Court Tosses FCC's Indecency Rules

[The-Hammer]

A federal court tossed out the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policy Tuesday, ruling that it violates the First Amendment and admonishing it for vague enforcement of incidents like the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" and Bono's Golden Globes f-bomb.

...

While the court case involved the FCC’s enforcement of fleeting indecency rules, several broadcast lawyers said the court appeared to toss out all the agency’s indecency rules, not just those on fleeting indecency.

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-pos ... 2?page=0,1

[Big Media]

Perhaps Mike Rowe can finally say shit instead of pooh.

[AmpedNow]

The only thing that surprises me is that it took so long to knock this crap down. If I recall correctly, it was already knocked down once, and this is an appeal ruling. Strike two.

Except that an appeal to the supreme court will probably take another 2 years, but at least we will have a final conclusion.

What's interesting is the ruling not only knocks down the "fleeting expletives" rule, but now the FCC cannot enforce anything -- even the seven dirty words.

Dummies. Shouldn't have overreached their authority.

Now get back approving translators and HD power hikes...

[Ace Purple]

The big television companies did what the big radio companies were afraid/unwilling to do -- challenge the constitutionality of the policy.

It's not over yet -- it will be interesting to see what the Philly appeals court rules on with CBS' appeal of the NALs given for the 2004 Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Super Bowl nipple exposure incident.

[Lester]

Perhaps Mike Rowe can finally say shit instead of pooh.

Mike Rowe has always been able to say shit instead of pooh. It's a cable channel. Saying pooh is a business decision.

[Bob Campbell]

Perhaps Mike Rowe can finally say shit instead of pooh.

Mike Rowe has always been able to say shit instead of pooh. It's a cable channel. Saying pooh is a business decision.

Well, shit.

[AmpedNow]

This is a good day for the first amendment all around. No more fear of the potty mouth police.

Also, this makes it harder to ban all of that "hate speech" out there... You know, conservative talk radio and backwoods preachers who rail against homosexuality.

The path of least resistance would be to simply extend the law against cuss words to include "hate speech" as well. Unfortunately, such a proposal would likely get wide support from well meaning, but not politically savvy social conservatives. After all, who in their right mind would be "for" hate speech? But they wouldn't realize that they would be making their own noose until it is too late.

This has been the cornerstone of my argument on the many discussions (and all-out arguments) we've had on this topic over the years... I'm not "for" profanity all over the airwaves. But don't give the government an inch to regulate it. Besides, it's unconstitutional.

My argument is that individual radio markets self regulate. Some are more conservative than others. It's unreasonable to think the "profanity threshold" is the same in Charleston and Beckley as it is in NYC or DC. (OTOH, we could probably get away with more gay jokes here...)

Of course, it's still possible to simply change the station if you don't like what you hear. But tell that to the Stern witch hunters from back in the day...