SCOTUS To Rule On Constitutionality of FCC Regulations on "Indecency."

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The FCC is and has been for quite awhile a big waste of taxpayer dollars.

What people say and what people do on TV when it comes to profanity and softcore nudity isn't the job of the government to restrict outside of a rating system. That's why we have TV-MA, etc. for situations like this. It's the job of the parents and the individuals to decide if a TV program is worthy of being on-air.

TV programs work off of ratings and honestly if a program was losing viewers because of their content, then they would change said content because of advertising dollars lost due to lack of viewership. It's really that simple and many seem to forget this.

If profanity and nudity is what people want, and it's selling, then let it be.

This is a piece of the market that can very much so control itself and doesn't need a POS agency like the FCC to be involved other than to slap a rating sticker on the program.

As far as "LIVE" events goes, you cannot control content and no one should be fined for comments. It's the same as the internet. You can throw a E for "Everyone" on the game your child is playing, but the moment they go online, that can easily turn to Teen or Mature real quick depending on who they are playing with.

---------

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/06/28/high_court_to_rule_on_fcc_indecency_ban/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said yesterday that it would hear a case that could decide whether the Federal Communication Commission’s policy banning nudity and expletives on broadcast television was a violation of the First Amendment.

The case is an appeal by the FCC of a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York that said the commission’s policy against “fleeting expletives’’ was “unconstitutionally vague.’’ In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the commission had followed proper administrative procedures when it invoked the ban on expletives during certain hours.

The Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court to overturn the recent appeals court decision, saying it would prevent the agency from effectively policing the airwaves. But when the case previously came to the court, several justices expressed skepticism that the ban on expletives was constitutional.

The case involves two instances of live award shows on the Fox network in which celebrities uttered profanities. In addition, the case involves a scene on the former ABC series “NYPD Blue’’ that included a naked woman. The incidents occurred in 2002 and 2003.

“We are pleased the Supreme Court will review the lower-court rulings that blocked the FCC’s broadcast indecency policy,’’ a spokesman for the FCC said in a statement. “We are hopeful that the court will affirm the commission’s exercise of its statutory responsibility to protect children and families from indecent broadcast programming.’’

The appeals court ruled that the FCC’s policy was inconsistent because the commission said that Fox stations violated its policy with the language on the awards shows but the agency allowed the use of the same language in a broadcast of the film “Saving Private Ryan.’’

The same language is commonly used on cable television shows, but broadcasters have been subject to stricter rules because of their use of public airwaves. Generally, the FCC has said that broadcasters cannot allow indecent material between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Fox, in a statement, said, “We look forward to the Supreme Court’s review of the significant constitutional issues in the case. We are hopeful that the court will ultimately agree that the FCC’s indecency enforcement practices trample on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.’’

[slim 1,533]

The court just ruled in the video game case that violence was OK but sex was not and the "traditional interpretation of the 1st amendment" allowed adults to give access to violent content when dealing with minors but not sex. America's long had a tradition of exposing kids to violence but shielding them from sex and nudity.

We'll see if that ruling crosses over to this one as well.

What I'm also waiting for is the reexamination of the condoms in schools debate. If we shield kids from nudity and sex, why are we teaching it in our schools?

And since we're going by "traditional interpretations" of the constitution now, how about a little more freedom in relation to the 2nd amendment!