Posted by PTRAVEL on 02/15/06 19:32

"Martin Heffels" <mot@sneeuw.nl> wrote in message
news:rss6v1tnir5uhi2eokkejpb5dlklhe7e2q@4ax.com...
> 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".

I had to google "boob gate" to find out to what it referred. Right, all the
woman could do is complain to the FCC. The seminal case was FCC v.
Pacifica, in which the FCC fined a radio station for broadcasting George
Carlin's "seven words you can't say on television" routine. The fine was
imposed when someone complained to the FCC that his kid heard the routine on
the car radio while they were driving around.

> 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.

Severity is in the mind of the beholder. I don't recall whether the Janet
Jackson incident resulted in a fine or not. I do know that Howard Stern, a
radio host, earned around $500,000 in fines for himself and his radio
station.

>
> >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.

[Back to original message]