One exception:

As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.

I believe that it’s unreasonable not to deem it offensive, I guess that we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Wow, Ted, you and your “hints”—if only we all listened to you a little more closely.

Federal obscenity law in the U.S. is odd, Ted ” not only is there no uniform national standard; in fact, there’s a legal precedent (the “Miller test”) that guarantees that something deemed (legally) “obscene” in one jurisdiction may not be in another. The First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. To pretend otherwise is dishonest (or misreading, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt).

BTW, if you want to cite court cases, you’ve got one to cite if you follow the link above. If we’re accepting current court decisions as gospel, then I guess we have nothing to argue about—the FCC’s desire to censor has been denied.

May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?

If you can do so without being guilty of indecent exposure, sexual misconduct, public lewdness, or public indecency, be my guest. None of these headings apply to mass media, however (rock concerts are a different story—can you guess why?).

Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.

You’re arguing against a position that I didn’t take. I asked why this case was so important that the calls for free market ought to break down here, in particular, rather than elsewhere. You’re the one who’s not dealing with the specific example. I’m still interested to hear someone argue why Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”is so dangerous to the well-being of the nation’s youth—I’m sure that I knew the “S word”as a pre-schooler. Again, this isn’t one of my “extreme examples”(though you’ve proven unable to show where my examples break down, in which case your rejection of them as “extreme”rings pretty hollow), it’s an example from the link above. Please don’t argue “slippery slope,” I expect better.

It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety.

Show me where you’ve demonstrated that they’re in danger and why obscenity should be the target rather than, e.g., fast food advertisements. You’re assuming the conclusion that you’re pretending to derive.

I’m also curious where you get your “censor to the lowest common denominator” argument—taken literally, this seems particularly silly.

Yes, the Supreme court actually defined it although some claim it is not satisfactory. I hinted at it earlier. Perhaps you should do some research on it. It may clarify it for you a bit.

Even though you have a tendancy to take your arguements to ridiculous extremes, I’ll attempt to answer questions for you.

“What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit”(one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village”argument?”

May I have sex in front you your pre-teenage children with multiple women?3

“2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit”by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention?”

Again, an extreme argument. Apply that principal to everything, we would have no laws outside the Constitution but allow the market pace to distate everything. I don’t see how it applies at all.

The purpose of governement is to defend the rights of the governed. It is the right of children to watch the public airways (of which they are owners)in relative safety

I don’t see the comparison. In the case of fire in a crowded theatre, public safety is at risk; in the case of slander/libel, an individual’s well-being is at risk; in the case of obscenity (which has proven notoriously difficult to define anyway), where’s the risk? Do people actually have a right to not be offended (excuse the split infinitive)? I’d agree that they have a right not to be imperilled (as would be the case if someone on, e.g., Fox news announced that a meteor was going to strike the earth in 10 minutes, or if some preacher said that all women wearing short skirts were possessed by demons and in need of cleansing), but is there really a more satisfactory definition of obscenity than “words or images that someone, somewhere, somehow is offended by”?

In the case that started this thread, the examples were of cursing on network television. My questions are:

1. What, exactly, is the harm in Nicole Ritchie saying “shit” (one of the examples from the article), such that the federal government must protect are children from it? Is this the “it takes a village” argument? We know that eating too much sugary, buttery food makes us obese and shortens are life expectancy, so why not prevent candy companies, fast-food chains, etc. from advertising anytime that children might be watching? What about beer companies advertising during televised sporting events (Bud Bowl!)? We all know that underage drinking leads to more deaths than underage swearing, right? Though these examples seem fairly silly to me, I have a much easier time seeing the dangers of fast food and beer than I do seeing the dangers of someone saying “Asshole” on My Name is Earl.

2. Accepting the fact that the issue has proven somewhat ambiguous (since the US court rejected the FCC’s push to censor but the situation is still being debated), why would folks on the right and, I’m assuming, on the left (remember Tipper’s crusade, immortalized in the song “Censorshit” by the Ramones), folks who are typically confident in the ability of the law of supply and demand to regulate this sort of thing, call for government intervention? Why not err on the side of less govenrment intervention rather than more? Is the danger so incredibly great that we need regulation in this particular case (but not in cases where corporations are polluting our waters or running overseas sweatshops)? Again, why is changing the channel (or reading a book for a change) so unsatisfactory as an option?

Agreeing or disagreing? Hmmm…

The fact that they are beholden to share holders is factaully accurate and like you said is a factor, however that is not the over riding point here. Those channels that use the public airwaves must also be beholden to the fact that those airwaves are owned by the citizens of the United States, and thus must follow the laws imposed by said citizenry in order to use those airwaves. This means censorship, as imposed by the governement who is supposed to represent said people.

Censorship is built into the constition in the forms of laws against slander, liable and public safety. One can not yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre, as an example- it infringing upon another’s right’s. This is excactly the same reason the public airwaves are censored.

Why can’t you micro manage your own life and leave everyone else alone in their beliefs? Are you so threatened by people believing that Homosexuality is stupid and that there needs to be guardrails to human behavior?

That is the position held by the supreme court. This case in no way “rejects” that arguement though.

“I can’t imagine that you actually support censoring “to the least common denominator.”Wouldn’t this mean that anything that anyone finds offensive would have to be removed (as the assumption that only what is obscene would be eliminated obviously begs the question).”

No it doesn’t.

As a musician, I personally find American Idol offensive.

As a professional and semi-professional musician of 22 years I do not find it offensive, as any reasonable person would not either. Do I like it? Not at all. To deem it offensive though is unreasonable.

Apparently you’re looking pretty closely, PCD. Do you actually have an argument to make about the topic or have you reached your limits talking about your favorite TV shows?

BTW, references to homosexuality have become more and more frequent in your posts. Is there something you’re trying to tell us, PCD? I promise that I won’t judge you, but I can’t speak for the others here.