Supreme Court Reluctant to Remove Indecency Measures for TV

The Supreme Court has been talking all day about ending the government’s historic rule over television content, specifically regarding the removal of “indecency” rules that affect prime-time television. Despite the rumblings, the Court generally seems highly reluctant to ease its hold over television programming.

During oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning our favorite four-letter sentence enhancers and nudity, Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the “government can insist on a certain modicum of decency”. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. further clarified that “All we are asking for is for a few channels” free from profanity and lewd sexual content. He is a parent of two.

Since the 30s, federal law has prevented radio and TV broadcasters from producing material considered “obscene, indecent or profane.” It’s axiomatic to us, we don’t question it, even though it is a form of censorship.

Another thing we haven’t noticed is how heavily the government and the FCC have been leaning on broadcasters in the last decade. Under the Bush administration, the FCC issued several networks hefty fines. Fox was fiend for allowing celebrities (Cher, Bono) to use sentence enhancers during live awards programs. ABC was fined to the tune of $1.4 million for Charlotte Ross’s now-infamous NYPD Blue shower scene (couldn’t find it for linkage, but if you go hunting for it, be warned: NSFW).

Lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to strike down the FCC’s indecency rules, saying that such standards are out-dated and useless, especially given the amount of uncensored content that individuals are exposed to via the internet. They also pointed out the vague and arbitrary aspects of the standards, pointing out that an uncensored broadcast of hard-R rated Saving Private Ryan was permitted while other networks continued to receive fines for single-offenses.

The judges were primarily unswayed.

Justice Roberts told one lawyer:

“People understand that context counts, […] Your argument is that they can’t take context into account.”

Justice Elena Kagan straddled the issue, saying:

“It seems no one can use dirty words, except Steven Spielberg,” but then went on to say, “It seems to be a good thing to have a safe haven” in prime-time where such standards are enforced.

No matter what side of the issue you are on, so far: no progress. Oh, and in case you were wondering, by sentence enhancers, I meant profanity. I’m not being PC or glib, just cheeky.

Do you think the FCC’s decency standards should be lightened or thrown out all together?

Here’s the video report from our pals at Newsy:

[iframe src=”http://www.newsy.com/embed-video/10587/” width=”640? height=”360?]