Salty language goes to Supreme Court Ban on ‘fleeting expletives’ to get review BY JOHN DUNBAR The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether it is indecent when some foul-mouthed celebrity drops the “F-word” on live television, stepping into its first major broadcast indecency case in 30 years. The high court said Monday it would hear arguments in the case involving a government ban on “fleeting expletives,” one-time uses of familiar but banned words that can bring big fines. The ban covers radio and television broadcasts but not the Internet, cable or satellite TV. The case grew out of decision by the Federal Communications Commission in 2006 that two broadcasts of the “Billboard Music Awards” show were indecent, though the agency levied no fines. Cher uttered one fleeting expletive beginning with “F,” Nicole Richie one beginning with “S.” Fox Broadcasting Co. and others appealed the decision, saying that the agency had changed its enforcement policy without warning and that the new ban was unconstitutional. A federal appeals court in New York agreed, 2-1, throwing out the ban and sending the case back to the agency, which appealed to the Supreme Court. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press Monday he was pleased the justices are stepping in. He said the appeals court had “put the commission in an untenable position” by giving it the responsibility to enforce indecency rules but not the tools to take action. Still, there was widespread surprise that the court took the case, and there was speculation the justices might take a broader look at the issue of indecency in a media environment that has changed dramatically over the past three decades. Fox Broadcasting Co. said the case gives the company “the opportunity to argue that the FCC’s expanded enforcement of the indecency law is unconstitutional in today’s diverse media marketplace where parents have access to a variety of tools to monitor their children’s television viewing.” The FCC has authority to regulate speech on broadcast radio and television stations, not cable and the Internet. The last time the court heard a broadcast indecency case — FCC v. Pacifica in 1978 — the Fox television network did not exist, nor did the Internet. Only a fraction of homes received cable television service and there were no direct broadcast satellite companies. “The Pacifica case was obviously adopted in a very different era and a very different time,” said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, who was one of those who predicted the court would not take up the current case. “Allowing for the fact that I have been completely wrong so far, I think it is highly unlikely that the court will venture in to address how this relates to other media.” Schwartzman’s group represents the Center for Creative Voices in Media. He argued that the current policy is “incoherent and overbroad" and has “chilled the creative process for the writers, directors and producers we represent.”
Who would think that we, as a society, have reached a point in time, where the supreme court has to rule if 'foul language' is indecent.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
This should have never reached the Supreme Court as it should be controlled by the states in which it occurs and not controlled federally. Government controlled everything.
Logged
