Search the Community

am actual feeling bad for the reporter. for sake of argument let's assume she knew what were being chanted. even if her reimagining o' the chant were wrong, were arguable not stoopid to pretend the chants were innocuous as 'posed to venomous. gd is no doubt aware, but most europeans and canadians won't realize, just how harsh fcc penalties can be if a network knowing allows profanity to be spread on airwaves. a repeated chant is not a spontaneous outburst. if nbc knowing continues broadcasting the chant, the fcc can come down on 'em with stoopid levels o' fines. aside: this curious bit o' american stoopid goes back to an old george carlin radio bit which resulted in american broadcasters complete changing their guidelines regarding profanity. what were undeniable stoopid were the american right taking a sportcaster's comment as somehow indicative o' lib media gaslighting. tired o' the complaints 'bout trump and alt-right gaslighting, the gomer pyle portion o' the country decides to use a nascar interview o' all things to channel their whataboutism? is one o' those absurdities we never woulda' predicted. regardless, to keep on -topic o' random-interesting-weird, am gonna offer a link to the george carlin history, assuming we can dig up a decent link 'cause is unlikely boardies wanna hear Gromnir rail 'bout fcc v. pacifica bit. "About a year and a half after the gig in Santa Monica, John Douglas was driving with his 15-year-old son back to New York from a college visit at Yale University. It was an early Tuesday afternoon in 1973, the day before Halloween. Douglas, a CBS executive and a member of a pornography watchdog group called Morality in Media, was flipping through the radio when he landed on 99.5 WBAI-FM. Paul Gorman, the host of WBAI's "Lunch Pail" afternoon program, warned listeners that he was about to play Carlin's "Filthy Words" bit, a modified version of "Seven Dirty Words" recorded on the Occupation: Foole album, and that some of the language could be deemed as offensive. Douglas kept the dial on WBAI. A month later, Douglas filed a complaint with the FCC, calling the monologue "garbage." "He was the funniest comedian of his generation," Douglas told the Chicago Sun-Sentinel in 2008, shortly after Carlin's death. "I didn't turn him in. I was turning in WBAI."" situation is so utter contrived. hardly a wee tyke is the fifteen-year-old. original complaint is filed by a leader o' the Morality in Media group who just happens to tune into the show during what would otherwise be school hours, a time when his son would typical be in school, so that we got a situation wherein an infant (anyone not yet reached their legal majority is legal an infant) is in a situation where they is s'posed caught unawares by a radio broadcast. nevertheless, the law ignores such transparent bs and the Court pretends as if the situation weren't a complete fabrication to trigger a planned legal action. *insert eye roll here* HA! Good Fun!

your narcissism is revealing. is not as if carlin were some kinda fringe comic unappreciated by the public in his own time. heck, in 1972, carlin's seven words you can never say on television were receiving national radio airtime and the resulting court case also garnered widespread attention. warning: sweary also 1972... not the movie, but the actual real life events. is as if some people forget what were happening in this country in the late 60s and early 70s. carlin were speaking to his time not in spite of it. think you are woke? *snort* HA! Good Fun!

would also help if he knew what is a strawman fallacy. oh, and just for funsies, am recalling a carlin quote which might be relevant. "So I want to thank the Pentagon, the Soviet Union and the military-industrial complex from the bottom of my heart. Without them, I could never have become the man I am today." george were a big fan o' soviet style oppression. *eye-roll* HA! Good Fun!

sell booze to minors just like provide indecent material to kids in a library? maybe not so analogous. after all, there is no first amendment equivalent protecting the right to smoke or drink. that said, goal o' protection o' children does result in a narrow exception to otherwise protected indecent speech. "obscene" may be prohibited w/o any special state or fed laws, but obscene is nevertheless an extreme fluid standard. obscenity wouldn't cover vogue model mishap regardless. indecent speech, on the other hand... still wouldn't be covered (no pun) but would be closer. george carlin's seven dirty words you can't say on the radio were in fact successful banned from radio 'cause a vulnerable child were unwitting exposed to the indecent comedy performance. *gasp* parent (coincidental, the parent were a planning board member o' Morality in Media, a group dedicated to removing filth from tv and radio) were taking his son (tender age o' fifteen) to visit yale during what would otherwise be school hours and had car radio playing when the skit were on a local radio station... or so it were claimed by the plaintiffs. sure, the situation were 'bout as contrived as a hannity "news" spot, but for sake o' the case, facts were accepted as valid. regardless, pacifica case set standard for an exception to free speech protections. indecent may be limited in situations where unwitting minors might be harmed. however, attempts to ban indecent material from internet to protect children who might access has consistent failed in Court. why is radio different from internet? 'cause. *shrug* in spite o' pacifica, the Court insists limits on indecent speech must be narrow tailored so as to not undue limit adult speech rights. so is a library more like internet or radio? at the very least, some kinda rating system would need be developed to protect librarians, 'cause vagueness is a win for plaintiffs trying to kill such a law as the TN bit, most common fail for such indecent speech regulations is vagueness. if lawmakers is gonna mess 'round with free speech, they gotta be clear 'bout what is being prohibited. simple rule o' thumb for layman is if a reasonable and ordinary person ain't certain material is prohibited by a law, then it isn't. is all kinda hurdles for TN law, but is one o' those bits o' doomed legislation which makes a segment o' the constituency happy. faith is their shield 'gainst the devil and injustice... or whatever.. link arms and sing. HA! Good Fun!

if Gromnir had been asked to write the opinion for the Court, we woulda' come to similar conclusions as kennedy even if we got there a bit different. that said, justice stevens dissent were not wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX the first amendment ain't the absolute prohibition 'gainst government interference one might believe from reading text o' the amendment. a few such restrictions is curiously ad hoc, such as with george carlin's seven words. kids get special consideration when deciding First Amendment cases, w/o any specific guide as to what is the limits o' the special consideration. 'course most constitutional limits on speech is based on common sense, such as with time, place and manner restrictions. sure, nurses should be allowed to picket if they believe they is being treated unfair by hospitals, but when patient health and welfare is put at risk by such demonstrations, the government may place reasonable restrictions on nurse speech. can't prevent from picketing, but cannot block ambulance ingress/egress or exceed certain volume limits. no real argument, yes? incidental regulation o' speech also gets a reduced standard o' review. if burning the flag is protected by the first amendment, then why isn't burning your draft card? law which requires a young man to keep his draft card were not designed to limit political speech but did so incidental. (things is looking a bit less clear and absolute, yes?) the Court has also been somewhat dismissive o' money as it relates to the first amendment. so-called commercial speech, which is most often associated with advertising, does not get full protection o' the First Amendment. there is a kinda integrity in unwavering absolutism. unfortunate, citizens united is one o' those cases which makes the absolutes appear foolish and even downright dangerous. simplicity and elegance in legal writing is admirable, but there are times when common sense must be considered. expenditures supporting speech is not same as speech and corporations is not same as persons. a corporation, for example may not run for elected office, but the reasoning o' the Court would have us wondering why such is not possible. and like it or not, but unlimited spending by special interests and thinly disguised foreign actors is a practical handicap on the democratic process. the absolute prohibition o' government to limit speech is appealing, but we cannot let such pure and simple beauty blind us from the need for practical limits on speech. and yeah, is no good litmus test for identifying which speech restrictions is necessary, which is why we would likely decide as Kennedy. even so, am recognizing, as a matter o' pragmatism, that J. Stevens were correct. sound legal reasoning may lead one to an unreasonable and even harmful conclusion. HA! Good Fun!

oddly enough, carlin is actual relevant in US policy making... if only as a footnote. fcc v. pacifica taught us that school-aged kids gets the "cute-case" exception to ordinary con law jurisprudence. the retarded, amish, and school kids is among the select categories o' peoples that all needs extra protection. carlin's "filthy words" resulted in the creation o' quasi-protected status for indecent speech... to protect kiddies. HA! Good Fun!

aside: oddly enough in the USA we do have one category o' "offensive" speech that may be abridged due to the class (legal class as 'posed to simple dictionary meaning) o' the listener. warning: sweary carlin's routine inspired a constitutional battle. the actual facts o' the case is kinda ridiculous and will make most roll their eyes. a ny radio station broadcasts the above during afternoons when kids as at school and the radio station adds a warning that hic svnt dracones. john douglas is driving his son to a dentist appointment during regular school hours and he fails to catch the warning before the mind o' his infant (trivia o' the day: common law legal infancy is one younger than eighteen) were warped by the offensive torrent o' vulgarity blaring from his amc pacer's radio. the father just happens to be part o' a an advocacy group: Morality in Media. were such an obvious set-up. regardless, the Court decides that government efforts to censor media broadcasts gets reduced scrutiny wherein goal is to protect the innocent children. is a decision based very little on the rule o' law. Gromnir's mentor observed that more than a couple fundamental rights decisions could be best explained by identifying the "victim"-- Cute Cases is what he called 'em. why does children, the mentally handicapped and amish get seeming special rulings that don't align logically with established Constitutional Jurisprudence? perhaps, at the end o' the day, Justices is ordinary folks who will let their sympathy guide their choices? anyways, we did wanna clarify that there is one situation where in the class o' the listener is relevant when deciding if offensive speech can be suppressed. HA! Good Fun! ps we don't actual know if mr. douglas' car were a pacer.

They can arrest people for putting up posters? that is kinda a naive statement. your ex-girlfriend makes 10,000 posters with a less than flattering picture o' you accompanied by the following statement: "i slept with him once and now i have chlamydia" what if the "poster" had your name, address, phone #, and social security on it? has a "poster" with the vitals o" you and 49 other folks along with, "let's party like it"s 1999!" am hopeful you thinks the above is offensive posters, no? admittedly, in the US we is more tolerant o' speech than is pretty much all o' europe, but even in the US we got limits on free speech.... and, returning to your earlier query, the question o' the extent o' 1st amendment protections regarding online speech is less clear than one might suppose. the internet is a bit o' a problem for SCOTUS... for many reasons. the public forum doctrine were changed from a shield to a pairing knife by the Rehnquist Court. the reason why hari-krishnas cannot pass out their flowers (and solicit donations) in airports is 'cause the framers didn't conceive of airports in 1791... or 1868? (am not gonna even try to explain incorporation via xiv due process and its impact on the original intent arguments.) the internet has been likened to a public utility analogous to tv and radio more than once, so if george carlin's 7 words could be censored on radio to protect kiddies, then what did that suggest for legislation such as the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and Child Online Protection Act (COPA)? little cindy lou who, and other cute and largely hypothetical children, is the greatest threat to free speech protections in the US. perhaps thankfully, SCOTUS has had to ignore a goodly amount o' precedent to protect online speech, but that means we gots a rather flimsy foundation o' protections for online speech. btw, type "Bong Hits Jesus" into your favorite search engine. might be enlightening to see just how stoopid is the restrictions on what you may print on a poster, even here in the good old US o' A. as we said, beware o' cindy lou who. regardless, am betting that oro can come up with innumerable poster examples that could/should be criminalized. our first reaction, particularly in the US, is to cry "free speech" whenever we sees any kind o' censorship. nevertheless, is some kinda censorship that makes good sense, even to a staunch defender o' individual rights. HA! Good Fun!