@#%$ Scalia

[Ecofarm]

Fleetingly. Watch a high jump pit at a junior high track meet. 90% of the misses will result in an f-bomb or other strong language and none of the student athletes will face consequences for it.

I would expect a coach to correct such lack of discipline, at public schools.

The language is insulting not because I've never heard it, but because it is a vulgar substitute for an "ahh" or "umm" due to the person being too slow to express themselves quickly with better adjectives or emotional descriptiveness. Basically, it buys time to think - out loud. Rather pathetic, really.

I would question the coach regarding their language at school functions. I'd be willing to bet he uses the language, in front of the children. This teaches them that it is ok to have mental farts that are not silent yet deadly. It's like saying duh out loud.

I'm sure there are some public schools that it does not result in expulsion from class for the day. Now, I might be an old-timer, but I'm pretty sure that an f-bomb in class sends you to an office with rare exception.

 

[JollyRoger]

Vulgarness should be subject of federal regulation?

 

[mangxema]

The language is insulting not because I've never heard it, but because it is a vulgar substitute for an "ahh" or "umm" due to the person being too slow to express themselves quickly with better adjectives or emotional descriptiveness. Basically, it buys time to think - out loud. Rather pathetic, really.

I would question the coach regarding their language at school functions. I'd be willing to bet he uses the language, in front of the children. This teaches them that it is ok to have mental farts that are not silent yet deadly.

I've never heard profanity used in that context. Perhaps some of those people who swear every other word, but they are the exception not the rule.

If someone were to sneak up behind you and hit you with a baseball bat, I'd forgive you for whatever came out of your mouth.

 

[Mark1031]

I didn't know the f-bomb was in the Constitution.

 

[Ecofarm]

Vulgarness should be subject of federal regulation?

In public, yes. Papers, etc can print/video what they like.

I've never heard profanity used in that context.

That is always the context. Unless someone is refering to sex, the f-bomb = "duh"/"umm"/ahhh"/"uhhhhh"

It is a place holder for a brain that's trying to work too fast, a general adjective or noun (speaking loosely) that could mean anything.

 

[choxorn]

Are we seriously proposing that profane terminology on public airwaves should be protected under "free speech"??

Yes, we are suggesting that. We don't care what the hell it is, we hate censorship.

 

[Cutlass]

In public, yes.

So what part of the Constitution are you planning to rewrite to accomplish that?

 

[JollyRoger]

In public, yes.

So Ben Franklin would have theoretically been subject to arrest for farting proudly in public?

 

[Ecofarm]

Theoretically, yes... except that farts are generally involuntary. He may have supported silent farts in public, but loud ones could result in stoning.

Yes, we are suggesting that.

Most of us would like some standards of behavior on public airwaves. We voted and made laws as such. Basically, if you want to use our stuff, you must meet certain standards. Now, you can go and do whatever you like, within reason, with your own stuff all you like - it's a free country.

We don't care what the hell it is, we hate censorship.

Do you support slander?

 

[JollyRoger]

Most of us would like some standards of behavior on public airwaves. We voted and made laws as such. Do you support slander?

You can maintain some standards while not subjecting fleeting language to fines.

As for Franklin, silent may be deadly, but not proud.

 

[Ecofarm]

You can maintain some standards while not subjecting fleeting language to fines.

A child can be reprimanded. What do you suggest we do to discourage such behavior on publc airwaves? Send them to the principle's office? Perhaps ground them for a week?

We're talking bout grown-ups now (in the free world). They can only be discouraged via their wallet so unless you have another option for how to discourage these things... I dunno, send them to work camps? Have them disappeared?, than a fine seems entirely reasonable.

Should we literally slap them on the wrist? With, like, a ruler? What do you suggest. Wait... let me guess... you don't think we should have ANY enforcement of the laws set by vote for the management of publically owned airwaves. You want rulership by the minority who say "ahhhh, let it slide!"? I'm not interested in "some" standards. I'm interested in the standards set by the laws put in place by our representative majority. And I expect those standards to be enforced, not set aside because joe-bob says "who cares".

 

[JollyRoger]

You think a fine is more than a slap on the wrist? Why not let the free market decide? If a network allows too many naughty words, the Puritans will find the remote.

 

[Ecofarm]

You think a fine is more than a slap on the wrist? Why not let the free market decide? If a network allows too many naughty words, the Puritans will find the remote.

It's public property. One cannot use the "find the remote" argument. Additionally, any child might 'find the remote'. I guess if you want kids to grow up speaking like idiots, you might want all kinds of garbage on public airwaves. One could have, like, Farfur or something. We'd hate to censor Farfur, right?

 

[Cutlass]

In what manner does it harm anyone?

 

[Ecofarm]

It teaches poor, literally and figuratively, behavior by example. One wouldn't need their kid, who idolizes Bono for some crappy album after War (Joshua was ok) thinking "hey! It's cool to speak like a moron!" nor do they need their kid being taugh that shouting profanities at each other is a reasonable and hip way to communicate.

Basically, it comes down to: "keep your slimball mentality off my airwaves and away from the children", as the argument for reasonable regulation. And the support for the argument is representative legislation. That the supreme court upholds my legislation is expected. If one doesn't like the fines, then change the laws. Don't legislate in the courts by removing enforcement capability.

A fine is a slap on the wrist - that's reasonable. At least we are not disappearing people and we have private property where one can do as they like (and even charge money).

Still, I don't think anyone is so ANTI_CENSORSHIP!!11!! that they support the right of others to slander and libel, so any opinion founded in absolutism needs to be re-evaluated.

 

[Cutlass]

And that's a good enough reason for a purely communist overruling of the free market?

 

[GoodGame]

Anyways, you can get the straight poop (can I say type that?) from the source:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-582.pdf

The justification on the beginning of the article, page 4:

Federal law prohibits the broadcasting of “any . . . indecent . . . language,” 18 U. S. C. §1464, which includes expletives referring to sexual or excretory activity or organs, see FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978). This case concerns the adequacy of the Federal Communications Commission’s explanation of its decisionthat this sometimes forbids the broadcasting of indecentexpletives even when the offensive words are not repeated.

Read pages 4-6 if you want more detail.

So bottom line, they're saying the Federal government made a law within the scope of the constitution, and it was upheld as not being an infringement of the bill of rights. So phoning your congressperson about having the law changed would be more productive than whining in CFC-OT.

EDIT: Amusingly, Fox broadcasting is the defendant.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's public property. One cannot use the "find the remote" argument. Additionally, any child might 'find the remote'. I guess if you want kids to grow up speaking like idiots, you might want all kinds of garbage on public airwaves. One could have, like, Farfur or something. We'd hate to censor Farfur, right?

Any child may find the f-word on the internet. Or in a written publication. Or on the wall of a public bathroom stall recently occupied by a right wing moralist.

And there are ways to lock stations, so even if the child finds the remote, he won't be able to watch the station objectionable to his actively prudish parents. If all else fails, get rid of the tv.

 

[Ecofarm]

And that's a good enough reason for a purely communist overruling of the free market?

Public airwaves are hardly free-market.

Any child may find the f-word on the internet. Or in a written publication. Or on the wall of a public bathroom stall recently occupied by a right wing moralist.

Is internet access free? Are all written publications free? Is it legal to do such on a bathroom wall?

You confuse public and private goods, AND you ignore the difference between legal and criminal actions. Nice argument.

And there are ways to lock stations, so even if the child finds the remote, he won't be able to watch the station objectionable to his actively prudish parents. If all else fails, get rid of the tv.

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their 5 year old to be subjected to f-bombardment on public airwaves?

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their kid having a horrible example of how to behave on public airwaves?

Is it prudish for parents to not want their kid subject to these things at public school?

I think you have confused prudish with wanting the best possible example for children in general.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Anyways, you can get the straight poop (can I say type that?) from the source:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-582.pdf

The justification on the beginning of the article, page 4:

Read pages 4-6 if you want more detail.

So bottom line, they're saying the Federal government made a law within the scope of the constitution, and it was upheld as not being an infringement of the bill of rights. So phoning your congressperson about having the law changed would be more productive than whining in CFC-OT.

EDIT: Amusingly, Fox broadcasting is the defendant.

But as I said earlier, the Court never reached the merits of the case. They never said whether the particular FCC regulation was constitutional. You're pointing out that the statute was held to be constitutional -- the question here is whether the FCC's enforcement of it was constitutional.

Actually, that's not the question here. The question here is whether the FCC overstepped its statutory authority in making the regulation. After that question is answered (here, in the negative), then the case will go back down and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will look at the merits and determine whether it's constitutional. And from what I've read, the Seconds will likely strike it down. At which point it might return to the Supremes on the merits issue.

Cleo