Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Dear Head of the FCC: There is Nothing in the First Amendment About Protecting Children

Some motherf*cking good news today, as a federal appeals court in New York has struck down part of the FCC's sh*tty "indecency policy."
A federal appeals court on Tuesday knocked down the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy, saying that the agency's guidelines for fleeting expletives and other indecencies in broadcast were vague and violated the First Amendment.
...
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said in its opinion that the FCC's policy was "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."

The FCC declined to comment on whether it would appeal the decision. Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement: “We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.
What, you might ask, does "protecting children" and "empowering parents" have to do with "upholding the First Amendment"?

Short answer: Nothing a single f*cking thing. In fact, just the opposite. The terms "protecting children" and "empowering parents" are clever code words that mothereffers like Julius Genachowski, who is apparently a complete a-hole, use to disguise the fact that they are violating the First Amendment.

Remember that the First Amendment states,
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.
It does not say,
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, except in such cases as our children need to be protected.
Nor does it say,
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, unless doing so would empower parents.
It also doesn't say,
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, except in those cases where certain groups of people are spending money to campaign against incumbent politicians.
And it doesn't say,
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, except for people who say mean things about others online.
Also it doesn't say,
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, unless you're too close to certain types of public events.
And it doesn't say,
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, unless you're a kid at a public-school sponsored event "promoting" illegal drug use.
Sadly, this could go on for awhile. But you get my point.

Yes, this is a pretty f*cking exciting victory, but SFW? The First Amendment is violated all the time, and it's like we couldn't give less of a sh*t about it.

2 comments:

shampoo said...

people go out of their way to allow their children to watch some pretty horrifying things (imo). there are grown people who just about get the vapors if they hear or read a curse word. so, there's always a certain amount of support for these things.

what they don't get is the market determines, to an extent, what will be produced. even without any particular rules, if parents won't buy dvds with a lot of cursing on them for their children, then there would be dvds without cursing on them for parents to buy. again, without any sort of rules or laws that could inhibit other people's free speech.

Ricky Sprague said...

Ah, shampoo. You could not be more right.

I'm not sure what kind of a world people like the Parent's TV Council or whatever they're called inhabit -- that somehow if the FCC goes away or stops enforcing unconstitutional laws against "obscenity," that somehow we're going to see "f-bombs" on "Sesame Street."

Everything is "for the children" now anyway -- we don't need laws that violate adults' rights to protect them.

I am sick of having my choices limited by others' children!