|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 02/15/06 18:36
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:24:15 -0800, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>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.
Oh, I have missed out how this story went further with the women trying to
sue that station for "boob-gate". So the only thing she could do was file a
complaint with the FCC, who would issue a fine then. And this fine would be
hefty, given the severity of what happened then.
>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.
OK, gotcha.
>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).
Yes, I heard this before in this group.
Thanks for your "lecture" on laws etc :-)
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]
|