Will the US Supreme Court Finally Lift Ban on 'Seven Dirty Words' You Can't Say on TV? (Analysis)

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Eriq Gardner - The Hollywood Reporter


http://i.imgur.com/5XIfs.jpg

Tuesday will be a very vulgar day at the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the second time in the last four years, the justices of the high court will consider the FCC's authority in policing curse words on broadcast television. In 2009, the Supreme Court decided narrowly (5-4) that the FCC's ban on fleeting vulgarity was "entirely rational," while side-stepping the constitutional challenges brought by network broadcasters. This time around, after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal said the FCC policy was unconstitutionally vague, the Supreme Court will likely make a landmark ruling about how to square First Amendment rights with the government's interest in protecting families from indecent speech.

The battle stretches back more than 30 years, since comedian George Carlin gave his famous monologue, "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television."

In the aftermath, the Supreme Court took up an examination of the government's role in regulating indecency over the public airwaves. In the famous 1978 decision in FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens upheld the FCC's authority while preaching some vague restraint. "We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene," he wrote.

Over the next two decades, indecency came up here and there, with rules being tweaked and complaints being made, but it wasn't until the early part of this new century, when the FCC got aggressive under the George W. Bush administration, that broad constitutional challenges were presented again about the FCC's authority to regulate indecency.

The FCC warned Fox over expletives uttered by Cher and Nicole Richie on awards shows, and also fined ABC for fleeting nudity on the drama NYPD Blue. That led to a lawsuit by Fox and other broadcasters against the FCC for imposing rules that were "arbitrary and capricious."

In 2009, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia upheld the FCC's ban, taking a shot at “foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood,” but passed on an opportunity to issue a broad ruling on the First Amendment challenges brought by broadcasters.

Instead, the case (Fox vs. FCC) went back to the 2nd Circuit, which took another opportunity to strike down the ban. The appellate circuit hinted that the time had come to re-examine indecency on broadcast television in light of the development of cable television, YouTube, Twitter and various new media since the 1978 Pacfica decision. "The past thirty years has seen an explosion of media sources, and broadcast television has become only one voice in the chorus," wrote Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler in a 2010 decision.

At the same time, Judge Pooler said that it was up to the Supreme Court to overrule Pacifica and constrained the lifting of the FCC's ban merely because it was too vague.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court gets another bite at the apple as the Obama administration defends the FCC's authority to provide children a safe harbor on broadcast television from indecency.

The government is supported by conservative family groups like the Parents TV Council, which points to a proliferation of curse words on broadcast TV (1,227 bleeped and unbleeped utterances of "fuck" and "shit" last year, according to the group) and warns that if networks get their way at the high court, it will mean that "the American people are going to get a rude awakening when broadcast TV becomes indistinguishable from Cinemax, HBO or something even more explicit."

The forthcoming ruling could go either way.

On one hand, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown an interest in expanding the scope of the First Amendment, ruling in Citizens United that government regulations on campaign expenditures violated constitutional protections for free speech. And very notably, last year, the Supreme Court struck down a California ban on violent video games, saying that "basic principals of free speech" shouldn't be restricted without a "compelling government interest."

On the other hand, recent research has suggested that the Supreme Court's image as a defender of free speech is overstated, as the justices have heard fewer First Amendment cases and ruled in favor of free speech with less frequency than any time in the past 50 years. Plus, this is still a court that tends to be conservative and/or squeamish on social issues. As proof, compare the Supreme Court's 2009 decision with the subsequent ruling by the 2nd Circuit the following year. Guess which one decided to use the "S-Word" in the written opinion and which one decided to spell it out.

[Joebob034]

fuck that shit

[Muddy]

"Finally" ? The writer of this article doesn't have an opinion does he? :lol:

I don't want the 7 words lifted...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/MBV0s.jpg

If the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to listen, rocker Steven Tyler has something "old school" to say about nudity and profanity on broadcast TV.

"There's a certain charm and passion and magic in not showing full-frontal nudity" or using constant profanity, Tyler said, as the high court prepared to take up a First Amendment case on the regulation of the airwaves.

"It's really hot when you only show a little," he said.

Granted, the Aerosmith singer tossed off a bleeped strong expletive or two on Fox's live "American Idol" after joining it as a judge last season.

"I have (cursed on air) a couple times, because it is 2012," Tyler said. But an occasional swear word is different than a stream of them, which he suggested could happen without rules and wouldn't be something he welcomes.

"If you start surfing channel to channel and you're on NBC and it's (expletive) and channel 4 and it's (expletive) and channel 7 and it's (expletive), it wouldn't be fun to surf," he said.

Besides, he said, where's the creativity? A pun about an "American Idol" contestant's revealingly short outfit may be fun -- "Here's to looking up your old address," offered Tyler -- but the use of blunt language "turns it into something crass."

"Why would I say that? I would say it to show off, I think," he added.

There are pejorative terms, such as those involving race and gender, that never should be heard on TV, said Tyler. He returns to "Idol" with fellow judges Jennifer Lopez and Randy Jackson for the singing contest's 11th season, starting Jan. 18.

The Supreme Court case set to be heard Tuesday could reshape the regulation of broadcasting.

In 2010, the federal appeals court in New York threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules affecting the hours children are likely viewers. That includes a ban on the use of even a single curse word on live TV as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The Obama administration has objected that the appeals court stripped the FCC of its ability to police the airwaves, and the commission is appealing the ruling.

The FCC's policy against fleeting expletives was set after a January 2003 NBC broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show, in which U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "fucking brilliant."

The FCC found its ban was also violated by a December 2002 broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards in which Cher used the phrase "Fuck `em" and a December 2003 Billboard awards show in which reality show star Nicole Richie said, "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."

The commission's stepped-up broadcast indecency enforcement in recent years, including record fines for violations, was spurred in part by public outrage over Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

TV networks -- including Tyler's home base, Fox -- argue that the FCC's policy is vague, irregularly applied and outdated, affecting only broadcast television while leaving unregulated the same content if it's delivered on cable TV or over the Internet.

Tyler predicted Monday the Supreme Court will allow "certain words, and that's that."

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Tell that ugly old lady to shut her gawd damn man pleaser

[Hal-9000]

do we have a list of the actual 7 words? I can only think of one....:oops:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

fuck, cunt, asshole I think are on the list

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Sounds like its wishy washy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The seven dirty words (or "Filthy Words") are seven English language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television". The words are: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. At the time, the words were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves in the United States, whether radio or television. As such, they were avoided in scripted material, and bleep censored in the rare cases in which they were used; broadcast standards differ in different parts of the world, then and now, although most of the words on Carlin's original list remain taboo on American broadcast television as of 2012. The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather was compiled by Carlin. Nonetheless, a radio broadcast featuring these words led to a Supreme Court decision that helped establish the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ&feature=related

[Hal-9000]

so tits, piss and shit are already on prime time shows....maybe on the ones with the warning before the show starts

[Hugh_Janus]

how the hell did the sopranos get so many series then? :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

so tits, piss and shit are already on prime time shows....maybe on the ones with the warning before the show starts

Not on broadcast TV, only on cable. Although I have heard "I'm pissed" or "pissed off" on broadcast channels, so I guess it's okay when used in that connotation. The others are still verboten.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

how the hell did the sopranos get so many series then? :lol:

It was on HBO, which is premium cable...they aren't bound by FCC rules in the US

[Muddy]

Good lord guys..


The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather was compiled by Carlin.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Good lord guys..

No, but they still refer to Carlin's list all the time, so like it or not, it has become the de facto list of what can't be said on TV.

[Muddy]

Only because George Carlins bit was played on an actual radio broadcast is it relevant.. As you stated earlier some of these words do in fact show up now on network programming...

[Hugh_Janus]

your guys need to lighten up.... you can't say "tits".... really? :lol: Over here you can only broadcast things with naughty words, sex, violence etc after 9pm

[Teh One Who Knocks]

your guys need to lighten up.... you can't say "tits".... really? :lol: Over here you can only broadcast things with naughty words, sex, violence etc after 9pm

You can broadcast anything you want after 10 PM here, but the networks rarely do

[Hal-9000]

your guys need to lighten up.... you can't say "tits".... really? :lol: Over here you can only broadcast things with naughty words, sex, violence etc after 9pm

I finished the Misfits season 3 (it is good btw...) and a chick drops the C bomb in the first 5 minutes of the show ffs :lol:


you guys have way looser laws over there...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Only because George Carlins bit was played on an actual radio broadcast is it relevant.. As you stated earlier some of these words do in fact show up now on network programming...

The only one of Carlin's words that shows up on broadcast TV now is piss, and only when it refers to being angry. It cannot be used to refer to urine because then it is considered 'indecent'

[PorkChopSandwiches]

You can broadcast anything you want after 10 PM here, but the networks rarely do

Not on regular broadcast tv you cant.

[Muddy]

I think they should ban the word Taco..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Not on regular broadcast tv you cant.

Well, not hardcore sex and nudity :rolleyes:

But with indecent language you can


Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity

[Muddy]

http://i.imgur.com/UjflF.jpg

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://i.imgur.com/UjflF.jpg

That reminds me of health class

[Hal-9000]

stay away from that cebolla :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:cebolla:

[Hal-9000]

I hear that shit will melt your organs and kill you within 48 hours :shock:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

eating asshole or onions?

[Acid Trip]

Bah, you guys act like you've never licked a girls butt before.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Bah, you guys act like you've never licked a girls butt before.

What do you think this means? :corn:

[Hal-9000]

What do you think this means? :corn:

:facepalm: I thought it meant I was proud to live in Nebraska

[Teh One Who Knocks]

:facepalm: I thought it meant I was proud to live in Nebraska

LSFW
http://www.sportsgrindent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/nebraska3.jpg

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:lol:

[Hal-9000]

Imma corn husker!


:corn:

[Hal-9000]

LSFW
http://www.sportsgrindent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/nebraska3.jpg

Hotness...isn't that Melinda whatsernuts? (can't recall the name)

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Melissa Midwest

[DemonGeminiX]

That's it. I'm moving to Nebraska.

[Hal-9000]

and I'm moving to Melissa Midwest

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ariane de Vogue - ABC News


In an hour-long argument, punctuated by lively exchanges, and even one blushing Justice, the Supreme Court grappled on Tuesday with the government’s policy on indecency on the airwaves.

The case stems from celebrities-such as Cher and Nicole Richie-uttering swear words during live television in primetime, as well as an episode of ABC’s show “NYPD Blue” that depicted partial nudity.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — charged with regulating the public airwaves — found that the incidents violated its prohibitions against the broadcast of indecent material before 10 pm.

But lawyers for broadcasters such as Fox Television and ABC, Inc., argue that the FCC’s policy is unconstitutionally vague and chills free speech. Facing daunting fines, the broadcasters argue that the government should no longer treat broadcast speech more restrictively than other media when it comes to the regulation of indecency over the airwaves.

The eight justices hearing the case (Justice Sonia Sotomayor was recused because she dealt with the issue as a lower court judge) showcased several aspects of the dilemma.

Justice Antonin Scalia most vocally defended the government’s position that the policy serves an important interest in protecting children from indecency.

“It’s a symbolic matter,” he said. “The government is entitled to insist upon a certain modicum of decency.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with small children, suggested that the broadcast networks are a safe harbor for parents hoping to shield their children from indecency.

“What the government is asking for, is a few channels where you can say, ‘I’m not going to-they are not going to hear the S -word, the F -word.’”

Justice Anthony Kennedy brought up a core issue, and a key part of the broadcasters argument, regarding the pervasiveness of cable and the Internet.

Kennedy asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr, “But you’re saying that there’s still a value, an importance, in having a higher standard..for broadcast media. Why is that , when there are so many other options?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the FCC’s policy problem seemed to be “an appearance of arbitrariness about how the FCC is defining indecency in concrete situations.”

She pointed out that the government allowed the use of expletives in the broadcast of Steven Spielberg’s war movie, “Saving Private Ryan.”

Justice Elena Kagan said, “the way this policy seems to work, it’s like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for Steven Spielberg.”

The broadcasters urge the Court to overturn 34-year-old precedent in a case called FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. At issue in that case was a broadcast of comedian George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue which was aired on a radio broadcast in the middle of the afternoon. After complaints from the public, the FCC ruled that the broadcast was indecent and could be subject to sanctions. The Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to the FCC’s determination finding “of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection.”

Carter G. Phillips, arguing on behalf of Fox Television, said that the FCC’s policies, which have been expanded since the Pacifica decision, have caused “thousands and thousands” of complaints so that “the whole system has come to a screeching halt because of the difficulty of trying to resolve these issues.”

One of the most humorous exchanges during the argument came when Seth Waxman, representing ABC, noted that the FCC has a pending complaint about an opening episode of the last Olympics, which included a naked statute similar to those actually depicted in the courtroom walls.

The justices began to look at the marble friezes in the courtroom depicting statues of historical figures.

“Right over here, Justice Scalia,” Waxman said pointing to the wall, “there’s a bare buttock there, and there’s a bare buttock here. ..frankly I had never focused on it before”

“Me neither,” said a laughing, blushing Scalia.