Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(FMQB)   SCOTUS could strip the FCC of their power over indecency and censorship. Way to [DELETED] go, Supremes   (fmqb.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

16465 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2007 at 3:59 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



202 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-02-28 2:24:20 PM  
I guess that's the power to indent?

 
2007-02-28 2:25:33 PM  
The very notion of "indecency" and "obscenity" is antithetical to the Constitution.
 
2007-02-28 2:55:15 PM  
In theory, the premise of this headline sounds great.

Walden himself is a broadcaster, owning five stations. He also suggested that if the XM/Sirius merger is allowed, then perhaps the media ownership rules should be loosened as well.

But that's bad news. Aren't ownership rules already pretty loose? Are they suggesting that there should be less than 3 companies controlling all the radio stations in any given market?
 
2007-02-28 3:31:04 PM  
This could get very interesting.

Of course, the "christian parents groups" would get in an almighty snit about it.

That'd be fun to watch.
 
2007-02-28 3:33:04 PM  
Uh...

"Speaking to broadcasters yesterday, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee said he could envision the Supreme Court taking away the FCC's powers over indecency on the airwaves."

And this translates to the spiffy tag and headline of "SCOTUS could strip the FCCof their power..."?

SCOTUS could do a lot of things. Just because a politician makes a speech at an industry convention doesn't mean that it will happen. Or even become close to happening.
 
2007-02-28 3:49:47 PM  
A member of the House of Representatives, who sits on the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, made some interesting speculation about a subject he knows quite a bit about.

Subby obviously thought it would be a "good thing" if the SCOTUS did what this Congresscritter said could happen, and even used the same word - "could" - in writing the headline.

Seems like a pretty obvious headline, to me. Of course, I would think that way...
 
2007-02-28 4:03:46 PM  
Way farking over due.
 
2007-02-28 4:04:04 PM  
WTF is "indency"?
 
2007-02-28 4:04:49 PM  
Now if they would do the same thing with the NEA, EPA and every other xxA out there. Power not expresly given to the Federal government is reserved to the states or the people respectivly, FTW!

/I know I butchered the quote, but you know what it means.
 
2007-02-28 4:05:09 PM  
Supremes?

[image from upload.wikimedia.org too old to be available]
 
2007-02-28 4:05:25 PM  
I don't see that happening.
 
2007-02-28 4:05:35 PM  
Does this mean that we will get to see more wardrobe malfunctions in the future? Hopefully it's somebody hot this time.
 
2007-02-28 4:06:15 PM  
Whamdangler

I guess that's the power to indent?

FTW - Thread over, go home now

 
2007-02-28 4:06:16 PM  
What's this about scrotum stripping?
 
2007-02-28 4:07:02 PM  
Don't the mods have spell check? PREVIEW your damned headlines subbies!!!

/grammar/spelling nazi...
 
2007-02-28 4:07:27 PM  
off topic request question... hopefully someone can answer

who is the girl in all the maxim video site ads.. The Hottie Hostess chick.. She's cute as hell but I can't figure out anything past the 2 tiny pics they show.
 
2007-02-28 4:08:46 PM  
muninsfire: "Of course, the "christian parents groups" would get in an almighty snit about it."

Christian Parents groups are the absolute definition of indecency in and of themselves. Never has there been a more corrupt, hypocritical batch of so-called Decency Advocates since the death of the PMRC!

FCC should DIAF and RIP

/M.O.U.S.E.
 
2007-02-28 4:09:05 PM  
Finally, 5 year olds can watch donkey porn like the rest of us.
 
2007-02-28 4:09:23 PM  
Hooray! We have a tv-nudity gap with europe to overcome!
 
2007-02-28 4:09:24 PM  
Geez. Then I guess we would have free-market farking television.

Imagine that.
 
2007-02-28 4:09:48 PM  
SCOTUS could strip the FCC of their power over indency density and censorship.

Fixed that for ya' smitty!

/NAB = ultimate density
 
F42
2007-02-28 4:10:10 PM  
could, but won't
 
2007-02-28 4:10:13 PM  
According to my favorite Constitutional Law prof, SCOTUS is not the proper term either.
It's the United States Supreme Court. USSC.

We'd get marked off for writing SCOTUS on an exam.
 
2007-02-28 4:10:27 PM  
The only thing the FCC should be doing (with regard to commercial broadcast radio and television) is promulgating technical standards for transmission and registering broadcasters so that no two are operating on interfering frequencies in overlapping broadcast areas.

Let the free market decide what is appropriate content.
 
2007-02-28 4:10:53 PM  
muninsfire

This could get very interesting.
Of course, the "christian parents groups" would get in an almighty snit about it.
That'd be fun to watch.
---------------------------------------------------------

Don't most "christian parents" censor stuff on their own anyway?
 
2007-02-28 4:10:59 PM  
BizarroHulk
What's this about scrotum stripping?

OOwwwwwwwwwwww!11!!1!!!
 
2007-02-28 4:11:07 PM  
All I want to know is... will I get my side boob hour?
 
2007-02-28 4:11:09 PM  
When Bush got caught saying Korea should "stop doing this shiat," it got bleeped by all the TV stations. They never should have bleeped it and dared the FCC to fine them. If that's not constitutionally protected political speech, nothing is.
 
2007-02-28 4:11:10 PM  
Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say On FARK

1. shiat
2. micturate
3. fark
4. cooter
5. In Svoiet Russia, ...
6. motherfarker
7. boobies
 
2007-02-28 4:11:21 PM  
All I can say is "it's about time". Perhaps now we can stop focusing on if someone said fark, and/or our curious national obsession over b00bies.

/not that there's anything WRONG with them
 
2007-02-28 4:12:19 PM  
zimbach: The only thing the FCC should be doing (with regard to commercial broadcast radio and television) is promulgating technical standards for transmission and registering broadcasters so that no two are operating on interfering frequencies in overlapping broadcast areas.

I do think they should mediate shiat between political parties. Like the 501 thing. Truth in advertising, and all that as well.

Ya know. Legal shiat. Not pandering to popular sentiment.
 
2007-02-28 4:12:50 PM  
as I understand it, something like 95% of all indecency complaints to the FCC are made by the same 1 or 2 special interest groups who rally their members. The average American is really pretty indifferent.
 
2007-02-28 4:13:08 PM  
JDAT: Don't most "christian parents" censor stuff on their own anyway?

For their own families--but some want to censor things for everybody.
 
2007-02-28 4:13:25 PM  
Oznog: "Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say On FARK"

You made my day! :)
 
2007-02-28 4:13:41 PM  
Damn activist judges!
 
2007-02-28 4:13:53 PM  
Omnivorous
SCOTUS could strip the FCC of their power over indency density and censorship.


Darth Vader? Is that you with my density destiny?

3Horn
 
2007-02-28 4:14:27 PM  
Good, and I hope it covers the BATFE too. Executive branches should not be passing law by enforcing them as they interperate it that week.
 
2007-02-28 4:14:58 PM  
The Democrats are NEVER going to let this happen. They need the FCC's power to inact the "fairness doctrine" and kill talk radio, which they see as a threat.
 
2007-02-28 4:15:24 PM  
WarpZone: as I understand it, something like 95% of all indecency complaints to the FCC are made by the same 1 or 2 special interest groups who rally their members. The average American is really pretty indifferent.

I got pissed at the superbowl thing. Because there wasn't any warning. Here you are, watching the superbowl, thinking it's a jock/family geek fest. Then ziiiiing. Here's a titty for YOU.

I can really understand why people got angry about that. Now if they would have had a disclosure, like 'some of the halftime stuff is getting an 'r' this year, so you might want to throw the rug rats behind the couch' - I could dig it.

But of course, that would mean some people would turn the TV to another channel, and that can't happen...
 
2007-02-28 4:15:32 PM  
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the big problems we had with communisim, the censorship? Wasn't that one of the bullet points, from the cold war, as to why we were enemies with the russians?

Doesn't the concept of freedom contradict the idea of any form of censorship?

Of course the only real reason we have any censorship is the religious right making sure they impose their moral values on everyone (Cause, of course, we all believe the same thing, right?), while at the same time preventing them from having to see or hear things they don't want to.

In then end, censorship, should be left to the individual, rather then the society. If you can't deal with what might be said, or shown in the media, then turn off the TV, and log off the internet, otherwise stop forceing your morals on the rest of us.

The same goes for over-protective parents. Quit biatching about the content on TV or the Internet, and be a goddamned parent. Watch your child, raise them your self, don't just sit them in front of a box and hope for the best, then get mad if they see a boob, or hear a bad word.

/What the hell happened to personal responsibilty?
//Rant over!
 
2007-02-28 4:16:14 PM  
jdat: Don't most "christian parents" censor stuff on their own anyway?

Nope. As far as I can tell, they* want the government to do it for them.
 
2007-02-28 4:16:49 PM  
This will only result in stricter rules on broadcast speech if the USSC strike down current regs for vagueness.

/They'll legislate to the lowest common denominator
//as always
 
2007-02-28 4:16:53 PM  
I love how you can swear on TV as long as its not English. Alles sie verboden worter ist es Englisch! Scheissekopf!
Sorry, my German is not that great.
 
2007-02-28 4:17:14 PM  
Yet another example of why it's good for the gov to step aside and let the free market manage itself. And it'll be better off for it. Broadcasters will continue to self-regulate, especially during shows or hours that attract younger or otherwise more sensitive viewers, because if they don't then they might suffer financially due to rejection from their customer base. Capitalism is a good thing.

*Most* Americans, discounting the minority in the far-far-right will have no problems with adult or more racy content so long as they're not surprised by it when little Johnny's in the room (wardrobe malfunction, anyone?) When it's expected and viewers can make an informed decision on whether or not to watch, then media organizations will have very few real problems.

I'm a fairly conservative guy, but I don't like the government telling me what is/is not indecent. That's a slippery slope that and it's time to stop.
 
2007-02-28 4:17:16 PM  
Im not sure that giving SCOTUS power will necessarily work either. What is there to stop a bunch of right-wing appointed Judges in the future saying "You cant have women wear pants on TV, its indecent and makes baby jesus cry". Except this time they'll manipulate to the constitution.
 
2007-02-28 4:17:19 PM  
enave: The Democrats are NEVER going to let this happen. They need the FCC's power to inact the "fairness doctrine" and kill talk radio, which they see as a threat

Thta'll never work, anyway. They can't even agree on what the fark the fairness doctrine is. It boils down to 'no one wants to listen to us so we need affirmative action'.

Plus - how the fark are you suppose to have a fair show? There *are* more than two parties. I think the Greens would possibly bore the shiat out of everyone. The National Socialists are pretty noisy, though.
 
2007-02-28 4:18:25 PM  
If the FCC stops censoring TV then Benny Hill could make a comeback! I'd love to watch all of those old reruns with out the naughty parts cut out.

/Used to watch them back in the 80's as a preteen
//Yea, I doubt that there are any really good parts
///Don't crush my childhood mammories!
 
2007-02-28 4:18:26 PM  
It might be a step in the right direction. Im tired of this country's bass ackwards attitude as to what is indecent. Sure we can show blood, death, dismemberment, and carnage... but the human body... oh god no, not that. I mean... c'mon people. When Janet's boob popped out at the superbowl, it was all over the news for weeks. Get a serious grip america... its a farking breast. All humans have them... whoop de doo!
 
2007-02-28 4:19:49 PM  
"Tell them how consolidation has helped stations stay on the air where they would otherwise be dark. Don't assume that members of Congress know about what you know."

Y'know, I think I'd have rathered those areas of the dial stay dark, as opposed to just being another clone of the station .5Mhz away.

Hell, at least then I could actually use an FM-transmitter with my Zen.

3Horn
 
2007-02-28 4:19:50 PM  
I'd like to see this happen. TV ratings will shoot through the roof. All those complaints to the FCC come from a few religious groups anyways, right down to the form letters they send out with different names on them. Look at the mini-furor over the Prince SuperBowl halftime show. It seems that with the more religion you have, you start to see penises everywhere . . .
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.