Skip to main content

View Diary: Fox News wins in court (429 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing obscene on Stern (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What Stern does is frequently and subjectively gross. It is not obscene which is a legal term of art and a court recognized exception to the first amendment police powers of the state. Obscenity is quite a different animal, from a legal perspective, than indecent or offensive although these terms are frequently used by politicians interchangeably. It is not illegal to publish offensive material.

    I am not aware that Stern or any of these other commercial entertainers have EVER done anything that could or should remotely be considered "obscene."

    If there is a legitimate argument for "obscenity" that is a criminal determination that should be reserved for a court and has no business on the desk of a regulatory agency.

    The FCC fines broadcasters for publishing (broadcasting) "indecency." This regulatory function and speech policing authority is one that Congress has no constitutional authority to grant to the FCC in the first place. Congress does not have the authority to regulate our speech and it cannot delegate speech policing to another federal agency.

    Courts, in many respects, have taken a different view and commercial interests have not done a good job in protecting our rights when looking only to protect their commercial licenses. Still, we should never accept a federal agency's claim of legitimate authority to license the content the speech we read, hear or see.



    Religion is like sodomy: harmless for consenting adults and cruel if forced on a child.

    by Caoimhin Laochdha on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:26:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site