You say it's not a good case find one that supports your view point and back it up with something rather then talking out your ass again and again. Look it up find something anything. Your argument is it's that way because I say so. My argument is it's that way because the constitution says so, the surpreme court said so and in this case it was about spreading a leaflet aginst the war and the found fit to actually ban him from doing so! If someone tried to restrict you from throwing out a flyer you'd be first in line to yell first amendment! Still it was found that this type of speach is protected by law. Commericial speach is different when it comes to avertisement not an indiviual or group of individuals expressing themselves rather or not they are working. The only issue is aloing the lines of yelling fire in a crouded theater.

I have facts you have your opinion. Truth trumps opinion every time.

 

Slander and libel laws don't deal with free speach they deal with falsely testifying impeding the main ideal that all men have the right to persue happiness so long as there pursuit does not hinder others from the same pursuit.

Blackmail still doesn't hinder free speach. You can rat someone or not all day long you can't force someone to pay you money for your silence or under threat! What does that have to do with free speach?

The constitution was written for the people not companies!


I'll research your FCC case law and tear it apart later

 

^^Don't bother. You didn't understand my last post so there's no point in continuing. Besides, we've (I've) hijacked this thread enough.

Have a nice evening.

 

[QUOTE=exceltoexcel,Jan 27 2005, 11:35 AM] The U.S. Constitution is the central instrument of government and the "supreme law of the land".

 

From the case you quoted


The question in this case is whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated because of its content. Obscene materials have been denied the protection of the First Amendment because their content is so offensive to contemporary moral standards . . . But the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas. If there were any reason to believe that the commission's characterization of the Carlin monologue as offensive could be traced to its political content - or even to the fact that it satirized contemporary attitudes about four-letter words - First Amendment protection might be required. But that is simply not this case. These words offend for the same reasons that obscenity offends . .

We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems . . . And of all forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received the most limited First Amendment protection . . . The reasons for [that distinction] are complex, but two have relevance to the present case. First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder . . . Because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content . . .


Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read . . .


It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any saction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution. The commission's decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant . . .


The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.




[Omitted are the concurring opinions of Justices Powell and Blackmun and the dissenting opinions of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Stewart, and White.]


So are you attempting to prove my case?


A mans home is more protected than the rights of the whole united states sorry it doesn't say that in the consitution.

 

Well, perhaps that someone shouldn't support a song that makes fun of tragic deaths (regardless of the victims' races), slavery, lynching, child molestation, child rapes and rapes in general, murders, the Holocaust, Hitler, the Devil, etc. Just kidding, just kidding!

 

Here we go the lastest case 1995

III. CONCLUSION
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 2545, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). The Constitution, however, permits restrictions on speech where necessary in order to serve a compelling public interest, provided that they are nartowly tailored. We hold that section 16(a) serves such an interest. But because Congress imposed different restrictions on each of two categories of broadcasters while failing to explain how this disparate treatment advanced its goal of protecting young minds from the corrupting influences of indecent speech, we must set aside the more restrictive one. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Federal Communications Commission with instructions to limit its ban on the broadcasting of indecent programs to the period from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

It is so ordered.


I didn't hear any gratutious sexual content!

 

This is my whole point. These laws were written in 1787! That is why laws are amended and changed.....to fit the needs of the people of the times. Law exists to maintain order. Let's pretend that there was no FCC or governing body to regulate what is shown on TV and what is said on the air? Can you imagine the TOTAL ANARCHY that would explode? Laws are written, changed, and amended....FOR A REASON! This is why we HAVE A CONGRESS! BECAUSE TIMES CHANGE! But I feel that we are getting off topic. The fact is, the people have spoken and look at the result!

 

So the supreme court RECOGNIZES the FCC

 

Yeah the result is people still want to see tits and ass and those that do think those that don't need to learn tolerance

The law I just gave you is from 1995 and it doesn't trump the consitution it only explains what the current judges find acceptable. The surpreme court openly realizes that it's a hard line to draw. That why I would fight every fine all the way there and still broadcast. no matter how I look at it the first is the most important and should be taken just as is. you can change the consitution all you need is 2/3 of the legislature and 2/3 of the states to do so. Constitution trumps all.