Hope And More Of The (#$&*@!) Same
Via Instapundit, the Obama admin asks the Supremes to uphold the FCC's anti-pottymouth and anti-naked people on TV policy. Gautham Nagesh writes at The Hill:
The administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down the FCC's indecency policy last July.The court ruled that the FCC's policy against fleeting expletives on live television, instituted in 2004 after U2 frontman Bono used an expletive during the 2003 Golden Globes, was unconstitutionally vague and resulted in self-censorship by broadcasters wary of facing record fines.
The FCC subsequently acknowledged the court's ruling would likely prevent the commission from enforcing its indecency policy even in cases of scripted rather than fleeting profanity or nudity.
That prediction came to fruition in January when the same court tossed the commission's record $1.4 million fine leveled against 52 ABC affiliates for airing a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue" that contained a scene featuring actress Charlotte Ross nude.
There's plenty of TV out there. There are even plenty of DVDs out there, and there's plenty of stuff on Hulu. If you don't want to see naked people or hear pottymouths, how about you watch shows and stations that exist and will develop for people like you. And let's keep the government out of television for the rest of us, shall we?
Even better idea: it's easy to tag digital transmissions, and let the consumer program their devices to filter what is offensive to them.
Speech would then be free, the government only enforcing truth in advertising/tagging, which is a valid regulation of commerce.
Ben David at April 24, 2011 3:46 AM
The most important question:
Why do we need the government controlling content whatsoever?
I was going to go through the exercise of tying the FCC to congress. But you know what is funny:
The google search for FCC comes back with:
As the results on the first hit. But when you go to the actual FCC website that text is nowhere to be found.
The point is that the FCC has no right to the content. You should be able to interview any of the comedians on the 8 AM morning shows, saying anything they want.
Jim P. at April 24, 2011 5:31 AM
All of these censorship regulations are the result of demands of frustrated individuals who can't stand the fact that someone, somewhere may be enjoying themselves.
Jay at April 24, 2011 6:49 AM
Scheduled broadcast television will be a thing of the past in ten years. Multimedia content will be streamed on demand, and if you don't want to see foo, simply don't select it. The FCC will be irrelevant.
Steve Daniels at April 24, 2011 7:25 AM
How's that hopeychangey... oh heck, it isn't even fun anymore.
Cousin Dave at April 24, 2011 8:00 AM
Satellite and cable services voluntarily offer the ability to block channels. I use it and so do many of my relatives and friends. However, what I choose to block is different than those friends and that's how it should be.
Joe at April 24, 2011 8:41 AM
As the results on the first hit. But when you go to the actual FCC website that text is nowhere to be found.
This is the page meta description, which Google often (but not always) uses as the snippet shown in search results. You can see it by going to that page and selecting the "view source" option in your web browser.
Christopher at April 24, 2011 10:37 AM
Not only does the government have no business regulating speech (even more so, now that there are hundreds of channels, rather than just three). What really strikes me is this: what is the executive branch doing trying to influence a judicial decision? This is improper on the face of it - it's called "separation of powers".
a_random_guy at April 24, 2011 12:46 PM
You know what? At the same time they invented television, they came up with this really nifty thing called the OFF BUTTON.
The government needs to butt out of everyone's business. If you honestly can't figure out that if you don't like something you don't watch it, then I honestly wonder how you manage to dress yourself and go to work in the morning.
Daghain at April 24, 2011 3:30 PM
I dislike low-life pottymouth-ism. And I don't have to watch it, if I do not wish.
The level of violence on TV is amazing. A guy can shoot his wife in the chest, that's okay, but don't show him tenderly kissing that part of her anatomy. That's bad.
I like naked people, but the FCC "protects" me from watching well-made shows with nudity. Okay.
How long will this go on?
BOTU at April 24, 2011 3:49 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/24/hope_and_more_o.html#comment-2071250">comment from DaghainRegarding the "OFF BUTTON," my mother did that parenting thing and refused to let us watch TV save for the Disney show on Sunday nights and whatever we could catch by pretending to keep my dad company while he watched "McMillen and Wife" or something afterward.
My neighbors' children are not allowed to watch TV at all during the school year and she doesn't let them watch in the summer, either. They will sometimes watch movies she carefully chooses. Otherwise, they're making stuff and using their imagination or reading books.
Amy Alkon at April 24, 2011 3:56 PM
Leave a comment