FCC v. Fox Television

[TomAiello 25]

Anyone else read the decision?


I find myself, again, in agreement with Clarence Thomas. If you don't want to read the whole opinion, here is a recap of Thomas' concurrence on the Tech Liberation Front blog.

A few weeks ago, I remember someone here saying that he thought Thomas was the "Rainman of the Justices". I couldn't disagree more. Again, in this case, he's showing me that he's perhaps the only justice who is really examining the underlying Constitutional issues, rather than just the present moment. He's also showing that he grasps the nuance of the Court's process, by positioning himself with the majority here, to open the door for a future discussion on Pacifica and Red Lion.

I still think that the thing President Obama said during the campaign that worried me the most was that he thought Clarence Thomas shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Perhaps he was worried that Thomas was too faithful a defender of the Constitution?


Overall, I'm not too pleased with the majority decision here. But I think that Justice Thomas has done a nice job of maneuvering to set up a re-examination (and hopefully overturning) of Pacifica, which was, I think, an error to begin with.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

I read it yesterday and thought Thomas' concurrence was great. He says why he concurs on the administrative practices claim.

Then he explains his free speech issues.

I agree with you Tom.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I concur, he expertly got his foot in the door on that opinion and left it open to review the two precedents that were used.

IMHO fairness doctrine was not used and therefore the two cases were improperly decided.

[Broke 0]

I wish I could find the interview where you can hear Obama about to say that Thomas was inexperianced, but he quickly changed midword.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[TomAiello 25]

It's in the Rick Warren forum/interview. Obama said:

"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution."

The double "I don't think that he" is the part where people have hypothesized that Obama was going to insert something else.


Edit to add: Video and WSJ comments, along with some other commentary, are here.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Overall, I'm not too pleased with the majority decision here. But I think that Justice Thomas has done a nice job of maneuvering to set up a re-examination (and hopefully overturning) of Pacifica, which was, I think, an error to begin with.

Do you think that the FCC shouldn't regulate television broadcasts at all? Or do you think that they are just going too far?

[lawrocket 3]

The fact is that there are content-based restrictions.

Specific words are subject to punishment - banned.

The problem is self-apparent. Censorship never exists to ban all words. Just a few thoughts, ideas, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The problem is self-apparent. Censorship never exists to ban all words. Just a few thoughts, ideas, etc.

And what is the solution? No censorship for the broadcast stations?

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

The problem is self-apparent. Censorship never exists to ban all words. Just a few thoughts, ideas, etc.

And what is the solution? No censorship for the broadcast stations?

I'd say yes. I don't see how restricting broadcast television and radio achieves anything.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

Quote

The problem is self-apparent. Censorship never exists to ban all words. Just a few thoughts, ideas, etc.

And what is the solution? No censorship for the broadcast stations?

exactly. the FCCs job should be to manage the airwaves thmselves, not the content.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

And what is the solution? No censorship for the broadcast stations?

I'd say yes. I don't see how restricting broadcast television and radio achieves anything.

OK... I don't really agree or disagree because I haven't given it enough thought, so basically I'm just thinking out loud here...

I tend to agree, though it's hard to imagine how a completely unrestricted media system would work. I suppose it might tend to self-regulate in that (for example) if the stations chose to show a lot of pornography and extreme violence then a lot of people just wouldn't watch it. And I guess the stations could inform the public of their own self-determined rules for what they will allow to be shown on their stations so that the public can decide whether they want to watch it (or more importantly, whether they want to let their children watch it).

But on the other hand, at this point in time, I don't really see censorship of the broadcast TV stations as being a serious infringement on First Amendment rights. No one is keeping anyone from being able to express themselves. I mean, if Cher wants to say "Fuck 'em" to the world, there are plenty of other media outlets for her to do so.

That being said, I can also see that giving the FCC too much power is not a good thing.

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

it's hard to imagine how a completely unrestricted media system would work. I suppose it might tend to self-regulate in that

i think that is exactly what would happen. cable tv isn't regulated for content and they acually do a pretty good job of self regulating. even comedy central waits until late at night to let the "fucks" fly.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

But on the other hand, at this point in time, I don't really see censorship of the broadcast TV stations as being a serious infringement on First Amendment rights. No one is keeping anyone from being able to express themselves. I mean, if Cher wants to say "Fuck 'em" to the world, there are plenty of other media outlets for her to do so.

That's ridiculous.

Under that rationale you could censor damn near every single media outlet, but as long as there was still one national newspaper or TV channel that people could speak freely on, well, then you wouldn't have infringed the first amendment

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

But on the other hand, at this point in time, I don't really see censorship of the broadcast TV stations as being a serious infringement on First Amendment rights. No one is keeping anyone from being able to express themselves. I mean, if Cher wants to say "Fuck 'em" to the world, there are plenty of other media outlets for her to do so.

That's ridiculous.

Under that rationale you could censor damn near every single media outlet, but as long as there was still one national newspaper or TV channel that people could speak freely on, well, then you wouldn't have infringed the first amendment

We're talking about broadcast TV stations, not "every single media outlet." The point is that there ARE a lot of other outlets for that sort of thing, and Fox probably has access to some of those other outlets.

I'm not saying I agree with the SC's decision. I just don't see it as a major infringement on anyone's rights.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

We're talking about broadcast TV stations, not "every single media outlet."

No shit Sherlock. The point which you missed is that the rationale you use to defend censorship can be extended to censor practically everything. As long as one channel was left for the free expression of views you could censor everything else and claim that you hadn't infringed anyone's free speech. Which would, of course, be bullshit.

Quote

The point is that there ARE a lot of other outlets for that sort of thing,

So it's OK for the government to decide what type of speech is appropriate for what type of medium? What if they decided that political comment should be limited to newspapers, and network TV could no longer run political news shows? Would that be OK? After all, anyone wanting to comment would still be able to do so, they'd just have to do it through a different outlet.

Quote

I'm not saying I agree with the SC's decision. I just don't see it as a major infringement on anyone's rights.

It's an infringement on the rights of network TV stations.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

No shit Sherlock.

Nice way to have a discussion.

Quote

The point which you missed is that the rationale you use to defend censorship can be extended to censor practically everything.

You're just creating a slippery slope. By your rationale, we shouldn't allow the government to make any laws at all, because that could just lead to them making more and more laws until we can't do anything.

And I'm not really defending censorship in this case. I'm just saying that I don't see this particular case as a major problem.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Nice way to have a discussion.

Then don't deliberately ignore the point.

Quote

You're just creating a slippery slope. By your rationale, we shouldn't allow the government to make any laws at all, because that could just lead to them making more and more laws until we can't do anything.

Laws aren't constitutionally prohibited. Laws restricting the freedom of the press are.

You simply cannot say that censorship of one part of the press is OK, because people can use an uncensored part of the press. It does not work that way.

Quote

And I'm not really defending censorship in this case. I'm just saying that I don't see this particular case as a major problem.

Why? Because you're not the entity being censored?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Because you're not the entity being censored?

I am being censored. I am not allowed to say absolutely anything I want, at any time of the day, at any place, and over any medium that I choose.

For example: I can't get a custom license plate from the DMV that says "FUCK EM" on it, which is somewhat of an infringement on my rights, but I don't see it as a major problem. It's not keeping me from expressing that sentiment through other media.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I just don't see it as a major infringement on anyone's rights.

I think the point is "infringement." Whether it is "major" or "minor" is a matter of opinion. If it is your station, it'll be major.

This is why I view such things as dignitary in nature. A cop stopping me on the street and doing a quick frisk just to make sure I'm not carrying a weapon without any reason is a pretty major infringement on my 4th Amendment rights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[riddler 0]

Quote

And what is the solution? No censorship for the broadcast stations?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say yes. I don't see how restricting broadcast television and radio achieves anything.

What if a network showed people how to make home-made bombs, or encouraged terrorism? Or crack computers?

Overall, I agree with you, censorship of television has gone too far because of some antiquated moral beliefs about dirty words.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I think the point is "infringement." Whether it is "major" or "minor" is a matter of opinion. If it is your station, it'll be major.

Well, I'm the one saying that I don't think it's a major infringement. So if it was MY station, then no, it probably wouldn't be major.