|
|
Posted by PTRAVEL on 02/15/06 18:24
"Martin Heffels" <mot@sneeuw.nl> wrote in message
news:3686v1p8940an0okhki22d4sohbusp5l5r@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:48:57 -0800, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin Heffels" <mot@sneeuw.nl> wrote in message
> >news:3gt4v1hh6muebga6uh4u00g8gqe84q0dgt@4ax.com...
> >
> >> One reason I don't watch American reality-stuff anymore. All those
beeps
> >> and blurs are so disturbing. OK, I understand the need for them,
> >
> >I don't. America is starting to reap the results of this neo-Puritanism,
> >and it's not pretty.
>
> Indeed. But with all these people reaking a chance to sue and make a
> gigantic claim because of something said or done or heard, it's protection
> of the name of the station, and of course keeping legal costs into
> perspective. It's not only puritanism, but also says lots about how people
> try to misuse a system.
There is no private cause of action against a broadcaster who transmits
obscenity, i.e. no private citizen in America can sue for this. The FCC
enforces its administrative rules with fines which are payable to the
government.
>
>
> >> but why
> >> don't they send uncensored versions to countries which don't have these
> >> strict laws?
> >
> >Note, too, that, in the U.S., it is not law, but administrative policy,
set
> >by the FCC, that determines what language may not be broadcast.
>
> But don't they write the laws for it?
They are not laws, but rules set by the FCC. Laws are enacted by Congress.
Rules are set by administartive agencies. Rules, like any state action,
most comply with the Constitution, i.e. they must afford due process
pursuant to the Fifth Amendment and they must not impermissibly restrict
specch pursuant to the Frist Amendment. My recollection is that application
of the FCC rules may be tested before an administrative judge.
In the U.S., the government, whether state or federal, is severely
restricted in its ability to regulate speech. Over the course of two
hundred years of First Amendment jurisprudence, "obscenity," which is a
legal term of art and has a specific definition, has been held to be
"non-speech" and, as such, outside the protections of the First Amendment.
> Or are you saying that the
> Constitution or whatever laws there may be, would make such policies
> unlawful? In that case those weird claims could be stopped, and life on tv
> return to normal, without blurring and beeping.
There are no weird claims, at least in the context of civil litigation by
private individuals because they have no standing to sue for violation of
adminsitrative rules. The FCC, which is part of the executive branch, has
made a number of weird claims for violations of its rules, but that merely
reflects the policies of the current administration, which is very weird
(and that's about the nicest thing I can think to call it).
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Never be afraid to try something new.
> Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
> A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|