So, that's what a t** looks like...
The Supreme Court has taken up the task of revisiting the issue of obscenity on the public airwaves, a subject they last addressed over thirty years ago when they upheld fines against a radio station for broadcasting comedian George Carlin's infamous "seven dirty little words" monologue that was aired in mid-afternoon programming amid a lot of controversy.
Federal Law forbids broadcasting any obscene, indecent, or profane language.
However, when Congress constructed the laws pertaining to obscenity, lawmakers fell short in defining indecency, preferring for the FCC and the courts to tackle the specifics.
The issue is ripe for review once again in the wake of a major ruling handed down by an Appellate Court in New York which effectively blocked the FCC from enforcing a strict new rule in respect to "fleeting expletives".
For the broadcasters, the ruling was a clear victory.
The FCC had slapped hefty fines against the networks when two stage performers - independent of each other - uttered what many thought was offensive language on a couple of awards shows that were broadcast live.
At the Golden Globes, for instance, when Bono got up to accept an award, he excitedly cried out to the wildly enthusiastic audience,
"This is f**king brilliant!"
In a second incident, after Cher had been roundly written off by critics as a has-been, she found herself trotting up to the stage to accept a career achievement award. When she accepted her coveted prize, she made reference to their absurd musings and joyfully quipped,
"Well, f**k 'em!"
The FCC also imposed a $550,000.00 fine against CBS when there was an alleged wardrobe malfunction at a half-time show at a Sports Event in which Janet Jackson's breast became exposed to the nation in prime time without warning.
The networks filed suit arguing that they should not be held for responsible for fleeting expletives that pop out of the mouth's of performers in a moment of excitement when overwhelmed by such an auspicious occasion or have to pay fines for mishaps which occur during the course of a broadcast unexpectedly.
The New York court ruled in favor of the broadcasters on the grounds that the FCC had not been justified in its abrupt change in policy. In addition, the Justices elaborated that the FCC policy was "unclear" because the F-word was permitted in some news shows and in the TV broadcast of "Saving Private Ryan".
The producers argued that in the instance of "Ryan", the profanity used on the D-day beaches was integral to depicting the horror of war.
At the request of Government lawyers and George Bush's administration, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case which is ripe for review.
Some are troubled by the decision since they believe that the New York Appellate Court ruling was "well-reasoned" - and therefore - should "stand".
Meanwhile, others have applauded the action taken by the Supreme Court.
Timothy Winter - the President of the Parents Television Council in Los Angeles - complained that coarse unedited profanity is unacceptable for broadcast over publicly owned airwaves when children are likely to be watching.
Mr. Winter also noted that within days of the expletives being hurled into the public airwaves into the faces of citizens around the country, at least 1.2 million members of his group complained about the flagrant obscenity.
In their review of the issues, the Justices will determine whether federal regulators may levy large fines on broadcasters who let expletives on the airwaves during daytime and early-evening hours.
Likewise, the Justices may take the occasion to define the term "obscenity" more succinctly, so that the "laws of the land" may be administered more astutedly in the future without hindrance or controversy.
Without doubt, the high court will also determine the exact extent of the "reach" of the FCC, how broad their powers are, and so forth and so on.
On the other hand, it is wholly possible in the grand scheme of things, that the Justices may conclude that the protection that the 1st Amendment provides in respect to - "Freedom of Speech" - does not permit the government to punish broadcasters for an occasional vulgarity.
I'm all for freedom of speech but against rampant obscenity on the airwaves, especially when it is exploitative, has no redeaming value, and has the potential to rob our youth of their innocence.
"Obscenity is what gives a Judge an erection"Author unknown
