The United States government has always had an interest in protecting its people from anything it considers immoral. In support of this, the US government has implemented various rules and agencies to see that the rules and laws of the nation are being followed and that the government is adequately protecting the people of the United States. There are times, however, when the government or its agencies may overstep their bounds and operate with more authority than they were originally given. The case of the FCC v. Fox Television Stations does just that. It looks into an agency that takes its powers to do what it thinks is right and does what it thinks is best for the country. Without the proper oversight, however, the FCC might just be doing the complete opposite. As the technologies associated with communications have evolved, so have the messages that are being transmitted. In an effort to shield citizens from offensive speech, the United States government passed the Communications Act of 1934, which created the rules that a broadcaster would have to obey to remain on the air and restricted broadcasters from “utter[ing] any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication” (Scalia 2). This ban on obscene language was only to be in effect from the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. in an attempt try to limit children from hearing the offensive speech. Congress created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate this act and in 1975, the FCC implemented the statutory ban on indecent broadcasts when the comedian George Carlin did his “Filthy Words” piece during a daytime broadcast. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court found the ban to be both good law and constitutional. The FCC said... ... middle of paper ... ...This is the same logic that has led me to the side of the dissenters. The ruling in FCC v. Fox gives these government agencies more room to operate and requires less government oversight than before. While this gives a certain amount of freedom for these agencies to operate, it opens the door to a misuse of power at the expense of the American citizen. Works Cited Brooks, Samuel G. "FCC V. Fox Television Stations And The Role Of Logical Error In Hard Look Review." Brigham Young University Law Review 2010.2 (2010): 687-717. Business Source Complete. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Davidson, Amy. "The Court Flees from Expletives." Close Read. The New Yorker, 21 June 2012. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. . Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. Fox Television Stations 556 U. S. (2009)
In the Supreme Court case of the New York Times Co. vs. United States there is a power struggle. This struggle includes the entities of the individual freedoms against the interests of federal government. It is well known that the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, but to what extent does this freedom exist. There have been instances in which speech has been limited; Schenck vs. United States(1919) was the landmark case which instituted such limitations due to circumstances of “clear and present danger”. Many have noted that the press serves as an overseer which both apprehends and guides national agenda. However, if the federal government possessed the ability to censor the press would the government restrain itself? In the case of the Pentagon Papers the necessities of individual freedoms supersedes the scope of the national government.
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
One hears about censorship of free word happening all the time in other countries, but did it ever happen in the United States of America? Not many people know that restriction of free speech and personal expression did in fact occur in America, mainly during the 1950s. During this tumultuous time, newfound fears of threatening outside influences, mainly political in nature, had set in and as a result the government tried to protect the American public from these “radical” ideas through the use of censorship, or a restriction in the flow of information or ideas. Working feverishly to control what they deemed inappropriate, they launched multiple programs to combat these influences. Unfortunately, the government’s reasonably good intentions warped and changed over time, and they wound up actually preventing the spread of culture and knowledge in America. This in turn had a lasting impact on the United States, both immediate and long-term. In essence, the 1950s was a time of fear, despair, and even disorder in the United States of America, as a desire to protect America led to a skewed witch hunt shown especially by the creation of the House un-American Activities Committee, censorship of literature, and censorship of music.
The case that I chose to analyze is Reno v. ACLU. It is the first Internet related U.S. Supreme Court case ever to be decided. Seven of the justices found the argued provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court found that the Internet is similar to a shopping mall or library not a broadcast medium as the government refered to it. The majority opinion for this case was that the Internet is a unique marketplace for ideas. The ruling states that while there is a large amount of pornographic material out there, it normally isn’t come across on accident. They stated that the CDA already holds back a good amount of speech that is alright for adult to adult conversations, which they do have a constitutional right to receive. While they recognize the CDA efforts to protect children from harmful speech and pornographic material, it still does not justify the unnecessarily broad suspension of speech. The final outcome was that they found that what the CDA was trying to do would violate speakers messages who are rightfully protected under the First Amendment.
Throughout history, censorship has been a significant issue of controversy. With the demands of popular entertainment,...
...tween media analysts and former Fox employees, and excerpts from Fox News programming. It's possible that current anchors, and the film's biggest targets -- Bill O'Reilly, Carl Cameron, Brit Hume, Shawn Hannity -- were invited to participate but declined, or perhaps Fox got wind of the documentary and forbade its employees from participating. (2) Outfoxed rightly accuses the company of blurring objective news with editorial commentary, but in not identifying what's what (what's presented by Fox as news vs. that identified by them as commentary), the film only confuses the argument further.
This gives another reason why these acts go against our constitution and the people's rights. Since the Congress cannot make laws reducing the “ freedom of speech or of the press” these acts don't take away the rights, they just limit them a lot. “Provided that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offense against the law, during the time it shall be in force.” Even though the laws expired or became out of date you could be jailed if you didn't follow the rule anyway. This rebuttal is a pretty big eye opener for both sides argument, it shows that it's not taking the right away, but it's limiting it so much that it might as well not be a law.
The First Amendment states that "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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
Head, Tom . "Radio Censorship." About.com Civil Liberties. About.com, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
“Censorship is the act of suppressing publications, movies, television programs, plays, letters, and so on that are considered to be obscene, blasphemous, or politically unacceptable” (MccGwire 4). Censorship should be enforced because it is needed into today’s society. Censorship needs to be used in media, hate speech, and obscene material.
AT&T had their abuse of the internet during an August 2007 concert. The band playing was Pearl Jam. The lead singer was an anti-Bush supporter and during the concert, he substituted some of the song lyrics with his lyrics. His lyrics were against Bush and AT&T was in charge of the concert. AT&T blocked the streaming of the concert and they blamed it on “excessive profanity”. His own lyrics did not contain profanity. His lyrics were “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush find yourself another home." His lyrics did not even mention profanity and it shocked the lead singer. After that, AT&T blamed it on the censorship on an external website contractor hired to watch the stream. They called “it being a mistake” and rereleased the stream with the lead singer’s lyrics (ACLU). The last point is what happened to the FCC rules and the argument against Net
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
"The U.S government-Federal, State and Local- has a limited duty to monitor the internet for numerous reasons. They can violate constitutional rights and privacy. There can be serious miscommunication issues, and profiling issues.
Censorship in radio For the past several years Freedom of speech in America has had it’s meaning changed many times. Although the changes have gone unnoticed by most Americans, In the radio business they are felt day in and day out. radio personalities, programmers, and owners have to deal with this everyday but they too have no real idea what the Federal Communications Commission’s idea of free speech is. You see the rule seems to change depending on who you are. If you are tagged by the FCC anything the broadcaster does or says is monitored and picked over and fined.( Howard stern. King Of All Media.165-166 ) The FCC has been picking on Howard Stern for years, they singled Howard for doing “trash radio”. But according to Stern other programs are saying or doing the same if not worse things than he is. Stern tells of when Geraldo said (Stern Miss America. 526-530.) in a show about the Mennendez brothers being molested for doing something wrong. “Hell, I’m not for child molestation, but if I knew anal sex . . . punishment, I’d keep my room clean.” Geraldo goes untouched. but Howard got fined for saying “lesbian’s filled with lust.” (Howard Stern. Miss America.519). That seems a bit more tame to me but since Stern is tagged he gets fined. The First Amendment states. “congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” This rule, over the years has changed to “congress shall make . . .” as interpreted by the FCC (king of all.
" Time for the Supreme Court to End FCC Indecency Censorship. " The Huffington Post. N.p., 11 Jan. 2012.