The Decency Police Lose Their Day in Court

Thank you James! There are way better ways to protect society than by crucifying the media over some little words. What every family watches on TV is their own business, and we don't need time and money wasted on punishing networks for airing the occasional F-bomb. People need to chill out, and realize that their kids surely hear much worse at school. It's just words.

I don't like censorship. I do like freedom of speech. I also like a little common courtesy and a mild touch of common sense. The artsy fartsy, out of touch crowd in NYC and LA have little idea how the rest of us out in America pull our pants on each day. I have the super deluxe HD cable package at home and I can watch people screw all night long if I want or listen to them cuss like sailors. I paid for the ability to do that. The public broadcast airwaves are a whole other matter and should stay that way. I talk totally different when it is just my brother and me in the room than I do when my mom is in the room.

Using Bush and Cheney's expletives around an open mic they were unaware of is silly reasoning to say it is OK to allow TV shows to allow it. Bad behavior is always bad behavior regardless of who does it. As Bill O'Reilly (ugh) likes to point out, you don't justify your bad behavior by pointing to some one else's worse behavior.

Just because you can say the F word or S word is no reason to allow it to be said willy nilly on TV. What is next, actual nudity and sex instead of heavy breathing from under the sheet? I mean after all, real people are having sex all the time.......so you may as well show it on free TV.

You raise some good points in your post. Here are some facts that you might find interesting. An overwhelming majority of Americans (91%) object to government deciding what they are able to watch on television. When activists talk about protecting children instead of parents—here’s what they’re talking about: sixty-eight percent of the country’s 110 million television-viewing households do not include children under age 18 and households with children have different challenges to face due to the varying ages of kids within each family. Currently, there are 11 million households with children age 6-11, 15 million households with children age 0-5 and 9 million households with children 12-17.

TV has come a long way from the days of three channels and rabbit ears antennas. Today’s TV audiences are putting to use broadband, DVRs, TV video on demand, iPods and cell phones to greatly expand their choices about what, when, where and how to watch TV. New technology means consumers have more selection than ever and more control than ever over what they see on TV. We all have more choices and parents have more tools to ensure their kids only see what’s right for them. Let’s let parents decide—not government, for all of us.

There is more information to be found at http://www.TelevisionWatch.org

Thank you Keith! I am no fan of censorship either, but I do believe the people have the right to govern themselves, as expressed in the legislation of their elected officials. The public airwaves are the domain of the public and should be subject to the will of the majority, not the minority. There is no infringement of individual rights in this case.

With today's technology there is absolutely no excuse for broadcasting bad behavior, even in front of a live camera. Ever.

This is wrong on so many levels and you sir have missed the boat.

I am totally against censorship in any form or fashion. Looking at the court ruling, this is a win for the broadcasters. But, it does not necessarily mean that they will automatically allow the "f" word or any other foul language to be used gratuitously in pre-recorded shows. Things will likely stay just as they are. Live programs are a completely different story. They really have little control over what someone says and really should not be held responsible.

James,

I fully agree about the anti-urban tint to the comments about "New York City," but I also read into this the old chestnut about "activist judges" (aka liberal judges) destroying America's "moral fabric." However, my favorite "talking points" in the PTC press release are:

--"By a mere 2-1 margin" - besides a unanimous opinion what other margin would allow the decision to go in the favor of the broadcasters? In a three-judge appellate pannel, the decision always 3-0 or 2-1 in one direction or the other. "Mere" is a phrase that is better used to describe a Supreme Court opinion (a mere 5-4 majority makes quite a bit more sense), and is certainly included here to be rhetorically inflamatory (i.e., how dare these two judges decide what is right for our *children*).

--"The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has, in essence, stolen the airwaves from the public and handed ownership over to the broadcast industry" - OK, this one just made me laugh - considering the extraordinarily high presumption the FTC grants to license renewal for major broadcasters (have any of them ever lost their license?) and the fact that the licenses are for such lengthy periods of time, the assertion that the Second Circuit has handed over ownership of the airwaves just now, in 2007, seems just laughable. If anyone handed over the airwaves into private hands, it was the FCC, and for a pittance at that. The fact that the money that the networks have made on those licenses is now used to fight against the rules the FCC has attempted to restrain the networks with is both inevitable and ironic.