Well THAT’S A F***ing Relief!
[posted by Justin Levine]
The Second Circuit brings back some sanity to the broadcast biz with this [PDF] decision on FCC indecency rules. In addition to being a well articulated ruling on Administrative Law, it also offers a great legal history of the FCC/indecency controversy. Recommended reading for anyone who is interested in the topic. [Update: Alternative PDF link to the decision here.]
I’m trying to convince KFI management to simply have Bill Handel read the court decision aloud on the air (word for word) in order to educate the listeners about the current state of the law. They still think its too risky. Can’t say I blame them, but all we’d be doing is reading an official document issued by one of our great federal courts. What’s the harm in that? 😉
A truly FCCed policy…
News Item: A federal appeals court on Monday found that a new Federal Communications Commission policy penalizing accidentally aired expletives was invalid, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious” and might not survive First Amendment scrutiny. The …
dustbury.com (5a1bcd) — 6/4/2007 @ 5:49 pmWhat the hell, Justin? The goddamn PDF link is corrupt.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/4/2007 @ 5:52 pmnk –
PDF link is working for me. Dunno what to say.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:03 pmWell, this is the message I get:
Sign in to access FREE Case Law!
——————————————————————————–
Email New to FindLaw?
Password Create your FREE account today!
Registered FindLaw users receive instant access to:
• FREE Daily updated case law
• Over 50 FREE email newsletters
• Attorney litigation history from Thomson Legal Record
Keep me logged in until I sign out.
——————————————————————————–
Forgot your password?
If you’ve forgotten your password, we can help.
Help | Site Map | Contact Us | About Us | FindLaw Local | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
nk (c66fe9) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:08 pmCopyright © 1994-2006 FindLaw, a Thomson business
nk –
Whoops. I guess it works for me because I’m signed into FindLaw. It’s free – but its a pain to sign in, so I don’t blame you. I’ve provided an alternative link directly from the 2nd Circuit website. Lemme know if that works.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:13 pmMuch better. Thank you.
nk (c66fe9) — 6/4/2007 @ 6:20 pmI think the next time one of these cases comes to this court, the attorney arguing for restraint in language should argue using adjectives and adverbs that completely push the envelope of what this court says is OK. Rub their faces in it and see how they like it. “Oh, you don’t like my aggressive language.. I’m just emphatically exercising my first amendment rights to express my argument in this case.. you understand, don’t you?”
Can’t our elected officials just decide that we aren’t going to have foul language, and if we citizens don’t like so much restraint, we can elect some other officials who can loosen the standards? (wow! representative government!)
Instead we have courts piling on more and more “nuanced” decisions trying to describe what rights elected officials don’t have in defining the limits of foul language. The courts end up making it impossible to describe any limits.
I’m not worried in the least about “unequal enforcement” of the law in these cases. It’s like trying to almost touch a hot stove. Sometimes you actually touch it and get burned. If you are worried about unpredictable burns, don’t try to almost touch a hot stove.
Ken (245846) — 6/4/2007 @ 9:02 pm53 pages of a decision on profanity and not one reference to South Park’s episode with 164 utterances of the “S” word. Multiple references to that dusty old hippie Carlin.
Lame.
I'm Geekier (55ea85) — 6/5/2007 @ 7:12 am