I'm writing a paper. Believe it. It's supposed to be an easy assignment, but apparently if you pick a topic that makes you search back into the catacombs of history, and seek truth that is only absolute to the omniscient Almighty, it is not as easy.
Silly me.
So now I'm turning my cognitive abyss over to you to let you ponder and discuss. And no being shy; I want to see everyone step up here, and you have to back up your answers. Here's the question:
Would it be unconstitutional for the FCC to ban profane language from broadcast media during prime time hours? Why or why not?
Go.
7 months ago
4 comments:
Nope--the supreme court has already limited freedom of speech when it comes to the best interest of the public. For instance, you cannot legally yell "Bomb!" in a public building (say, a movie theater). And if the majority of the public decides they don't want to hear profanity during prime time, then the FCC is within their rights to ban it. Broadcast media is not the only form of media out there, so you're not absolutely denying anyone their right to hear "$@#&!"--just restricting the places they can hear it. And if they're that desperate to hear "$@#&!" they can subscribe to cable.
And just so you know, the snake was less than half a foot from MY foot. And I was walking really fast--so if Karl hadn't said anything, I would totally have stepped on it!!! That's why I fell on top of my poor daughter--I had too much forward momentum to just stop in my tracks. Auuughh--it still gives me the willies!
Ah yes, but intimidating and threatening people is not a Constitutionally-protected form of speech. Yelling, "Bomb!" in the middle of a movie theater presents a danger to everyone and is thus prohibited by the Supreme Court.
Can the same be said for profanity?
Continue.
This is a real slippery slope. The FCC is not Congress. Its regulations are not the result of the electorate's common will, but those of government officials. The First Amendment uses plain language to protect the freedom of speech from the presumably dispositive power of the majority to limit it. I think the Framers meant to provide the broadest powers of expression to individuals, so that government could not force or coerce acceptance of its actions, and would always be subject to unrestrained, but lawful, objections by the minority. They probably envisioned "political" speech, not necessarily "social" speech. Nowadays, these are practically the same. The right of individuals to be free of odious or repugnant expression necessarily infringes upon the right of someone to express it. That said, I agree that people should be ashamed to use that kind of language when they're not even playing golf. (I can't believe that a non-law graduate course would want to open this can of worms, except to gauge your ability to reason, whatver your views. Hey! Another freedom of speech.)
It's funny that you used that example, because, while discussing the case, Justice John Paul Stevens made the following comment:
"As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter work uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent."
Too bad the FCC can't turn its attention to the Golf Channel!
Post a Comment