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.