* Parents groups claim victory on U.S. airwaves
* Critics say ruling from a "bygone era" in Internet age
(Note language in book title, paragraph 11)
By Jill Serjeant
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Barbra Streisand made
headlines when she said it three years ago, Vice President Dick
Cheney caused a stir in 2004 when he uttered the word to a
senator but TV mobster Tony Soprano used it constantly.
Yet even a fleeting use of the "F-word" or the "S-word" on
U.S. network television remains subject to fines under a
Supreme Court split ruling Tuesday that parent groups hailed
but critics said was out of touch with ordinary Americans.
"What's the point of continuing to apply a censorship
regime to one of the oldest mediums -- broadcast TV and radio
-- when kids are flocking to unregulated mediums in large
numbers?," said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow with the Progress
and Freedom Foundation think-tank on the digital revolution.
In its first ruling on broadcast indecency standards in
more than 30 years, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. government
policy that subjects television network broadcasters to fines
if they air a single expletive on the airwaves before 10 p.m.
The Fox television network said it would pursue the case in
the lower courts on constitutional free speech grounds.
Parent groups welcomed the decision. The conservative
Parents Television Council said it was "an incredible victory
for families" that ensured the well-being of children.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented
18 congressional representatives in the case, said the Supreme
Court had rightly upheld the FCC's authority "to protect
America's families, especially children."
OUT OF TOUCH?
The ruling does not cover satellite or cable TV channels
like MTV and HBO (home to "The Sopranos), and puts network TV
at odds with an era when Americans can find just about anything
on the Internet and video-sharing Web sites like YouTube.
Moreover, U.S. laws on obscenity on the airwaves are
generally much stricter than in the other Western nations. In
Britain, a self-policing policy means network including the BBC
avoid airing profanities before 9 p.m. but after that time they
have become more commonplace in the last 10 years.
Australian courts ruled in the 1990s that coarse language
was no longer offensive and TV shows that include profanities
are often broadcast without being bleeped out.
Ohio State University Law Professor Christopher Fairman,
who is writing a book called "Fuck" on the use of taboo
language in modern culture, said the word had lost its sexual
connotations and had become merely another expletive.
He said the 5-4 decision showed "just how out of touch (the
court's majority) are with the lives of ordinary Americans."
According to a 2006 opinion poll, 64 percent of Americans
questioned said they use the F-word ranging from several times
a day (8 percent) to a few times a year (15 percent).
"Tom Hanks can say it in the movie 'Saving Private Ryan' ,
the British fashion store French Connection UK can use it as a
logo (FCUK) that is essentially the F-bomb.
"But on network TV, Bono can't say it and Cher can't say
it, but I can wear it on the back of my jacket saying 'Fuck the
Draft' and the court says that's OK. It doesn't seem to make
sense," Fairman told Reuters.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted
the discrepancy between the Federal Communications Commission
crackdown on profanity and the plethora of TV commercials for
products treating impotence or constipation.
Thierer said the decision upheld regulations from "a bygone
era" and made less sense given tools like the V-chip, available
to parents to control their children's access to TV programs.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
What are your thoughts CLICK HERE to leave us a "QUESTION OF THE DAY” comment.
© Copyright 2016, A Quincy Media broadcasting station. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.