F**king "Capricious"

[Uli]

Feds Throw Out FCC Profanity Ruling As 'Capricious'
by Wayne Friedman, Tuesday, Jun 5, 2007 8:45 AM ET
TV PROFANITY CAN'T BE FLEETING.


A federal court has ruled that "fleeting expletives" should not be judged as indecent speech. This ruling includes comments made by Bono during NBC's broadcast of the "Golden Globes" in 2003, in which he used the phrase: "fucking brilliant."

The U.S. Court of Appeals threw out the Federal Communications Commission's profanity rulings against Fox, NBC and others, saying they were "arbitrary" and "capricious."

But the opinion was a narrow one, and did not address the bigger picture of the FCC's indecency-enforcement plans. The court sent the decision back to the commission for better justification.

The case stemmed from a 2006 change in the way the FCC viewed profanity; the ruling said that a number of shows aired between February 2002 to March 2005 were indecent and subject to financial penalties: Fox's "2002 Billboard Music Awards," "2003 Billboard Music Awards," ABC's "NYPD Blue," and CBS' "The Early Show."

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which made the ruling, Cher stated during the 2002 Billboard Awards show: "People have been telling me I'm on the way out every year, right? So fuck 'em." Then during the 2003 show, Nicole Richie said: "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."

ABC's "NYPD Blue," in various episodes, had detective Andy Sipowicz and other characters use certain expletives. During a CBS "Early Show," a "Survivor: Vanuatu" contestant referred to another contestant as a "bullshitter."

Fox, joined by NBC and CBS, had challenged the ruling on various grounds. Fox's argument is that the FCC's policy is "incurably arbitrary" and vague, and that its targeting of "occasional expletives" is unconstitutional.

The National Association of Broadcasters Executive Vice President Dennis Wharton said in a statement: "This is a timely opinion as public policymakers weigh the merits of further program content restrictions. NAB has long believed that responsible industry self-regulation is preferable to government regulation in areas of programming content."

[Brian Olewnick]

I'd love to see one presidential candidate with the balls to call for the discontinuation of the FCC. (I imagine Ron Paul would, but aside from him).

[Tom Storer]

What?? Such irresponsibility. Without the FCC, who would protect American TV viewers from the risk of hearing profanity? Imagine what would happen to American culture if children were exposed to dirty words on television.

[jesus marion joseph]

Great thread title.

[Gary Sisco]

Chaos and mayhem would erupt over night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Not.

[GoodSpeak]

Fucking idiots.

[steve(thelil)]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

What?? Such irresponsibility. Without the FCC, who would protect American TV viewers from the risk of hearing profanity? Imagine what would happen to American culture if children were exposed to dirty words on television.

That's not quite fair. They also protect against kids seeing nipples (and, especially, nipple jewelry - although not on pay cable, where it is less harmful to developing minds).

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Fucking idiots.

The court, the FCC, or the JC posters?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Pete C

The court, the FCC, or the JC posters?

Um...huh?




I assume you read the article.

[Gary Sisco]

Assume nothing.

[GoodSpeak]

My bad.

[larrycohen]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I'd love to see one presidential candidate with the balls to call for the discontinuation of the FCC. (I imagine Ron Paul would, but aside from him).

I don't think you can entirely eliminate the FCC. Even if they don't do anything about censorship or what goes on the air, they still have administrative function, like assigning frequencies. You wouldn't want shows like Wayne's World broadcasting on the same frequencies as emergency radio (like ambulance and police stuff), would you?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by larrycohen

I don't think you can entirely eliminate the FCC. Even if they don't do anything about censorship or what goes on the air, they still have administrative function, like assigning frequencies. You wouldn't want shows like Wayne's World broadcasting on the same frequencies as emergency radio (like ambulance and police stuff), would you?

Offhand (not being at all conversant in the technicalities) I don't see why a given frequency wouldn't be owned or leased by some group (government or private), making any such infringement illegal with or without an FCC.

[larrycohen]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Offhand (not being at all conversant in the technicalities) I don't see why a given frequency wouldn't be owned or leased by some group (government or private), making any such infringement illegal with or without an FCC.

In other words, privatize the whole thing? You must be republican.
Seriously though, doesn't somebody have to administer it? For instance, a local broadcast station, like a CBS tv station, has to re-apply every so often, and show that it's worthy of ownership. It doesn't own its frequency permanently. Your way means that whoever owns the frequency now, could keep it permanently regardless of what they do with it.

Also, there are decisions to make, like: There's always a shortage of frequencies. Some people are suggesting getting rid of the UHF channels and using them for something else. You want to leave that up to whoever has the most money? I think even an incompetent government agency might be a little more fair.

[Brian Olewnick]

Ideally, yes, I'd like all forms of communication to be private (I don't think airwaves are inherently any different from print or speech) and free of any government control. If the frequency shortage issue was a problem once, it ain't now. btw, "airwaves" are valueless until someone designs and builds transmitters and receivers. No, I'm not a Republican. As for oversight in terms of impingement, I don't see why enforcement of "Wayne's World" type issues couldn't fall under police and court protection just like any other property.

The problem with the FCC--and it will be so automatically whether under "liberal" or "conservative" administration--is the inevitable desire to control content that comes with power as a matter of course. For me, you simply remove the power. Won't happen anytime soon, don't worry.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by larrycohen

In other words, privatize the whole thing? You must be republican.

Hahahaha.........

Stupid ass (Ollie).

Better Red than dead, baby!!

[larrycohen]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Ideally, yes, I'd like all forms of communication to be private (I don't think airwaves are inherently any different from print or speech) and free of any government control. If the frequency shortage issue was a problem once, it ain't now.

Airwaves are different from print because unlike sheets of newspaper, you can't just make more. However, I agree with you - with stuff like cable TV and satellite radio, it's a lot less of an issue than it used to be.

The problem with the FCC--and it will be so automatically whether under "liberal" or "conservative" administration--is the inevitable desire to control content that comes with power as a matter of course. For me, you simply remove the power. Won't happen anytime soon, don't worry.

I guess this issue boils down to who controls the content, money or politics. I'm not sure which is worse, but they both stink.

[walto]

btw, "airwaves" are valueless until someone designs and builds transmitters and receivers.

I'm notsure what's supposed to follow from that. Are you saying that whoever designs and builds the first transmitters should get to monopolize the airwaves if they weren't valuable until that time?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by walto

I'm notsure what's supposed to follow from that. Are you saying that whoever designs and builds the first transmitters should get to monopolize the airwaves if they weren't valuable until that time?

It's an interesting question. "Airwaves", pre-technology only exist as potential; up to a certain point their existence is utterly unknown. Joe Smith builds a transmitter and receiver and suddenly finds himself in a position to send and receive information. Do other people (government) suddenly acquire the right of ownership to his development (in a private property environment)? (Is there some kind of "value scale" in which, at a given point, the government steps in? Who decides what this scale is and wouldn't governments tend to act to lower that bar over time?)

I can understand, I guess, (especially if the frequencies are severely limited), the government saying, "This resource, which we acknowledge only exists due to your investment, ingenuity, etc., is too valuable to be monopolized by one individual. We'll take a portion and the rest we'll divvy up among a number of licensed groups which we'll control." I have to say, I don't particularly like it, but I understand that it would happen.

At some point, however, it seems to me that you acknowledge technological advances. "Scarcity" is a relative concept and it seems to me we're long past the need to license and parcel out these things.

[tippy]

I gotta say, I kinda resent all these cellular airtowers that go up and then my phone service is taxed because of it when I don't even use a cell phone.

Love,
The Unibomber

[Scott Dolan]

Unabomber

[walto]

It's an interesting question. "Airwaves", pre-technology only exist as potential; up to a certain point their existence is utterly unknown. Joe Smith builds a transmitter and receiver and suddenly finds himself in a position to send and receive information.

I take it the spectrum was there--it's just that very few people knew of its existence or of any good use for it.

Joe Smith builds a transmitter and receiver and suddenly finds himself in a position to send and receive information. Do other people (government) suddenly acquire the right of ownership to his development (in a private property environment)?

I think it's important to distinguish between his transmitter and receiver and those "airwaves" that the transmissions must travel across. To conflate them seems to me like saying because somebody has invented cars or trains that person must be entitled to ownership of the roads or tracks they travel across.

Of course, if there isn't any scarcity in the case of spectrum, that changes things a lot. Auctions of not-too-long-term leases seem to me to be a sensible way to produce fair prices. If the prices drop to near zero, so be it.

I can understand, I guess, (especially if the frequencies are severely limited), the government saying, "This resource, which we acknowledge only exists due to your investment, ingenuity, etc., is too valuable to be monopolized by one individual. We'll take a portion and the rest we'll divvy up among a number of licensed groups which we'll control." I have to say, I don't particularly like it, but I understand that it would happen.

I wouldn't like government to be allowed to appropriate the fruits of ingenuity, investment, etc. simply because they are valuable. That's why I don't like taxes on capital or labor. The spectrum is a natural resource, however, which I don't think individuals or businesses should be allowed to monopolize.

I guess nothing I've written sheds much light on the question of whether or not there should be an FCC, though. I have mixed feelings. I don't like censorship, but there's value to this sort of regulation too, I think. Maybe it's analogous to the zoning of real estate. If you think your community has the right to regulate whether a sawmill or airport or highrise can be built in a residential neighborhood, maybe you'll also believe that broadcasters have to allow community access channels. Seems like it might be the same sort of thing.

(BTW, when you refer to "the government" rather than "the people" or "the community" or "the citizenry" you suggest that it's some evil foreign power. Some of my best friends are bureaucrats.)

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by walto

(BTW, when you refer to "the government" rather than "the people" or "the community" or "the citizenry" you suggest that it's some evil foreign power. Some of my best friends are bureaucrats.)

I usually like to phrase it, "the government (other people)" to demystify it to those for whom the term has quasi-religious connotations. It's just other people, nothing special about it.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Unabomber

No, that's another guy. Tippy is the UniBomber.

[Gary Sisco]

The legislature here passed a bill declaring that everyone in Vermont would have high-speed internet connections within two years. Yeah, right.

It won't be dsl, because the signal only carries a max of 3.5 miles from the nearest switching station (we are just inside the range where we live). So, unless they somehow get the phone company to build a shitload of switching stations, that's out.

And if it's a satellite connection, they will have to put towers up all over the damn place. Which cellphone companies have been attempting to do for years, only to meet with stiff resistance because no one wants to see their towers on the tops of hills and mountains all over the Vermont landscape. We have a neighbor who was offered big dollars per year to put a tower on their land, uphill from us. They told them to forget about it.

It's one thing to pass a law. It's another to somehow overcome the physical limitations that are very real.

I wish I could make a wager with the rich-assed governor who's made such a huge production of it. Two years? These guys can't even write the regulations that fast, never mind actually have shit up and running, assuming landowners will allow it (not a safe assumption at all and almost all land in Vermont is privately owned).

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

No, that's another guy. Tippy is the UniBomber.

Ha ha. Just saw this. Is the unabomber really even a word in the first place that it could be misspelled? It's unitard, not unatard. Duh!

[Sandi22]

Saw him hitchiking in Bend, out in front of McDonalds holding up a cardboard sign saying Montana. Rich and I both were commenting on him, saying how nice his jacket was, a hounds tooth sports jacket, yet it looked as though he had slept in if for three weeks. He probably had. We felt sorry for him saying he looked like he was bright, just that he had that lost look some street people have. I smiled at him and he smiled back and I told Rich I felt badly not giving him a ride, but in this day and age it's just crazy to pick someone up. We were both in agreement in that. He looked nothing like the earlier drawing of him that were circulated, the one with the hood. Not as young or as healthy, or as clean cut. He had an older and a scruffy look to him. Uni, una, ??? We keep being exposed to these types of people. We keep coming across these murderers, almost twenty. Wonder why that is? It's really strange how it's always happening.

[tippy]

Wow, Sandi, you really DO know everybody! LOL

Btw no harm on Renfro - never met him nor his dad plus I know it was mistaken identity.

[Scott Dolan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


And Sandi is as full of shit as anybody in the history of this site. I'm waiting for her next story about how John Wayne Gacy helped her and Rich change a flat in the parking lot of a KFC in Waterloo.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


I'm waiting for her next story about how John Wayne Gacy helped her and Rich change a flat in the parking lot of a KFC in Waterloo.

The bastard got clown makeup and oil paint all over the fender.