Apparently there is one court somewhere in the country that no longers thinks it is the 1950’s:
A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency Tuesday, saying that regulations barring the use of “fleeting expletives” on radio and television violated the First Amendment because they were vague and could inhibit free speech.
The decision, which many constitutional scholars expect to be appealed to the Supreme Court, stems from a challenge by Fox, CBS and other broadcasters to the F.C.C.’s decision in 2004 to begin enforcing a stricter standard of what kind of language is allowed on free, over-the-air television.
The stricter policy followed several incidents that drew widespread public complaint, including Janet Jackson’s breast-baring episode at the 2004 Super Bowl and repeated instances of profanity by celebrities, including Cher, Paris Hilton and Bono, during the live broadcasts of awards programs. The Janet Jackson incident did not involve speech but it drew wide public outrage that spurred a crackdown by the F.C.C..
The freak-out over Janet Jackson’s nip-slip remains one of those things that I just don’t understand. It would be nice if the FCC would focus on some of the issues Mistermix has discussed, rather than deciding which content is appropriate and which is not.
ABS
This has been a bugaboo for years for me, that there is a significant % of the population that is more offended by this than the Iraq war, illegal wiretapping or the use of torture. I wish these assholes would move to Saudi Arabia or Iran because its obvious they would be more comfortable there.
Dork
Nip-slip sounds too innocent for what was almost certainly planned. That said, I love the term. Also reasonable: a boob tube, mammary mega-grab, tit telly, juvenile juggs joke, breast broadcast, or front-junk television.
And yet it will be given to the SC so that RATS + Old Guy can tell us that public fleshy lobes will certainly destroy our country, as all of South Beach Miami says, “wha?”
Sheila
It seems to me a perversion of the highest sort to believe the nude body is profane. We are all nude beneath our clothing. Does this mean “God” has purposefully created us as profane creatures? As for expletives, many years ago a computer program was created that simulated the “monkeys on the typewriters” motif and after much drivel, what first emerged as coherent words were the expletives that many consider profane. Not only are we “profane” beneath our clothing, apparently we are also “profane” beneath our “civilized” language. If we are created in the image of these people’s “God”, does this mean that “God”, too, is profane?
Doctor Science
Awesome quote from the opinion:
Or, as we say, PWN.
*bleeps not in original, which is much less mealy-mouthed than WordPress.
Rosalita
Isn’t it because they get pressure (via politicians preening for votes) from those wingtards that are so “offended”?
Biff Diggerence
Rosalita:
The pressure comes from prissy assholes like E. Brent Bozell.
And his 20 person staff churning out 10,000 letters and emails each under fictitious names.
Kryptik
@Biff Diggerence:
Was JUST about to say this. The whole nip-slip bullshit was 99% (literally around the 90% mark anyway) manufactured by the Media Research Center and Bozell in a mass mail astroturfing campaign.
KXB
Why do we still use the term “free” television? Most people pay for their TV. And, for the price of paying for cable or satellite, I am still subject to commercials on the pay-channels, and I am forced to take channels I do not want.
Rosalita
@Biff Diggerence:
why is it the biggest fucks have so much time on their hands to do this? because they have no friends?
NonyNony
@Doctor Science:
We live in insane times, don’t we? Where we feel the need to preserve the realism of our fiction but we have to clean up our reality because it might offend.
I think that might just sum up the US from the start of the radio era on – I know too many people who think that our culture is coarsening who clearly have not ever examined what culture was like in the US pre mass media. It was pretty damn coarse back then and hasn’t really changed all that much. The mass media filter has really warped people’s perceptions of the world, I think.
rumpole
Call me a statist, but I think this is just going the wrong way. The public airwaves are exactly that: public. The government owns them. If it wants to impose conditions on the messages that can be distributed there, it should be able to do so–within reason. By that I mean, specifically, that intermediate scrutiny applies–not the kind of judicial review that you apply to cross-burning or flag-burning statutes.
The problem with the “conservative” First Amendment stance on this issue is that will expand the ability of corporations to promote whatever kind of material that they want without any government ability to regulate them. These are now “people” under the First Amendment with full political speech rights. (The idea that the lone individual’s rights on channel four will be squashed is a bit of a howler.).
The thing that eludes a lot of observers of these kinds of cases is that once the Court takes away the government’s constitutional power to regulate in this area, it’s gone forever. Circumstances change, of course, and there’s room for that change in the tests that get applied, unless you apply the strict standard. In that instance, you can -never- regulate content over the public airwaves.
Given citizens U, that result is entirely within the realm of possibility for five of the current court. I’m retaining a healthy dose of skepticism as to whether or not that state of affairs would really be a good idea.
NonyNony
@KXB:
You know in most of the country you can still watch TV for free if you have an antenna?
And the money you save on cable can go to buying more bandwidth for your Internet connection. Or to a netflix subscription. Or into savings.
Try living without cable for a month – don’t cancel it, just unhook it from your TV and hook up an antenna. See how much you actually miss it. You might be surprised at how much you’re spending on something you really don’t miss when it’s gone.
Biff Diggerence
https://balloon-juice.com/2010/07/14/sexhibition/#comment-1887272
KXB
@NonyNony:
The problem I have experienced with digital antennas is the inconsistency of the signal. Unless you have the TV in just the right corner, and have the antenna at just the right angle, the screen stays black. Even if you do get a picture, sometimes when you walk by it, the signal is interrupted and the screen goes black. My sister in Pittsburgh has a digital antenna, and only gets CBS and a PBS station. But, as you suggest, she relies on Netflix, and piggy-backing off a wireless internet connection.
R-Jud
@Sheila:
You know, I said this last week when an older aunt was scandalized that her two-year-old grandson was running around in the house without pants, and she said, no lie: “YOU might be, but I’M not!”
jrg
@ABS: It’s absurd, isn’t it?
We live in a very screwed-up country. We have pundits on the TV lying their asses off without being corrected, and we have people like Ann Coulter encouraging people to hit liberals with baseball bats… But when someone lets a “dirty” word slip, folks act like you just ate a fucking newborn baby.
Mjaum
As Norwegians, we would like to pressure the US to keep this up. The anecdotes generated by US-ian visitors to our public baths would be a lot less funny if you weren’t so godd**n afraid of your own private bits.
(For hygiene purposes everyone showers naked, and the same attire is used in the sauna. Also, we feel children are safer and happier with their opposite-sex parent than they would be all alone, “protected” from the nakedness.)
We also find the idea that children are harmed by the sight of boobs to be …paradoxical. The reason should be obvious, but as US-ians are known to be a little slow, we’ll spell it out: “What do babies eat from?”
PS: If your answer is “a bottle”, congrats, you’re a US-ian.
Bill in Portland Maine
The nipple episode—all 1/8th second of it—never would’ve even made it onto the radar if Drudge didn’t rule our world.
But he does, so it was, for a time, even more scarier than al Qaeda. (I think he even turned on his red blinky sissy light to underscore the graveness of the situation.)
Janet’s still in Guantanamo, right?
–
dj spellcehcka
f@#k! i hope this doesn’t lead to MORE bono on the teevee….
ps:
both bono and cher bono saying “dirty” words? what are the odds….
Nemo_N
What exactly happens to a child who watches the fleeting image of a nipple? Does he renounce God? Does he become a rapist? If a girl, does she become a prostitute?
I mean, other than an awkward question from your spawn, what exactly is the danger here? Or do people compare all nudity to hardcore porn?
twiffer
remember, it’s the USA. so: sex = EVIL!!!!; violence = GOOD WHOLSOME FUN.
WereBear
People who freak out over this are so accustomed to repressing their genuine emotions that the shock of actual feelings are frightening and upsetting.
Nipples and naughty language go right to the nerve centers in our brain; by design.
But some people, especially the poor slobs who must constantly police their unconscious lest God choose exactly that time to Rapture everyone, are in a constant state of near panic over a reality that is not Policed.
LikeableOnMyOwnWay
Apparently the free market is pretty awesome until it has to deal with a bare tit for 3 seconds.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
Apparently the free market is pretty awesome until it has to deal with a bare tit for about 3 seconds.
LikeableInMyOwnWay
You can delete the post in moderation. Caused by a typo.
dj spellchecka
sure hope this doesn’t mean MORE bono on the teevee