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.

 

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.

 

Isn't that why most broad chasers, err, broadcasters have a 1-, 3-, 7- minute dump buffer/button?

 

You can say that you have a bomb all day, but I'd still kick your ass for being a douche bag.

 

**** this thread.

 

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.

 

There are limitations on freedom of speech. You do not have freedom of speech or expression when it conflicts with another right, or shows explicit intent to commit a federal crime. However, that doesn't apply to saying you have a bomb at an airport. You will not be detained because you said you have a bomb. You will be detained because you basically threatened to harm others, which is against the law and the right to life. There is a fine line. You can say you are going to shoot the president, but you will be arrested for showing intent to commit high treason.

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.

 

I respect your opinion Clawhammer, but I wonder how or if your opinion would change if we were talking about the internet. Meaning, should we be able to sensor website because most kids after a certain age can get access to the web?

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.

 

The case is not about punishing the celebrities; it's about punishing the broadcasters.

 

just excercising my fucking free speech...

....carry on