Why can the FCC control what tv shows say?

Freedom of speech is NOT freedom to be offensive. They are not censoring what is said, just how it is said.

There is an essential difference between objectionable ideas and objectionable language.

The airwaves do not belong to the tv stations or the production companies of the shows. They belong to the public, so the FCC is looking out for the best interests of the public ( or so the theory goes)

Sometimes they do get a bit Draconian about it. Did anybody really see THAT much of Janet Jackson’s boob in the split second that the “wardrobe malfunction” occurred at the Superbowl show ? Let’s get real here.

Freedom of speech doesn’t cover obscenity.
The FCC gets to decide what is obscene.

Considering we hear “shit” on tv regularly now vs 10 years ago, I’d say things are loosening up.

The same Constitution that guarantees “freedom of speech” also creates the Executive branch of government. The Executive branch, headed by the President, is supposed to enforce the laws made by Congress. That’s why we have so many agencies that are part of the Executive branch – they’re all set up to enforce laws. Anyway, the FCC… oh heck… the Wikipedia article on the FCC is a pretty good basic introduction, and so is the FCC site. I don’t have the energy to do much more research on this today when it’s so easily available via Google.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be obscene. Think of the children!

Because otherwise you would get some twat on Fox news using words like fuck and cunt at all hours of the day.

Great Caesar’s ghost!
@ Buttonstc There is far worse things I see all over primetime that beat Janet Jackson’s 3 sec “wardrobe malfunction”. Things I would not want my young kids to see or hear because it has the potential to spawn conversations you know they should have later in life were they can wrap their heads around it better. I don’t want to have to explain to a 7 year old why that man is naked in the middle of the day in bed with a woman that is not his wife, but you see sex scenes on TV all the time, they just don’t show you the naughty bits in action. I would want them to think sex special not just a commodity two people do when they think they are in love and in many cases not, just because sex is portrayed as thrilling as the Spiderman, Colossus, and Cyclone roller coaster right all wrapped up in one, better not miss the ride because only geeks are not allowed on it.

Captain_Fantasy ”Freedom of speech doesn’t cover obscenity.” Adult speech is foul language *_at least that is what the disclaimer says at the front of shows and movies that are pg-13 and up. So by logic if adult language is better than kid language and baby talk there should be no qualms about cussing all over TV. They hear it in the mall, at home, BBQs, parents softball games etc. Years back I was a camp counselor and as soon as the bus was away from the curb most of those “little darlings” were cussing more than a pack of drunken sailors, it is not like they (the kids) don’t know about it.

I don’t care for foul language I think it shows a lack of command of the English language but I fine it a bit two-faced to try to insulate people (many who use it regularly anyhow) from it. Isn’t that why they have ratings? If a show or feature was too gross or the language to foul I can not watch it. So long it was not on commercial TV commercial breaks where you have no warning and no way to control your family’s viewing let the language be as most Americans use anyhow (even if it is not for me, but I do have a remote so I can change it.)

I love living in Canada. We can say fuck on tv after 9 pm.

Because parents don’t know how to do their jobs.

The answer to why rests with the supreme court. People might think the rules unconstitutional, but 5 justices voted that the FCC could do this. The relevant case if FCC v. Pacifica, which involves a complaint by a father that a son heard George Carlin’s famous “7 words you can’t say on tv”. The court ruled 5–4 that while the speech was not obscene and could not be restricted on those grounds. But the right to privacy and protecting children meant that people had a right to be secure from unwanted speech in their homes, which tv and radio transmissions broadcast into whether a person wants them to or not. This ruling created the “indecent” class of speech which the FCC was given the right to establish and prohibit from broadcast. This ruling does not apply to cable and sat. tv.

Moral of the story: when the gov’t wants to protect the children, the result will be to restrict freedom of adults.

Personal Opinion: When president Clinton ruled that every tv sold must contain a v-chip to control what broadcast content can be accessed by children, the right of the FCC to regulate “indecent” speech should be reconsidered, since people have a less restrictive way to protect their privacy and their children.

A plee: If you want to know why something is legal or not, consult supreme court rulings first. Also, read the law before commenting on it.

@Hypocrisy Central

Yes, that was precisely the point I was trying to make. There is far worse stuff to potentially warp kids minds on a daily basis on tv every day of the week.

The major brouhaha over those few seconds of accidental boobage (which I’m sure kids would have been totally unaffected by if it hadn’t been for all the fuss and multiple reruns after the fact) was too ridiculous.

If they want to truly protect kids they need to focus on better targets b

@Lightlyseared Why just Fox? How about any other network?

@PacificToast because it was the only US network I could think of off the top of my head.

@Lightlyseared Somehow I doubt that, but I’ll just shrug and be on my way.

@PacificToast I don’t know all the networks that broadcast in my country off the top of my head what makes you think I should know anything about the ones that broadcast in other countries.

@Lightlyseared I apologize for in any way offending you. I was unaware that you were not in the U.S. Sorry. T~T