Freedom for the Images we Hate
Nudity on TV at noon is deplorable by many people. Some people hate porn movies. Footage of a semi-truck running over a pedestrian may not fall within the definition of “news”.
But protecting the right to broadcast and view these images under the First Amendment in the same way the right to publish is shielded should be appealing to all of us, not for the sake of the broadcasters, but for the sake of U.S. citizens.
The U.S. high court will soon have a chance to make a decisive call on this issue. A case regarding the responsibility of broadcasters to limit “fleeting expletives” comes before the Supreme Court this fall. It will be the first time in many years that the high court has had the opportunity to demonstrate the limit of First Amendment protections for broadcasters. This is the chance to extend to broadcasters what author Anthony Lewis, “one of the most inspiring advocates of a heroic view of the American judiciary,” according to the New York Times, so aptly called "the freedom for the thought we hate.”
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed special "prior restraint" rules on broadcast media outlets back in the day when limited bandwith placed the right to broadcast on a privileged pedestal. But with the accessibility of broadcasting on the Internet, and ever-expanding bandwith via cable and satellite TV and radio, this limit is no longer applicable.
A three-judge appellate court this week put a spontaneous flash of nudity in the same legal category as a fleeting expletive. This decision puts even more weight behind what the Supreme Court decides this fall, and whether the FCC’s current zero-tolerance rules regarding decency will be viewed as a type of prior restraint for which our country has no tolerance.
Good insight...you must have taken a First Amendment class!
ReplyDeleteYour discussion and mention of 'fleeting expletives' reminded me of the 'patently offensive' rule from the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation case, where broadcasting indecent material could only happen during a limited time (midnight to 6 a.m. I think).
ReplyDeleteI understand why the court has “put a spontaneous flash of nudity in the same legal category as a fleeting expletive”. I always remember Helen Lovejoy’s catch-phrase (from The Simpsons) when I think of this issue: “Won’t somebody think of the children!?” When Pacifica Foundation’s case was decided, the court made a distinction between broadcast media and print media. Broadcasting is easily accessible to children who are too young to read...so viewing indecent images on TV, or listing to profanity on the radio takes place without prior warnings...
Thanks for bringing this topic up. It would be interesting to see what the court’s decision will be.
I hope then the FCC and everyone else gets on the bandwagon the types of violence and nudity on the television screen as well the langaugae on even regular T.V. Back in my day, We never heard the words "Bitch", "Ass", or "Whore" on television.
ReplyDelete-Alicia ) Michigan
Distance Student