Game of Thrones and True Blood, coming to a channel near you.
NOTE: In the books, the girl is in her early teens.
Posted on 06/30/2012 6:20:36 PM PDT by bizlawnews
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning enforcement of the Federal Communications Commission's indecency regulation reaches beyond the broadcast industry into the telecom sector.
(Excerpt) Read more at fiercetelecom.com ...
I am convinced that Justice Roberts ( who is now ruined for life) is entrapped is some kind of blackmail. I suspect he was compromised very badly. It will come out.
The SCOTUS just gave the TV networks permission to promote cussing, nudity, gay sex, premarital sex and secularism.
Devestating.
But no criticism of Obama, no right wing hate speech (preacher telling audience that homosexuality is against Gods Law) or anything promoting conservative ideas because they are inflammatory.
This is a less significant issue than in the past as traditional TV networks are no longer the only viable choices for most people. Networks that pledge to be clean, or at least pledge clean times, will get more viewership.
Game of Thrones and True Blood, coming to a channel near you.
NOTE: In the books, the girl is in her early teens.
Good grief, people. There is next to no information here. This is a unanimous verdict with Thomas and Scalia on board, saying the Obama FCC is wacko. Don’t burn your television sets just yet.
What the heck!?!?
Two cable premium network series that feature a LOT of sex and nudity.
Was that on sale at magazine stands? You can see her entire derriere for goodness sake!
Yep.
Rolling Stone likes to be “edgy”.
Worse than that, what "information" there is here isn't accurate. The Supreme Court did not uphold an "appeals court ruling that rejected the FCC's indecency regulations as unconstitutionally vague," as this brief article asserts. The Supreme Court did not reach that issue in its decision and, in fact, vacated the Second Circuit's decision that had so ruled.
The Fox II decision rejected the FCC's attempt to fine or otherwise penalize the Fox Network and ABC for broadcasts that contained a few instances of profanity, based on an FCC policy regarding such "fleeting expletives," which policy had only been adopted after those broadcasts had taken place. This being the case, the networks naturally had no prior notice of the policy that the FCC was subsequently attempting to enforce. The Supreme Court precluded the FCC from imposing the fine/penalties in that specific situation, saying that to do so would deprive the networks of due process.
That's pretty much all that Fox II did. The Supreme Court did not invalidate the FCC's indecency regulations, or its policy interpreting those regulations as to the "fleeting expletives" issue, nor preclude the FCC from applying its policy prospectively. A number of rather breathless news reports have suggested otherwise, but they are simply wrong.
Might as well get rid of FCC and save some money
Might as well get rid of FCC and save some money
Been nice if they applied that to the health carer bill. Perhaps they take Nancy pee’s advice and are waiting to see what gets written up. It is rather insane that this court objects to vagueness just a week before its crystal clear "penaltytax ruling.
Good! The proper business of the FCC is to be a neutral arbiter of agreements on spectrum usage, radiated power, secondary emissions, and other technical aspects of communications technology. Devising moral standards and promoting them among a self-identified class of adherents is your church’s job.
Good point. Some of the earliest cave paintings would be obscene by some standards.
Humans have ALWAYS been interested in that type of beautiful art. We are hard-wired that way.
fcc ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.