you go from:



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.

I'm with you on this ruling, but there is good reason to regulate the spectrum. Otherwise, I could just put up a tower and broadcast white noise just to be an ...er, scoundrel. Which would incidentally infringe on the free speech of radio/tv/wireless/etc. by drowning everything else out.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm with you on this ruling, but there is good reason to regulate the spectrum. Otherwise, I could just put up a tower and broadcast white noise just to be an ...er, scoundrel. Which would incidentally infringe on the free speech of radio/tv/wireless/etc. by drowning everything else out.

Doling out the spectrum to prevent this is one thing. Regulating the content of the spectrum down to fleeting words is quite another.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Thanks and interesting. How is the FCC, government control of the airwaves or holding in control for the people (whatever that means), constitutionally justified?

Well, I assume it's Commerce Clause. Some speech is obviously commerce.

Cleo

 

[Naskra]

And doesn't the government hold the airwaves in trust for The People?

Cleo

Sure; and when the people grow up, the trustee will resign the property to them.

 

[Berzerker]

Yes how do you go from:



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.

wait a sec there, you just bolded the strict constructionist interpretation of the 1st Amendment, this decision (and others) is activist in nature. But you make an interesting point, this isn't like you're walking down the street and some ahole walks behind you shouting obscenities in your ears. You have to go out and buy a box and bring it into your home. But the ICC has become the catch-all for the left and right seeking ways around the Constitution.

 

[mangxema]

Doling out the spectrum to prevent this is one thing. Regulating the content of the spectrum down to fleeting words is quite another.

Hence my first sentence..?

 

[El_Machinae]

Speech aint commerce...

Man, if I had a nickle for every time I heard that.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, I assume it's Commerce Clause. Some speech is obviously commerce.

Cleo

some speech conveys commercial information - big sale today - but you telling me there is a big sale is not commerce.

 

[Mark1031]

I'm with you on this ruling, but there is good reason to regulate the spectrum. Otherwise, I could just put up a tower and broadcast white noise just to be an ...er, scoundrel. Which would incidentally infringe on the free speech of radio/tv/wireless/etc. by drowning everything else out.

Well Cleo informs us that this wasn;t even decided on 1st ammendment grounds although Ginsberg did discuss it in dissent. I myself have no problem with a living and evolving constitution. It just strikes me as strange how a strict constructionist could justify a system like the FCC(federal government indirectly) deciding whether single words are allowed when using certain forms of communication-airwaves.

 

[Cutlass]

Well Cleo informs us that this wasn;t even decided on 1st ammendment grounds although Ginsberg did discuss it in dissent. I myself have no problem with a living and evolving constitution. It just strikes me as strange how a strict constructionist could justify a system like the FCC(federal government indirectly) deciding whether single words are allowed when using certain forms of communication-airwaves.

That really comes down to Scalia only being a strict constructionist when it serves to get the decision he would make otherwise.

 

[mangxema]

Well Cleo informs us that this wasn;t even decided on 1st ammendment grounds although Ginsberg did discuss it in dissent. I myself have no problem with a living and evolving constitution. It just strikes me as strange how a strict constructionist could justify a system like the FCC(federal government indirectly) deciding whether single words are allowed when using certain forms of communication-airwaves.

Are we arguing? I agree with you.

 

[El_Machinae]

When's the last time he acted in such way as someone would expect a 'strict constructionist' to?

 

[JollyRoger]

When's the last time he acted in such way as someone would expect a 'strict constructionist' to?

A speech during a book signing tour.

 

[Cutlass]

A speech during a book signing tour.

And a 60 Minutes interview.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the basis for judging profanties probably derives from an earlier SCOTUS decision about pornographic displays in public. I think I brought it up in that Japanese rapist video game discussion.
Probably the most benign form though.

EDIT: But anyways, Howard Stern would be owed beaucoup apologies from the FCC if the decision went another way.

 

[mangxema]

I think I brought it up in that Japanese rapist video game discussion.

That's got to be the worst off-handed reference ever.

 

[GoodGame]

That's got to be the worst off-handed reference ever.

I guess so, but then why come to a video game forum for intelligent debate?

It was Miller vs. California. First modern test for determining obscenity.