What the BLEEP?
This morning the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal of a lower court ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, et al.
Last summer, the ACLU joined a friend-of-the-court brief urging the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn an FCC indecency ruling against FOX Broadcasting Corp, arguing the new standards adopted by Commission to censor indecency on the airwaves were overly vague and unconstitutional. The circuit court agreed, finding the FCC's new regulations "arbitrary and capricious" and telling the FCC it needed to provide better justification for its new policy. The Department of Justice appealed that decision on behalf of the FCC, because the Commission wants to maintain its ability to leverage huge fines on broadcasters any time a performer utters even an accidental or unintentional expletive. In a similar case in 2004, the ACLU joined a coalition of major media companies, advocacy groups and performers in asking the FCC to reconsider its ruling that U2 lead singer Bono's use of an expletive during a live telecast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards (he said "this is really, really fucking brilliant" when receiving an award) was "indecent and profane." The FCC's policy of policing television broadcasts with a vengeance doesn't survive First Amendment scrutiny. Unfortunately, Congress is currently considering legislation that would reinstate the Commission's overreaching ability to police the airwaves. Giving the Commission the ability to leverage arbitrary fines based on a vague set of standards will have a chilling effect on free speech, because broadcasters trying to avoid the penalties will err on the side of caution and begin censoring content that wouldn't actually be considered indecent. Besides, the government should let parents do the parenting instead of forcing every family to adopt the same set of values. In this era of channel blocking and language filters, parents have access to all the tools they need to manage what their children see and hear. The Second Circuit was right that the FCC has overstepped its bounds and, in fact, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court should uphold that decision. More on the ACLU's work to fight unnecessary and unconstitutional censorship is here.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 1 Response to "What the BLEEP?" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Nov 12th, 2008 at 5:06pm
It seems to me that if we have the technology to have embarassing holograph interviews on the news, we should be at the point where bleeping technology can be set from our homes. As a childless 30-something adult, I should have the ability to see and hear all the obscenity I want - and flip a switch at home if I change my mind. Where is my right to hear?