View Poll Results: Should the Supreme Court Find that random F-bombs that are uttered on live television can be punishe
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll
F-bombs and Free Speech
#1
Thread Starter
F-bombs and Free Speech
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/t...7PQLanchO7DiUss
Supreme court is hearing arguments to punish celebs who have dropped f-bombs on live TV. Lower courts have held that their utterances are protected by free speech, government seeks to be given right to impose fines and punish.
This could be in the politics forum, but I am hoping mods do not move it because I am wondering what the average person thinks, not just the ideologues on either side that hang out in Politics, and that section is restricted only to members.
PLEASE OBSERVE FORUM RULES WHEN POSTING YOUR OPINIONS.
Supreme court is hearing arguments to punish celebs who have dropped f-bombs on live TV. Lower courts have held that their utterances are protected by free speech, government seeks to be given right to impose fines and punish.
This could be in the politics forum, but I am hoping mods do not move it because I am wondering what the average person thinks, not just the ideologues on either side that hang out in Politics, and that section is restricted only to members.
PLEASE OBSERVE FORUM RULES WHEN POSTING YOUR OPINIONS.
#2
Registered User
There is no true freedom of speech. Try saying I have a bomb at an airport and see what happens.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
#3
Moderator
Isn't that why most broad chasers, err, broadcasters have a 1-, 3-, 7- minute dump buffer/button?
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Quantico, VA
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by clawhammer,Nov 4 2008, 09:51 AM
There is no true freedom of speech. Try saying I have a bomb at an airport and see what happens.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sun★Works
Posts: 16,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I voted no, but I believe in the safe harbor law. If a station is broadcasting truely live with unscripted content then anything can happen.
With the standard 8 second delay in radio and the standard 2 minute delay in television any offensive content can be dumped.
Public broadcast should have standards and regulations but pay broadcast (cable) should have no regulations. It is up to the station in pay broadcast to determine what content they want to produce. If there is blowback from their content it is on them to determine if they want to produce something else.
In all honesty, if I were to really boil it down, the consumer should actually choose to tune in any given channel or not depending on what content THAT channel chooses to produce whether they are public or pay broadcast..........but we as a nation cannot rely on self regulation for just about anything in life.
With the standard 8 second delay in radio and the standard 2 minute delay in television any offensive content can be dumped.
Public broadcast should have standards and regulations but pay broadcast (cable) should have no regulations. It is up to the station in pay broadcast to determine what content they want to produce. If there is blowback from their content it is on them to determine if they want to produce something else.
In all honesty, if I were to really boil it down, the consumer should actually choose to tune in any given channel or not depending on what content THAT channel chooses to produce whether they are public or pay broadcast..........but we as a nation cannot rely on self regulation for just about anything in life.
#7
Registered User
Originally Posted by clawhammer,Nov 4 2008, 12:51 PM
There is no true freedom of speech. Try saying I have a bomb at an airport and see what happens.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
I say broadcast whatever you want. It's the responsibility of the watcher or the legal guardians of the watcher to determine which channels contain innapropriate material. Saying the F word doesn't express intent to harm another, and doesn't conflict with any other Constitutionally protected right.
Trending Topics
#8
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by clawhammer,Nov 4 2008, 11:51 AM
There is no true freedom of speech. Try saying I have a bomb at an airport and see what happens.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
There is no reason why it should be broadcast over TV when young children can be watching.
You would have to either regulate what content a website could have so kids can't see it, or have the parents buy blocking software of some kind. If the parents have to buy the software and set safeguards, thats the same as being in control and changing a tv channel. I don't think its as easy to do as someone might think. I wanted to find what new releases were at blockbuster once and googled "Video" and was surprised at the pron that popped up. Another google image search for something very benign once came up with some pretty racy pictures.
If I have small children I think I would feel protective of them and what they see and hear. But at the same time I do remember that I heard more f-bombs starting in about 3rd grade through high school than I have heard at any point in my life. Kids swear because they think it sounds cool.