Jump to content


Photo

SCOTUS throws out "bare bottoms" rule


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Rail Paul

Rail Paul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,562 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 03:55 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the Federal Communications Commission's findings that television networks violated the agency's indecency rules by broadcasting profanity and nudity.

The court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, said the FCC didn't provide fair notice to the networks that it was taking a tougher stance toward policing the airwaves.

The unanimous ruling was a narrow one that declined to decide closely watched questions about whether the FCC's indecency prohibitions violate free-speech protections under the First Amendment.

One case before the court centered on Fox Television broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards in which entertainers Cher and Nicole Richie uttered expletives.

The FCC found Fox was in violation of indecency prohibitions, but didn't sanction the network because the programs aired before the agency stepped up its efforts to crackdown on broadcasts it considered indecent.

Fox is a division of News Corp. which also owns Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co.

In another case, ABC was hit with a $1.4 million fine after showing the bare bottom of actress Charlotte Ross in a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue." ABC argued that the episode wasn't indecent because Ms. Ross's bottom wasn't a "sexual organ" and there was no frontal nudity.

Justice Kennedy, in an 18-page opinion, said the FCC "failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent."

Justice Kennedy said the court's ruling left the FCC "free to modify its current indecency policy."



WSJ
"Peter Kiewit looked for three things in hiring people. He looked for integrity, intelligence and energy. And he said if a person didn’t have the first…that the latter two would kill him. Because if they don’t have integrity, you want ‘em dumb and lazy. You don’t want ‘em smart and energetic.”

Warren Buffett

#2 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:39 PM

Bottoms are not sexual organs. My world just changed.

Why live your life when you could curate it?

At the Sign of the Pink Pig


#3 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 30,364 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 04:44 PM

No, just your native country.
Bar Loser

#4 SLBunge

SLBunge

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,539 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:03 PM

It seems like in order for the public to have a better informed opinion about this important issue we will need to see more images of Charlotte Ross' bare bottom.
Suffocating under a pile of cheese curds.

#5 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59,883 posts

Posted 21 June 2012 - 05:23 PM

Did the court speak to Ms Jackson's nipple?

ETA: Now I'm wondering how nipples could possibly be sexual organs, and I should be eating my lunch.

Why live your life when you could curate it?

At the Sign of the Pink Pig