Does This FCC / Supreme Court Opinion Also Refer to 75 M ? Maybe It Should!

[ka3zlr]

Court Opinion .... we were discussing....

I do Have some good Xanax if anyone needs some...

I love this country...

73
Jack.

[Opcom]

High Court Upholds FCC Dirty Words Ruling
Source: United Press International
Publication date: 2009-04-28

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Tuesday that federal law allows the banning of even the fleeting use of dirty words in live broadcasts.
The underlying case involves the use of what the high court called the "F-word" and the "S-word."

So I can't say Foxtrot and Sierra any more?

[k4kyv]

 A user, who uses drugs in the privacy of their own home is perpetrating a crime, though the victims are not as direct as shooting them would be.

Please explain.  Just who are those "victims"?

If I drink an extra glass or two of wine with dinner and then go out on the road and have a collision, yes, there was a victim.  But if I grow a little weed, smoke some of it and ni-cad out on the floor, who has been victimised other than myself because it made me miss out on some good condx on 40m?

The "war on drugs" is self-perpetuating because so many people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Think of how many prison guards would become unemployed if all the people serving time for personal use or "simple possession" were suddenly released. Or how many police would get laid off if personal use were decriminalised.  Or how many profits the companies that provide the piss-tests would lose, etc, etc.

The real victims of drug use are people caught in the cross-fire of this so-called "war", that has been going on for over 30 years now, and yet has failed to make much of a dent in the demand for illicit drugs.

[ka3zlr]

Kinda reminds me of some of these MioMocho Dads we run into at the boys Ball Games through the course of the season....

Man, they spout all this an that, an got their Nose up the Coaches ass, and heck their their boy is just as good as anybodies... and it's funny at first watching them pitch a Bitch with the Umpire when something they didn't like happened...an we all know the Umpire his or her word is law...

An these Cats go off well my kid is this..and your wrong ... ruff ruff ruff....before I got sick I was part of the "Trouble Team"..we put together when some ADULTS would show their better side....we had little things we did to Satisfy the Big Men who didn't work well with others..... I miss that...it was fun when we had to get the cops involved...Are we satisfied Mr. Mucho...LOL...

Closed Minds... An ya know something..I don't grow my own but i did once upon a time but I get what I need when I want it.. and If I want to sit at My bench and take up a good pipe full on My Time In My Residence..an I'm in no need at all for children or my wife...Then That's my business or should be...That's the problem with the program...ain't it....  but we'll grab demm beers damit...is OK...

73
Jack.

[KX5JT]

 A user, who uses drugs in the privacy of their own home is perpetrating a crime, though the victims are not as direct as shooting them would be.

Please explain.  Just who are those "victims"?

The proponents of the War on Drugs list "the public in general" as the victims.  Drug addiction and abuse hurts our society as a whole with higher costs in health care and lower productivity in what they see as a "hive" society.  While I can go along with those aspects of recreational drug use effects, it's obvious that prohibition adds way more detrimental effects to the equation.  Making criminals out of the casual user and the addict burdens our legal system, opens the door for corruption in law enforcement and creates a vast lucrative black market.  This creates a FAR WORSE problem for the "public in general".   The problem of drug abuse and addiction should be addressed with recovery and education programs, not with jack-booted thugs!

[KA1ZGC]

WTF does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court decision that started this thread?

I see a lot of people talking like this is an FCC policy. It's not. The definition of obscenity was enacted by Congress. It's coded into the USC, not the CFR.

The FCC doesn't "decide what is good and what is bad", the decision was made for them. Their only choice is to enforce or not to enforce. Given enough Congressional pressure, they don't even have that choice, like in this case.

At least they're going after the network and not the affiliates. Then again, I really don't think the FCC has any authority over the networks themselves, but the Supreme Court has ruled which means the case is closed.

[ka3zlr]

Supreme Court Opinion is on the header, and some comparisons were made in Differing circumstances...by the members...an some anguish was released...

The problem is..?

73
Jack.

[KA1ZGC]

Yes, thank you, Jack. I can read, you know.

[ka3zlr]

That's not what I meant Bro...Add something...you mean to tell me you don't have a Bitch about who's telling us how to act...if ya slip up an Burp yer on the List for immediate Chastisement...There will be No Color in Voice emissions...at all....

Awesum...

73
Jack.


 

[KA1ZGC]

If you think that's what I was writing, then I can't help you, Jack.

What I "mean to tell you" is what I wrote. I didn't say whether I like it or not, so please don't jump to conclusions about my opinion. My opinion is for me to state.

Besides, like I said at the beginning, this ruling has changed absolutely nothing. All it's done is uphold the exact same law we've been living under for decades.

So no, Jack, I'm not going to fall for the "they're all out to get us" mantra. This news is about as exciting to me as Barbie's birthday.

[KX5JT]

*** takes a hit and passes it to KA1ZGC *** 

Just kidding, I haven't touched the stuff in years, but hey hey, chill out man!  Yes threads do seem to evolve, devolve and metamorph.  Sorry for going with the flow on it. 

As far as "obscenities/cursing" on the air... I for one do not think cursing(cussing/whatever) necessarily equals obscenities.  Personally, I draw the line and wont say certain words on the air.  Not because I care if some kid hears them, but more because it's a reflection on MY character, because my peers will hear ME saying them and draw conclusions about MY character.  So for me it's an individual choice.  Belching and cursing are not very impressive IN MY PERSONAL OPINION.  Will I continue to have a QSO with someone who belches and puts out mild cuss words?  Probably, if there's a POINT to the cussing, as in emphasising a negative situation.  As far as belching, maybe the operator has some sort of chronic digestive issues.  For me it depends on the context and I would certainly draw the line at a point. 

Do I think the FCC should police cuss-words?  On broadcast stations, sure.  On amateur radio, HAH, they should first try policing more important things like intentional QRM!  But they don't have the resources and wont do it, so how the hell are they going to try policing a cuss word on 75 meters at 1 am?

It's up to each of us as individuals to follow a code of conduct.  If you don't like the way someone is conducting themselves, you can call them on it on the air (sure to bring immediate reprecussions) or sign off with them in silent protest.

Whatever happened to the Official Observer program that the ARRL used to conduct?  Not that I agree with it, I never really saw it in action.  I'm just wondering... when was the last time anyone got a notice from either a.) the OO program or b.) the FCC on operating pratices?  I'm curious to hear from you all on this.

[KA1ZGC]

Oh, I'm plenty chilled. I'm the one saying this hasn't changed anything in our lives.

Let's not forget that the FCC isn't out policing language because it wants to, it's out policing language because Congress has told it to. No point holding it against the FCC. They didn't even want to act on this, but the volume of complaints leading to Congressional pressure didn't leave them any choice.

The law is pretty ambiguous, anyway. It basically defines obscenity as language "describing or depicting a sexual or excretory act" that is "intended to shock, pander, or titillate" and has "no artisticly or socially redeeming value". I'm sure I mangled it somewhere, but that's the jist of it.

That's why the broadcast networks were given the green light to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan" in its unedited form. None of the "cuss-words" in that movie fit into that category.

That law was written by Congress, not the FCC. They were simply given orders to enforce that law.

...the exact same law that's been on the books for decades, and we've all been living under right along. So nothing has changed, therefore there's nothing new to worry about.

As far as the debate about The Issues is concerned, I'll simply wheigh in with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5tmnBeNv18

[k4kyv]

For one thing, there is no official list that specifies exactly what is "obscene", "indecent" or "profane". The FCC claims there are differences in the meanings of those three terms, and that somehow makes a difference in how the rules will be applied, but I'll be damned if I have ever been able to figure out exactly what those subtle distinctions are supposed to be, let alone exactly what words the FCC considers off limits, since they don't publish a list in their rules.

The nature of language evolves over time.  When I was a kid, words like "fart" and "ass" (when referring to the human anatomy) were off  limits, and a kid in school would be punished if the teacher heard him utter them in the classroom.  You would never hear them uttered over the radio or TV.  Nowadays, they are no longer considered taboo.  When I used to teach high school, students and teachers openly used them in class discussions, and I hear them freely used on radio and TV, not only by the likes of Howard Stern, but from personalities more akin to Jay Leno and Garrison Keillor.  At the same time, the infamous "N" word was once used openly in polite company with little consequence, whereas to-day it would cause eyebrows to raise and jaws to drop, to say the least.

Some legitimate words have been frowned upon merely because they suggest something taboo.  One example is the word "ass", under the dictionary definition "a stupid, foolish, or stubborn person", as in calling someone a "silly ass".  I recall a story of a university professor who was fired from his job because he used the word "niggardly" in a lecture, even though this is a legitimate, valid English word of Scandinavian origin, that has existed in our language for centuries, long before the similar sounding racial slur ever entered our vocabulary, and has no similarity to its meaning.

But from what I read in the court decision, none of this is an issue.  They said that the FCC was exercising a reasonable expectation that a major corporation like a TV network would recognise that using the f-word during a prime time show that millions of viewers were watching was inappropriate, and would have been able to afford the technical capability of delaying a live broadcast to excise offensive content.

It would be stretching things to claim that this decision was intended to apply to a late night talk show host on AM radio, or some ham on 75m phone.  They didn't say that the latter have been given any kind of go-ahead; they dodged the issue altogether, leaving open the possibility of a later decision on a specific case.  So as far as ham radio is concerned, I would call the whole thing much ado about nothing.

We're talking about words, man

[KA1ZGC]

If there was a list, there would be an unending debate on what should or should not be on that list, who should oversee that list, what the mere existence of a list means about our society; you name it.

You just reminded me of a clause I forgot, which is that it has to be considered offensive by the standards of society at that time, essentially.

I also mis-wrote when I said "language", that word should actually be "content". A list of naughty words wouldn't restrain Janet Jackson's right hooter any better than her wardrobe did. 

[k4kyv]

A list of naughty words wouldn't restrain Janet Jackson's right hooter any better than her wardrobe did. 

If the Equal Rights Amendment hadn't just barely failed ratification in the 1970's, that FCC action would most likely be successfully challenged on the basis of sex discrimination, since bare male torsos on TV are not prohibited.

I understand that in several major U.S. cities, the letter of the law says that women are legally just as entitled to go topless in public as men, and cannot be prosecuted.

OTOH, in areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan under control of the Taliban, men may be severely punished for wearing short sleeved T-shirts in public.

[WB2EMS]

I understand that in several major U.S. cities, the letter of the law says that women are legally just as entitled to go topless in public as men, and cannot be prosecuted.

When I lived in Rochester area until the early 80's there was a court case with "The Rochester Seven" where seven women were arrested in a park IIRC and challenged the law and eventually won, I think state wide. Down here in Ithaca the locals were holding "Topless Thursdays" in a park in the city for a number of years in support of that -  may still be going on. Hmmm, maybe lunch in the park is in order next week....

[KB2WIG]

He said    "titillate".

klc