court case blog assignment

Complaints were filed against Pacifica, a broadcast company, by a man who claimed his son had heard a George Carlin routine one afternoon; the routine, entitled “Filthy Words,” contained various euphemisms for words that were earlier deemed unsuitable to be played on air. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) won their case against Pacifica, as the Supreme Court, with a vote of five to four, found the material to be “indecent but not obscene.” The FCC aimed to protect children from obscenity, hoping to “channel it to times of day when children most likely would not be exposed to it.” Thus, the First Amendment wasn’t entirely taken away by the ruling, but was rather manipulated to keep indecency levels to a minimum when children would most likely be tuning in to the radio. Justice Stevens concluded that “the content of respondent's broadcast, which was ‘vulgar,’ ‘offensive,’ and ‘shocking,’ is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection in all contexts; it is therefore necessary to evaluate the FCC's action in light of the context of that broadcast.” Therefore, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the FCC’s guidelines should be re-evaluated in order to more accurately and specifically define the meaning of what is obscene and indecent. This court case helped to create the boundaries for what radio and later television would be allowed to air at specific times of the day. Though many people believe that cable television shouldn’t be censored because people have to pay for it, most stations usually self censor themselves during the daytime when children might be watching to ensure they upset no one. The FCC issues fines for indecency on television and the radio, not just applicable to verbal instances (ie, when Janet Jackson’s nipple was exposed during the Superbowl, CBS and MTV were both fined accordingly). I think, personally, that the FCC regulations are within the realm of common courtesy, and allow for indecent language and obscene content when children are not likely to view it. I don’t think that children should be censored, but I don’t think they should be exposed to content without their parents consent.

Advertisement Analysis

I watched an ad for Hershey’s Kisses. The commercial features the whistling from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ song “Heigh Ho.” The commercial begins with a Kiss being made in the factory and then being wrapped up, and it is given a chance to look at itself in the mirror. It’s then rocketed through Kiss shaped holes in the wall with slogans such as “perfect happiness” written below them. A man in his late twenties/early thirties is then displayed sharing the candy with his daughter.
I believe a variety of ideas can be pulled from this advertisement. The “Heigh Ho” song incites a feeling of ‘family oriented,’ as Disney is a pure and generally safe corporation when it comes to children. Any who have seen the movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs will also possibly get an image of people hard at work; hard work seems to be a major American value, and even though the inclusion of the song is not a blatant portrayal of the hard working American spirit, it is alluded to on a subconscious level. When the Kiss is given time to look in the mirror, it’s obviously playing to the conceited side of America and to the ideas that you have to be pretty (or even BEAUTIFUL) to make it out into the world. It could also be taken to mean that they take care to make sure each Kiss is up to par, but I think the message of “beauty sells/conceitedness reigns” is a more believable and possibly more effective. When the man and his daughter share the candy, the company is pressing the idea that once again it is family oriented, and also that candy isn’t something just for young children, it’s for anyone who is a “kid at heart.” I wasn’t sure if this was note-worthy, but the man and his daughter were African American, which kind of pushes the idea that the company is nondiscriminatory and that they are supportive of ethnic groups and view them as the same as Caucasian. They could have just as easily used a white family, but they didn’t, which I think is admirable of them; it’s not as admirable/notable as it would have been in the ‘70s or so, but still I think it is good that they were pressing their ideas of multiculturalism, or even the existence of an “American” all inclusive culture.

Postman's Technology Questions

The Apple iPhone was one of the most anticipated new technologies of the previous year; it combines many things (phone, mp3 player, computer, camera, etc.), eliminating the need to carry around multiple devices. The clutter of too many electronic devices was a problem for many members of the technological society of today, ranging from students to soccer moms. The ability to have multiple devices on one platform is a lot more convenient, but a detrimental problem could arise: if the iPhone is broken (which is rather easy to do), the camera, the phone, the mp3 player, everything is incapacitated and unable to be used. If they are lost or stolen, everything is gone. The technology industry outside of Apple will most likely be harmed by this new technology; people will buy the iPhone and have no need to buy separate phones or cameras, as they will have everything they need in one place. The Apple industry will most definitely gain economic power with the new invention. The hype that built up to the iPhone led many to wait on the street in order to get a chance to be one of the first people to own it. The use of the iPhone, along with any other cellular device, will most likely further the implementation of “text speak,” which has been up to this point deteriorating language skills among generally the younger generation of Americans, who find it appropriate to type “ur” instead of “you’re” or “your,” for example.