Legal Question - Re: Janet's Boob

So the whole thing with Janet Jackson's nipular escapades got me thinking... how is it that the very existence of the FCC is not a 1st Amendment violation?It's not like a quick glimpse of Janet's breast qualifies as obscenity, right? So how does the FCC have the right to threaten to take CBS off the air? Isn't that a direct infringement on freedom of speech?I'm not asking this rhetorically; I know we have some legal-knowledgable people around here, and I'm curious.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

As I understand it, the airways are public. Public descency laws are decided by the peoples of various comunities. For example, in GA they won't sell you liquor on sundays, or after 12:00AM, another example would be the various indecent exposure laws.Since TV is brodcast over public airways, it has to make sure not to violate these public decency laws. So the FCC is incharge of makeing sure those laws are enforced.In any case, I agree with you. I think the whole thing is idiotic. It was just a breast! Get over it.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-12-2004]

But doesn't the FCC also have some leverage over basic cable? (I might be wrong there, but I think they do.) How is that public?Also, the FCC is much stricter than public decency laws. For instance, you can say the word "shit" in public without getting into trouble. Hell, in New York state, a woman can walk around in public topless. Could a show aired only in New York show bare breasts?

Hmmm... I dunno about basic cable. I would imagine not since you do have shows like South Park wich say 'shit' and other profanity. Maybe a little research is in order This is what the FCC says abouttheir duties on their home page:http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.html It seems they make a distinction between indescent material and obsceen material. Funny, I don't remember anything about obsceen or undescent in the First amendment do you?EDIT: I still think alot of it has to do with the fact that public TV broadcasts over public air. Thus, the people set the rules thrugh their representative govt.i.e. It's our airways, and the majotity dosn't like nudity, etc.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 02-12-2004]

quote:

---

It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

---

Mm. I figured it was something like, "we have to take care of your kids, since you're too lazy to get off your fat ass and change the channel if you don't like what they're watching."

quote:

---

I still think alot of it has to do with the fact that public TV broadcasts over public air. Thus, the people set the rules thrugh their representative govt.

​

i.e. It's our airways, and the majotity dosn't like nudity, etc.

---

Fair point, but I'd personally take issue with the idea that it's "our airways". Our TVs are ours, but the signal being sent belongs to the station. Sorta like how my computer is mine, but that doesn't give me any right to dictate what goes out over the internet.Ultimately, I'd like to see people just contact advertisers when they're offended by broadcast content. But that's just me.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

In Britain, it is legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow, but only if you are in a pub after midnight in Chester. Aparently it's an old law as I don't see too many people walking around with a bow and arrows.You made a point about freedom of speech Dan. There was a case where a British woman said "bomb" on a plane - yes, a foolish thing to do but I heard she was imprisoned? I don't know if you've heard about this but I thought a jail sentence was harsh, and against "freedom of speech". Have you seen Meet the parents?

Dude, you heard wrong. She told customs officials she had three bombs in her luggage. She was not imprisoned, but was held in custody for several weeks before being allowed to return to Britain.

quote:

---

In Britain, it is legal to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow, but only if you are in a pub after midnight in Chester. Aparently it's an old law as I don't see too many people walking around with a bow and arrows.

---

Mike, I'm visiting England, and you and I are going Welshman hunting!

quote:

---

You made a point about freedom of speech Dan. There was a case where a British woman said "bomb" on a plane - yes, a foolish thing to do but I heard she was imprisoned? I don't know if you've heard about this but I thought a jail sentence was harsh, and against "freedom of speech".

---

Last I heard, she's being fined. And the fine is being paid to a 9/11 memorial fund. Which just makes me all sorts of sick. "You made a joke at the expense of 9/11, so now you must make reperations to it. Then go sacrifice a bull at the holy altar of the World Trade Center."

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

I might of heard wrong(I usually do). I still think several weeks is harsh though.

Here's ananova's version of events.Best Hosting ProvidersApparently it's a 'donation' not a fine...(Yay, remembered to tick 'show signature' for once)

---

"You're Green, You're Ugly and the Gods Hate You."

I thought you'd say that, I'm already carving our arrows. I guess they want to get their point across about saying the word "bomb" - and/or - in other words, no more freedom of speech. Personally, I think being held for several weeks was way too harsh for merely saying something. - M.r Jack's link.This reminds me of the film Braveheart where Mel has to plead mercy for a quick death.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-13-2004]

I think the 1st amendment was meant to protect your right to express your opinion, not your right to be naked in public. Maybe you think women should be allowed to go topless in public. I know that some people believe public nudity should be allowed. However, none of that has anything to do with the 1st amendment.And as far as I'm concerned, any public broadcast should be controlled by some group with the authority to enforce rules. Otherwise, limits will be set by whichever idiot is the most brazen. I can't imagine wanting Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlane choosing the limits for public broadcasting, but that's the kind of people who will be choosing if we don't have someone else with the authority to choose and enforce their choice.

quote:

---

I thought you'd say that, I'm already carving our arrows.

---

Can we get a long horn, and riding outfits? We can be like the MPs when they go homeless-person hunting![This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-13-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

I think the 1st amendment was meant to protect your right to express your opinion, not your right to be naked in public. Maybe you think women should be allowed to go topless in public. I know that some people believe public nudity should be allowed. However, none of that has anything to do with the 1st amendment.

---

I know, but if he's saying it follows decency laws... like I said, there are places where according to decency laws, women are allowed to go topless in public, but not on TV.

quote:

---

And as far as I'm concerned, any public broadcast should be controlled by some group with the authority to enforce rules.

---

Does that include, say, this forum?As it stands now, the man broadcasting this forum (Percy) sets the rules, and enforces them himself. If the internet was run like TV, a government agency would be telling Percy what rules he must enforce, and the nature of the discussions we could be having.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-13-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

You think several weeks is too harsh for saying she had bombs in her bags?Listen, does free speech mean that I'm supposed to be able to tell you I'm coming over tonight to shoot you, then burn your house down? Or should we maybe still be allowed to arrest people for assault (assault is verbal, battery is physical). Shouldn't we be allowed to arrest people for slander and defamation of character and hold them accountable for the injuries caused when they shouted fire in a crowded theatre (spelled that way for our British friends)?America's first amendment was meant to allow you to express your opinions, not to say whatever you wanted to say.