Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
Simple approach to the SCOTUS on televised or broadcast obscenity: Everyone should agree on a set of seven substitute words, i.e., Scalia for ... Alito for ... Thomas for ... Cheney for ... and announce these words.
And then freely use them on broadcast radio and television. A rose by any other name? This is about the Supremes, or else a subset of the Supremes thinking that they can read minds, i.e, they already announced that if children hear the word "f--k" they imagine sexual acts. Funniest thing is just how stupid these people are. You can strip search a child, but you can't say "f--k" on national television?
To be simple about it, Antonin Scalia can go Bork himself. And he should stop wiping his Roberts with the Constitution and the First Amendment, and playing with his little Alito while listening to those oral arguments.
The SCOTUS ruling upholding the FCC's fine for the use of profanity was an obscenity. This is a free speech issue. Any tv or radio station should be allowed to broadcast profanity over its airwaves. This ban on the 7 or more dirty words is another ridiculous example of the govt trying to child-proof our society. It's an outrage and it's time Americans wake up from their catatonic stupor and fight this ban on free speech.
Why is it that the conservative line that consumer behavior should be used to curb bad actions by companies who provide food, education, or widgets and doo-dads, but when it comes to entertainment a whole different set of rules applies? And why is it that it only pertains to particular words? Why not ideas? Why is it not ok to say the f-word, but it's perfectly already to advocate hate? I'm not saying either should be banned, but I don't see why one should be subject to legislation when the other is demonstrably more destructive.
But those are all the ones we want to stay!!!
Well now there is or soon will be a new FCC group they can change the policy again, no? I think so and maybe they should.
According to Chris Matthews on Harball. He speculated that the only way this Specter defection makes sense to the Dems, is to get his vote on healthcare. He would be freed up to vote the democrats way.
It sounds like its short term thinking.
Please ask your guests if she thinks that
The congress should re-legislate a ban on Usury, as opposed to what Last Friday (Carolyn Maloney) said ...
it is needed to UNDO the 1974 supreme court ruling allowing unlimited interest rates.
http://www.brandlandusa.com/2008/12/22/chasing-the-old-dutch-cleanser-girl/history of Dutch Cleanser
Spectar was the senator who wouldn't allow the oil execs to be sworn in during testimony. What a shill.
You mean you don't remember Dutch Cleanser on the supermarket shelves! It's not that long ago, really, not that long ago.
1. Brian Lehrer's opening comments and most news of the court since Alito joined just serve as a reminder that we have one of the worst (as in most right-wing, least talented, least intelligent) courts in American history.
2. If a single accidental utterance can be penalized, could WNYC be penalized for the accidental utterance of a caller to The Brian Lehrer Show?
Anybody who watches the news knows Specter is, was and probably always will be an independent thinker.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR and PRI, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.