CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Indecency? More like Inconsistency.What do the ACLU and Nicole Richie have in common? We both have problems with the FCC’s new practice of imposing major fines on networks that air even “fleeting expletives.” And we’re not alone! Today the ACLU was joined by 10 wide-ranging organizations, from the First Amendment Project to the Directors Guild of America, on a friend-of-the-court-brief filed with the Supreme Court. In the brief, we criticize the FCC’s regulation of "indecent speech" as arbitrary, inconsistent and irreconcilable with core First Amendment values and urge the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling (PDF) in FCC v. Fox Television stations striking down the recent FCC attempts at censorship. Here’s an excerpt: The FCC’s conduct in the thirty years since Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), narrowly permitted censorship of “indecency” has been unpredictable, at times sweeping, and highly subjective. The problem intensified in 2004 after the Commission announced that even one “fleeting expletive” was now, in most circumstances, barred from the airwaves; then applied that new rule to reverse its previous decision that the rock star Bono’s single exclamation (“fucking brilliant!”) was enough to make a Golden Globe Awards program unlawfully indecent and profane. In the next two years, the agency made additional arbitrary judgments, finding no indecency in the movie Saving Private Ryan" with its many expletives, but condemning the Martin Scorsese documentary, "The Blues" because of vulgar words used by musicians and their music industry colleagues. Thirty years of such discretionary and inconsistent decision-making compels the conclusion that the entire indecency regime is vague, arbitrary, capricious, and overbroad. The fleeting expletives rule in particular has had a widespread chilling effect on valuable programming. And the unconstitutionality of the present system is not remedied by the existence of a late-night “safe harbor” for possibly indecent programs.More info at www.aclu.org/bleep
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. 2 Responses to "Indecency? More like Inconsistency. " |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Aug 8th, 2008 at 7:16pm
"Freedome of Speech", is not just an open statement! It doesn't mean we have the right to say anything we want. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written with a foundation of Morals and Ethics...that were founded by the Bible! Why all this historical revisionism?
We have the right to free speech while acting in a moral and ethical way! Our founders did not say we could just act the way we want! We must act in accordance with a standard...there is such thing as Right and Wrong!!!
The ACLU was a communist orginazation from the beginning...today's ideals are just as damaging!
Read the writings of our Founders...all laws, rights, and governing ideas were based on a standard of morals and ethics derived from our "Creator."
Unfortunately, a group of individuals with influence decided that those morals and ethics prevented them from doing what they wanted to do, so they decided to create an orginization that will attempt to destroy the Founding Ideals!!
....and now we have the nation we have today...babies being killed every 22 seconds, the family is being destroyed, marriage is no longer significant, no discipline, no personal responsibility, we live in a nation of blame, a government that has to do everything for the people...because people can't do anything for themselves!
And now "TRUTH" is relative! How bad off does this nation/world need to get, before we will see the "Truth" and understand that there is something bigger then us! There is "Absolute Truth" and our Founder's had a pretty good idea as to where it comes from!!
Aug 13th, 2008 at 8:56am
The truth is just fine but don't think it applys in mississippi. Heres one for the record. What would the founding fathers think of this. www.mftms13.wordpress.com