Constitutionality of Censorship

[Timmy-B]

Is censorship legal? No. Not the point. I wll tell you why.

The first amendment, the one known EVERYWHERE around the globe, outlines someone's right to say what they want to say. and I quote:

"Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That means the government can not interfere with what you believe in or say. Then why cant you hear "Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, and Tits" on television? Because under the Regan administration the FCC, Federal Communications Commision, decided all by itself that Radio and television were the only forms of communication not protected by the free speech provisions of the 1st amendment.

Ill say that again because it sounds vaugely important.

The FCC, an appointed body, answerable only to the president, decided ALL BY ITSELF that radio and tv are the only forms of communication NOT PROTECTED BY YOUR BASIC RIGHTS.

The FCC, and Censorship, is unconstitutional.

What do you think?

[fahrenheit]

The reason you cannot hear explicit words on TV and radio is because children watch/hear them. Also people who are offended by that stuff, we did not have such communicates back when these rules where made, so they had no idea about these sort of complications.

Truth is, a lot of stuff they established back then is obsolite and isnt necessary or right for our society. But because they founded our country they wont be changed.

[Demosthenez]

Look up obsenity rulings on the first amendment. This shit isnt groundbreaking.

The FCC is very legal. You just took a half assed approach to this and decided not to look for the whole story.

[Timmy-B]

If you are offended DONT WATCH, DONT LISTEN. whats the problem with that? They made the Vchip for stuff like that. While I agree some things our country was founded upon are irrelevant, I also believe that your personal beliefs or preferences should be your burden, and not societies. If you downt want your kids watching anything other than EWTN, dont let them watch!

[fahrenheit]

At 10/2/05 03:21 AM, Timmy_B wrote: If you are offended DONT WATCH, DONT LISTEN.

Wouldnt it just be easier to keep it the way it is? Does the little bleeping noises really take away the essence of the show so you cant watch it?
I mean jeese, you know what the swear is, just because you cant hear it gets all you all pissed off?

[Altarus]

That means the government can not interfere with what you believe in or say. Then why cant you hear [censored] on television? Because under the Regan administration the FCC, Federal Communications Commision, decided all by itself that Radio and television were the only forms of communication not protected by the free speech provisions of the 1st amendment.

You can hear that stuff on television, just not over public airwaves. It protects people whom such content would harm. Same reason public indencency is illegal.

[UltraGhost]

At 10/2/05 03:32 AM, Velocitom wrote:

At 10/2/05 03:21 AM, Timmy_B wrote: If you are offended DONT WATCH, DONT LISTEN.

Wouldnt it just be easier to keep it the way it is? Does the little bleeping noises really take away the essence of the show so you cant watch it?
I mean jeese, you know what the swear is, just because you cant hear it gets all you all pissed off?

The beep sound is really really annoying. And what is wrong with swearing anyway? Was there some big meeting where all these easily offended people sat down and came up with all these words that are "bad"? And it's not like it would be the first time a kid would hear swears. And if it was, they'd hear it in the real world. Their parents would swear at times, they'd probably hear other people swear etc. So what's the problem? Now there is ofcourse reasons why you wouldn't want your kids to hear swearing when they are young, so here's the solution.. DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT!!

But, seeing as censorship isn't going away anytime soon, why swear in tv shows if it's going to be beeped out?

[Demosthenez]

The Law Doesnt Care What You Think

I like the last link the best. Read that one if you just want to pick one.

[Timmy-B]

A quote from taht last link:

From a constitutional perspective, censorship means prior restraint of First Amendment rights by government. The Federal and state obscenity laws operate after, not in advance of publication. Quoting from an earlier opinion, the Supreme Court said in its landmark 1931 Near v. Minnesota decision that the "main purpose" of the First Amendment provisions regarding free speech and the press are "to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments, and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare." The First Amendment has never been interpreted as preventing censure for criminal matter when published, and persons can be fined and imprisoned if they disseminate obscene material.

So what it is trying to say is that the amendment was made to protect us then... but not now? Bucause everything back then was basically the newspaper... Does that mean that the government can take away all of our freedom of speech in the media as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights that the ammendment was meant to "mainly" protect?

Also... my big question: Who decides what is obscene and what isnt? Because it certainly isnt me....

[Redbob86]

Don't forget that in 1996 it was decided that music and musical artists were not protected by the 1st Amendment either, meaning they can censor their songs, file charges against them (don't know what for, but it CAN happen), whatever they want because they are not protected. And now videogames are getting banned. The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.

[Timmy-B]

:2. But the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the press.

:Of course it does. But despite its unconditional phrasing, the First Amendment was never intended to protect every utterance, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that there are narrow categories of speech which are not protected by the First Amendment, which include obscenity, child pornography, inciting to riot, libel, false advertising, perjury, contempt of court, harassment, threats, copyright infringement and invasion of privacy. Obscenity is not protected speech. It is a crime.

:3. Obscenity is difficult to define; there is no clear definition on the books.

:False. The United States Supreme Court defined obscenity in its landmark 1973 decision, Miller v. California. The definition isn't perfect, but it is workable when applied in a common-sense manner. Before sexual material can be judged obscene and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment, a judge or jury must determine: 1. that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; 2. that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law; and 3. that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

That is "obscene" I am assuming. And the first part I agree with. And most of the second part. But where do the seven dirty words come into that?

child pornography, inciting to riot, libel, false advertising, perjury, contempt of court, harassment, threats, copyright infringement and invasion of privacy

As far as I can tell, "Shit" does not fall into any of those categorys. Then how can it be considered obscene and therefore, illegal to say on free television?

[Altarus]

Why are we wasting so much time trying to decide what the Constitution said about foul language on television? I'll tell you what it said about it- NOTHING. It's purely subjective because the Constitution is not meant to be held absolute. Otherwise, you could yell fire in a crowed theatre, you could own your own nuclear bomb, public indencency would be legal, etc. Try to find a reason other than "The constitution says so!!" to back up your arguments. We recognize that free speech is good because, otherwise, the government could ban speech just because it disagrees with the message. I fail to see how allowed vulgarity over public airwaves rises to that level of merit.

[Demosthenez]

At 10/2/05 03:58 AM, Timmy_B wrote: A quote from taht last link:

From a constitutional perspective, censorship means prior restraint of First Amendment rights by government. The Federal and state obscenity laws operate after, not in advance of publication. Quoting from an earlier opinion, the Supreme Court said in its landmark 1931 Near v. Minnesota decision that the "main purpose" of the First Amendment provisions regarding free speech and the press are "to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments, and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare." The First Amendment has never been interpreted as preventing censure for criminal matter when published, and persons can be fined and imprisoned if they disseminate obscene material.

So what it is trying to say is that the amendment was made to protect us then... but not now?

No. Thats not what its saying at all. It is saying obscenity laws happen after things are release. If it was censorship it would be prior restraing. Please, read the first two sentances again.

Also... my big question: Who decides what is obscene and what isnt? Because it certainly isnt me....

The Miller Test.

At 10/2/05 03:59 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Don't forget that in 1996 it was decided that music and musical artists were not protected by the 1st Amendment either, meaning they can censor their songs, file charges against them (don't know what for, but it CAN happen), whatever they want because they are not protected.

Wanna provide proof?

:And now videogames are getting banned.

No they are not.

[Redbob86]

Wanna provide proof?

Look it up, google it, trust me it's there.

And now videogames are getting banned.

No they are not.

They are in Illinois.

[Timmy-B]

Im not suggesting you let porn be shown on the airwaves. But i am suggesting we be able to say what we want. I know some people in this country would like "nig" and such words to be legalized. That word is racist (no matter who says it). Shit isnt.

I Believe that if a word is used to hurt someone, like mofo (sorry, they wont let me type it out) or something of the like, then yes, It shouldnt be on tv. Give me one good reason why shit shouldnt be said on tv.

Lastly, why government control? Why not industry restraints like the ERSB? Or the RIAA? To me, industry restraints have worked well, and will continue to work well. The thing is, industry is out for money, so they will do what the public agrees with. The government has no motovation to do what the people want, seeing as the federal beuracracy often smudges the importance of "every person counts" by the time it gets down to a job like watching VH1 or MTV all night to make sure they dont swear.

[Redbob86]

I am against censorship. But the thing is, if you got rid of ALL censorship laws, nothing would really change much on TV and radio. Getting rid of the FCC won't create porn on every channel, because the networks and shows still have their target audiences. Playboy targets horny guys, Nickolodeon targets kids, and they'll both decide what to show based on those audiences. The only thing that would change is that words won't be bleeped, PBS won't become a hardcore porn channel.

[Timmy-B]

Thank you redbob, Thats what I have been trying to say...

[Redbob86]

At 10/2/05 04:33 AM, Timmy_B wrote: Thank you redbob, Thats what I have been trying to say...

No, prob.

[Timmy-B]

:: Also... my big question: Who decides what is obscene and what isnt? Because it certainly isnt me....

:The Miller Test.

It certainly isnt me. My parents, who are hardline conservatives, have never been part of that. NO ONE I KNOW HAS EVER BEEN INCLUDED IN AN OBSCENITY TRIAL. I havent. Provided, im not legal age. But why is that important? In fact, It is my age group you are trying to "protect", so why shouldnt I be one of the FIRST people you ask?

[Demosthenez]

At 10/2/05 04:24 AM, Timmy_B wrote: Give me one good reason why shit shouldnt be said on tv.

Im pretty sure I have heard shit alot on TV. However, if you must. It provides nothing cultural or artistic. It is almost wholly unneeded.

This is a better point, though. However, equating censorship with not being able to say shit is retarted. When would you ever need ot say shit to get a point across and if you couldnt, you wouldnt get the point across?

Im guessing never.

Lastly, why government control? Why not industry restraints like the ERSB?

The goverment owns the broadcasting airwaves, for one. Two, ESRB is comparable to HBO or Sirus. You have to pay for content. You dont have to pay for brodcast.

At 10/2/05 04:23 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Look it up, google it, trust me it's there.

No. You do it. Its not my friggin job to do your work. And I dont have the slightest what to look up.

You provide statement, provide proof when asked. Not this stalling tactic bullshit.

They are in Illinois.

"They" are minors with little to no rights.

[Redbob86]

Here's your link, lazy ass.

http://www.cwrl.utex..e/procensorship.html

And yes, they are minors with no rights, and now they can't even buy San Andreas, what's your point?

[Demosthenez]

At 10/2/05 06:18 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Here's your link, lazy ass.

http://www.cwrl.utex..e/procensorship.html

Lol. You didnt do any research on that at all, eh?

LOOK!!! Google search. Look at first item. Tell me what it says after Communications Decency Act, will ya?

Passed by the U.S. Congress on February 1, 1996, the CDA explicitly outlawed intentionally communicating “by computer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person the communicator believes has not attained the age of 18 years, any material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.”

Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn the portion relating to indecent, but not obscene, speech.
http://en.wikipedia...ications_Decency_Act

VOID!
Declared Unconstitutional by the
U.S. Supreme Court -- June 26, 1997
This link has the full text of the bill. Want to tell me where it says music is not protected speech? Cause it doesnt mention music in there at all that I am aware of.

And yes, they are minors with no rights, and now they can't even buy San Andreas, what's your point?

Minors cant buy San Andreas. Wow. I dont care. They are minors. They have no rights.

That is not censorship. You cant censor something that has no rights.

[fahrenheit]

At 10/2/05 04:23 AM, Redbob86 wrote: They are in Illinois.

The only thing in Illinois thats even considered banning, is not allowing children to buy M rated games. Something they have been doing for a hellova long time.

[Thespus]

That's cute. I love George Carlin. But you're right, the FCC is a load of bullshit. It's the supreme court's job to decide on that type of thing and there was no real precedent for it, so.... FUCK THE GOVERNMENT! And I'm not substituting fuck for kill for all those Carlinites out there.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 10/2/05 02:32 AM, Timmy_B wrote: "Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now rethink what it says. I'll give you time.

[Timmy-B]

The Point that Fabulous keeps making is that minors have no rights.

Why? Why do you suddenly recieve all your rights on your 18th birthday? Why not the day before your birthday?

While I agree that children should not be able to buy M rated games, for various reasons, why can something as simple as a phallic symbol on the history channel be blocked out?

I was watching a show about pompeii, and all the phallics they showed were blurred. I know the history channel wouldnt do this, its part of history. The FCC did that. What im wondering is, who is that part of history hurting?

[fahrenheit]

At 10/2/05 09:25 PM, Timmy_B wrote: Why? Why do you suddenly recieve all your rights on your 18th birthday? Why not the day before your birthday?

The rights apply to people who can vote. Since minors and convicted felons cannot vote, they dont get the main rights. They get there own, which are pretty much the same but a tad different.

[Gunter45]

We have a system in place that determines the constitutionality of laws, we call it the Supreme Court. Now, if you want to take it before them, it's a long process. If you really feel strongly that you're right, you're free to try. I just wouldn't expect to win, seeing as how there's a 100% chance of failure.

[Thespus]

At 10/2/05 09:29 PM, Velocitom wrote:

At 10/2/05 09:25 PM, Timmy_B wrote: Why? Why do you suddenly recieve all your rights on your 18th birthday? Why not the day before your birthday?

The rights apply to people who can vote. Since minors and convicted felons cannot vote, they dont get the main rights. They get there own, which are pretty much the same but a tad different.

The rights apply to every citizen according to the constitution. Every citizen has the right to a fair trial; free speech, religion, press, and petition; the right to bear arms is a little different; the right to an education; the right to an occupation; the right to pursue any and all goals so long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process; and the right to overthrow the government if they feel the government has strayed from the constitution.

These rights are given to every single citizen of the United States. Convicts are a different case. They took away the rights of another person or impeded upon their rights, so they're stripped of most of theirs. But minors are entitled to every right that adults are entitled to. I have the right to speak out against ordinances at City Council meetings and I also have the right to say what I want on the internet and on the airwaves (if the network lets me).

[lili462]

I'm not all for censorship but i do care about what little children hear. I dont think "curse words" should be totally banned from tv though. I think it should be allowed on late night television and on shows that little kids shouldnt be watching anyways. I dont think radio should be censored nor do i think the cds that i buy should be censored. But you also have to stop and think, whats the chances of a child leaving home to go to school, babysitters ect, and being exposed to such language. I was taking a walk the other day and this little girl, she could have been no older than 8, i heard her say such words as "whore", "bitch" and "fuck". Its far to common these days that kids here this type of stuff at home too. so for the most part making daytime television child friendly is pointless.