Print Story Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et al.
By ammoniacal (Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:07:35 PM EST) (all tags)
438 U.S. 726; 98 S. Ct. 3026; 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 135; 43 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 493; 3 Media L. Rep. 2553

Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. The F.C.C. was justified in concluding that Carlin's "Filthy Words" broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.

The Court accepted as compelling the government's interests in 1) shielding children from patently offensive material, and 2) ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.

Thanks, Mr. Carlin, for inviting the vampire through the threshold.
You don't have to worry about the FCC now that you're dead. Lucky you.

< odds, ends, middles, fronts, backs, driving, funerals, and other assorted bricabrac | Day X. >
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et al. | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Not sure about that. by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #1 Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST
How do you think ouija boards work? They sure as anything don't have wires.

Well, of course. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:02:43 PM EST
I'm sure everyone past a third-grade education understands that Ouija boards are heliographic antennae.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Is this a joke? How was it . . . by slozo (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:03:07 AM EST
. . . that Carlin invited the vampire through the threshold? It's not like he was doing anything very new here . . .

In my opinion, the media is concentrating on the 7 (or 9?) filthy words thing on purpose in remembering his life, to deflect people examining that he had become an advocate for 9/11 'truth' and re-investigation. It is to deflect positive opinion from a man who was vehemently cynical about american politics and the criminals in office. His filthy words thing was small potatoes as a news story back when it happened (in the 70s for goodness sakes!), and now it's like it's the only thing he was famous for. Or so we are led to believe . . .

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, et al. | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback