Hollywood’s Snotty Day in Court

· Friday, January 13, 2012

It was symbolically perfect that on the same day Hollywood went to the Supreme Court to make the case for broadcast profanity, Entertainment Weekly reported that the next showing of the ABC smutcom "Modern Family" would feature a two-year-old girl dropping the F-bomb. The episode's title will be "Little Bo Bleep."

Shameless. There's no other way to describe the people running these networks. We're told "It might be the first time in a scripted family broadcast TV series where a child has said the F-word." But it won't be the last -- especially if the high court grants Hollywood's demands and shreds any regulation of nudity or profanity on TV.

The most telling exchange in the oral arguments came when Justice Stephen Breyer told former Clinton Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who represents ABC, he couldn't find Hollywood's idea of what they wanted the content regulations to be.

It is because, as Waxman admitted, they suggested no standard. "In our brief, we don't suggest what the rule should be, because (A) it's not our burden; (B) it's not yours; and (C) there are any number of options." Who's going to implement the options Waxman suggests if it's no one's burden to do so? What Hollywood really wants is to shred the 1978 decision in FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation that insisted on a decency regime from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.

"It's not our burden." The TV networks don't want to be held accountable by anyone for what they broadcast. They're not arguing that regulation is unnecessary because they already provide a glorious safe haven for children. They argue that it's unfair to discriminate against the broadcast networks because cable and satellite television are smutty. So why not let everyone race to the gutter? Their utter shamelessness is transparent, as they stand before the Supreme Court justices insisting the Founding Fathers in some sort of time warp would protect the networks' First Amendment right to televise Paris Hilton swearing like a sailor in the nude in front of Thomas Jefferson's children.

Carter Phillips, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Fox Television, said that the FCCs policies suddenly became "dysfunctional" in 2004, when "thousands and thousands" of complaints began streaming into the FCC.

What's dysfunctional wasn't Janet Jackson getting her bra ripped off during the Super Bowl halftime show in front of millions of children. What's dysfunctional wasn't Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie swearing at an awards show on Fox in a clearly pre-scripted bit of profanity. What wasn't dysfunctional was "NYPD Blue" showing a young boy walking in on a nude woman in his bathroom. What was dysfunctional was letters of protest sent from Idaho, Texas and Ohio.

This is their standard of corporate responsibility: We have none, and we resent that someone would send a letter to Washington insisting that we do.

Team Obama deserves some credit. Even though their FCC under Julius Genachowski is a paper tiger with the TV "tastemakers," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did defend the current FCC policies in court. He effectively pointed out that broadcasters want to have it both ways.

"The spectrum licenses they have are worth billions and billions of dollars. Spectrum is staggeringly, staggeringly scarce, and they're sitting on an enormously valuable resource which they got for free," he noted. "Then they have a statutory benefit of 'must carry,' which gets them on cable systems automatically, and a further statutory benefit of preferred channel placement." And yet, despite all this favoritism from Congress, these billionaire sultans of sensationalism are complaining about the government. Yes, somehow, they're unfairly picked on by red-state grandmas on a fixed income who write letters.

Perhaps the worst thing to recognize in these oral arguments is just how lawyers like Phillips can argue fiercely against reality. Justice Samuel Alito asked: "If Hollywood were free to broadcast without FCC meddling, might we see streams of expletives and parades of nudity?"

Phillips replied: "Not under the guidelines that Fox has used consistently from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m." Ahem. Not only does Fox display no identifiable "guidelines" on taste at any hour, it doesn't broadcast any shows after 10 p.m. Fox stations air late news at 10 p.m.

The Supreme Court should stay the course with the FCC. No one should expect Hollywood to improve. But at least there's still a threadbare expectation that Hollywood should try and behave when children may be watching.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Doktor Riktor Von Zhades

I wonder how those same people would find it "cute, and adorable" if their own two year old uttered the F-word in front of their hoity toity crowd? I'll even go one further, and wonder how funny it would be that when said youngster is asked where they learned it, and the response would be from your TV show.

Sadly the Hollywierd crowd has always wrapped their actions in the first amendment. Do they have a right, well, in a way yes, and in a way no, there are guidelines in place. Remove guidelines as these folks are advocating and well, the rest is obvious.

Additionally, it seems to me, that those that are so critical of government trampling on their rights are the ones that seem to benefit from all sorts of government goodies. This includes, the (1%ter) TV exec, to the lowly, downcast, downtrodden ditch digger. The major complaint is, "hey, when are more goodies going to be doled out from the government coffers?"

Posted January 13, 2012 at 9:21:42 AM


Holmes Simons

I can only hope that Hollywood is successful. Then perhaps I can use the f-word explicitly when I comment about the FN disgusting, FN dysfunctional FN derelicts that pretend to be representing the interests of their constituents. Get my FN drift?

Posted January 13, 2012 at 11:17:51 AM


JJ

The first item is to realize that the standard for sexual harassment in the work place is to be exposed to "language, behavior, suggestions and situations" that suggest a sexual meaning and cause discomfort and or embarassment to the receipient." Thus - with unbridled morality the media can drive itself from all public places. Bars, eating places or anyplace with a television or movie access that would spout this trash the entire time a person was in the establishment. People who work there could file against the owner for the removal of the offending device (TV)and if the owner decided to fire them - it would make the owner liable under additional charges of concealing sexual harassment of an employee. Let the entertainment industry go down this path. They will need to find a way to defend themselves against contributing to the deliquency of minors, to defend themselves against the elimination of their idiot boxes from the public places because decent people find their endless sexual harping tedious and offensive. The first amendment right does allow you to say what you want and even how you want. But it does not ensure that you will have an audience to say it to and it does not allow you to be offensive and spoil the environment of people who do not want to hear the drivel being produced. All rights extend only as far as the exercise of them does not impede the excercise of another free person's rights. You wnt to stop this? Get some backbone and do not patronize the services that participate in producing the endless offensive drivel.

Posted January 13, 2012 at 12:20:10 PM


Richard Ryan

I`m with JJ. Fox is absolutely the filthiest channel on TV. I refuse to watch any of their programming. If everyone would do this, they would soon be out of business. The consumer bears a large part of the blame for what is going on with the so-called entertainment being presented today.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

Posted January 13, 2012 at 1:13:09 PM


BJ

Can someone explain to me what makes the so called "F bomb" a "dirty" word? And why the following words have "dirty" alternate words? anus, penis, vagina What makes these words "dirty" ?

Taking the Lords name in vain is "dirty" if you're connected to some religions. Who decided that a word is "dirty". When you arrange the letters of one of these "dirty" words in a different order is the word still "dirty"?

Posted January 13, 2012 at 2:41:29 PM


Dennis

Hey, BJ, can you explain to me what makes robbery wrong? Who decided that robbery, or rape, or murder, for that matter, is wrong? I guess they are wrong if you connect them to some religion, but what about the non-religious? Are they still wrong?

Posted January 13, 2012 at 4:48:27 PM


Howard Last

I believe it was Red Skelton who was asked why he doesn't tell dirty jokes? His response why should I tell a joke anyone can see on a restroom wall. Nuff said.

Posted January 13, 2012 at 7:47:42 PM


Stoney

Interesting comments from someone calling him/herself "BJ"...just sayin'

Posted January 14, 2012 at 12:02:09 AM


D.A.V.E.

Hey, "BJ": The answer to your "simple" question is very "simple". "Simply" put: WORDS MEAN THINGS!!! But, of course, being "educated" in the public skool system, I wouldn't expect anyone to understand that..............

Posted January 14, 2012 at 9:10:50 AM


Patrick Jones

I have a friend whose son uses the "F-Bomb" every day. But then my friend says, "Yes, that's a TRUCK."

Posted January 14, 2012 at 9:42:15 AM


bj

Lot's of responses but no real answer."Words mean something???

So using the word penis doesn't mean the same as the "dirty" description. And fornicate and it's descriptive cousin don't mean the same? Robbery, rape, and murder are actions not words. Howard had a thoughtful comment. My comment was obviously wasted on the rest of you. Pity.

Posted January 14, 2012 at 4:03:57 PM


mmccrindle

@ BJ-

Remember toilet humor? You know, the stuff little kids laugh at mainly because of the 'naughty' value.

It's pretty much the same bawdy jokes that immature people like so much that usually will offend someone.

What do you think when someone lets loose with a cussing rant after, say, missing a putt?

Well, I like some good ol' nasty jokes myself now and then but I won't say them in mixed company. It would certainly show that I had no class. It would also show that I couldn't care any less for you or anyones feelings.

I refrain from letting loose with a verbal barage of swear words for fear someone may hear and think that my vocabulary was something akin to some derelict.

I have my pride after all.

I also try to have a little class as well, something that is certainly lacking today.

Do I want to hear it on TV all the time? No.

So, I don't know your upbringing but to me, I think that your either a classy individual or you're trailer trash.

Posted January 15, 2012 at 12:04:19 PM


WLB

What does anyone expect of Hollywood? Its position here is no great remove from the recent "revelations" that pedophilia is widespread there and has been for ages. It is all about moral relativity--i.e. the philosophical position that there are no objective truths. BJ must be a moral relativist. Probably an atheist, too. We all know, I trust, the worst thing about being an atheist, don't we? Namely, there is no one to whom to cry out at the moment of greatest sexual ecstasy.

Posted January 16, 2012 at 4:29:17 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund