The United States Supreme Court is currently about to uphold an FCC policy that arbitrarily and unconstitutionally fines broadcasters heavily for certain lingual slippage.1
Why?
Because the FCC thinks every time anyone ever says the word “Fuck,” everyone hearing the word will think about sex, and thinking about sex is bad. Also, every time anyone ever says the word “Shit,” everyone hearing the word will think about excrement, and thinking about excrement is bad.
What the FUCK, FCC? Are we in kindergarten? Are we a nation run by puritans? Certain people spend a hell of a lot of time and money to keep proper sex education (that actually informs students about their own God-given bodies) out of public schools because why? Because it’s offensive? Those same people spend a lot of time and money chilling free speech because, as FCC attorney Gregory G. Garre would say, those words are “patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.” The word “Shit” is violative of the policy because it deals with excrement, according to the FCC argument. However, when asked by Justice Stevens whether, then, the word “dung” would also be violative, Garre responded that it wouldn’t… because it wouldn’t be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.
So, here we are again, dealing with another confusing and circular argument. Goes like this:
X evokes images of Y.
We don’t like Y.
Therefore, we censor X.
Z also evokes images of Y.
But we don’t censor Z, because, as stated above, we don’t like X.
What? Didn’t get that little bait and switch? Yeah, well, I’m betting that the Supreme Court (most of Bush’s lackeys, anyway) will ignore it. The way it works is that the FCC establishes a set of standards, and then justifies that set of standards in a variety of odd ways, and when any of those justifications are challenged, the FCC comes back with the defense that the standard should stay anyway… because it’s the standard. That’s exactly what Garre was saying in Court, and more than half the Court will just nod and agree. It’s not that they really agree, it’s just that some of them probably honestly believe that children need protecting, and they think that the FCC is doing the right thing to protect those children. That’s a sad state for the Supreme Court because that’s exactly what the right-wing entities that put those conservative members of that Court in place were trying to avoid — judicial activism. In other words, they’re not interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they’re making up law, and that law (or at least fealty to the FCC “law”)2 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.
In a feeble, but honorable attempt to protect free speech, the attorney for (surprise) the Fox TV network, Carter G. Phillips, told the Court that ultimately by allowing the FCC to continue the insanely high fines imposed on the utterance of a word, the Court would be allowing the regulation of the content of speech.
Read David Savage’s more detailed account in the LA Times, and protest the fucking FCC. (Even if you have to shit in a bag and leave it on their doorstep).
(Gotta love how this article will probably trigger even more at-work automatic blocking.)
Hey, if you know of any good “Protest the FCC” websites to which I can link, please post them. Thanks! One you should be aware of is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Go check it out!
-Procrustes (what a shithead!)3
P.S. One of my favorite interviews of all time, Frank Zappa on Crossfire. Enjoy:
And props to Chrysophrase for suggesting “Fuck you Very Much, FCC” by Monty Python:
—
Joe Scarborough says “Fuck” on the air, immediately sets entire nation into state of sinful copulation.
- My readers have liked the fact that I actually do research, and cite stuff. So, for your reading pleasure, here are the oral arguments that took place November 4: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-582.pdf. Of course, I say that the Supreme Court will decide to uphold the policy, but I can’t know that for sure. (chuckle). A good resource to get caught up with this case is the Cornel University Law School’s Legal Information Institute bulletin on FCC v. Fox Television Stations. [<]
- Obviously the FCC can’t write laws, since it’s an executive agency, and executive agencies are only supposed to be able to enforce law, not make it. Well, unless they’re in the Bush administration, but that’s a longer rant. Anyway, the actual law that gives the FCC the ability to be such a shit is codified as 18 U.S.C. 1464. Broadcasting obscene language, and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). Refer to Liibulletin in footnote 1 for a good overview of the case. [<]
- Does that evoke images of my head being made of poopie? [<]
