FCC v. Fox News

[DJofSD]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BROADCAST_INDECENCY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-21-10-42-18

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court unanimously threw out fines and sanctions Thursday against broadcasters who violated the Federal Communications Commission policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.

Stunning.

I'm sure the libs will be foaming at the mouth over that ruling. But then, OTOH, liberty is preserved. Can you spell conflicted?

[Tom]

Couple this with their ruling on union dues and some will be having conniption fits today.

Is the pre-game show for the big Obama care ruling being readied now?

[Robert Goren]

It is Bible Thumpers who will be having fit over this, not the liberals. Go ask somebody like Santorum what he thinks of cursing and nudity on TV.

[Wagergirl]

It is Bible Thumpers who will be having fit over this, not the liberals. Go ask somebody like Santorum what he thinks of cursing and nudity on TV.

I don't think you need to be a Bible Thumper to not want cursing and nudity on TV. I don't want my children seeing that. Of course I monitor what they watch, but dang even some of the commercials these days are just awful.

It's gotten to the point that we only watch movies, and even some of the kids movies are bad.

[DJofSD]

Just to be clear, Fox News did not know the objectionable material was going to be present. But the FCC fined them as if they had manufactored it.

[bigmack]

For all the confused who continue to rail against Fox being a puppet for Ruppy Murdoch, can they comment on the 'artistic freedom' afforded the likes of Seth McFarlane to ridicule Palin's down syndrome child on the Murdoch owned Fox shoe, Family Dude?

[Tom]

I would rather kids see a naked boob or two from time to time than listen to the crap they air from the gutter mouths of the left.

[Robert Goren]

Just to be clear, Fox News did not know the objectionable material was going to be present. But the FCC fined them as if they had manufactored it.The objectionable material was not on Fox News. It was on the Fox Network programing. They might have been fined if it was on Fox News or FX. Cable channels have loser standards. CNN reported that the decision was very narrowly defined and only applied to fines levied on broadcasts that aired before the FCC before reworded/reworked the standards after the Super Bowl incident. I suspect that we haven't heard the last word on this.

[mostpost]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_BROADCAST_INDECENCY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-21-10-42-18



Stunning.

I'm sure the libs will be foaming at the mouth over that ruling. But then, OTOH, liberty is preserved. Can you spell conflicted?
Once again you have read an article and commented on it without understanding it. In the first place it had nothing to do with Fox News. It was the entertainment division that was being fined. In the second place the Court did not say broadcasters could not be fined for violating FCC policies on language and nudity. It said the FCC had to establish that the network had prior knowledge of the violations. In other words that they took place in a scripted environment, not off the cuff.

And please explain to me why I would be foaming at the mouth over this. i am not for censorship, but I am for respecting the feelings of others. And I am for treating children differently from adults. If a broadcast network wants to present a show containing nudity and adult language and if they present it after most children are in bed they should be able to do so. Of course adequate warning should be given to adults who are squeemish.

[ElKabong]

Couple this with their ruling on union dues and some will be having conniption fits today.

Is the pre-game show for the big Obama care ruling being readied now?

at lunch I read the SC decision on the unions.....This is the biggie, to me. This is a huge victory for "union" employees, IMO. Imagine this >>> you work for a company, and the union withholds part of your paycheck to fund a particular political cause (in this case, democrats). It's nonsense.

Kagan and Breyer were the 2 dissenting opinion

[bigmack]

at lunch I read the SC decision on the unions.....This is the biggie, to me. This is a huge victory for "union" employees, IMO. Imagine this >>> you work for a company, and the union withholds part of your paycheck to fund a particular political cause (in this case, democrats). It's nonsense.

Kagan and Breyer were the 2 dissenting opinion
How SEIC was EVER able to get away with what they were doing is beyond me.

Kagan is clearly going to be a piece of work for decades to come.

[Tom]

Kagan is going to really go down as one of the worst enemies America ever had. How anyone with an ounce of decency could have voted that way - she is a disgusting piece of work. Great example of why we need limited terns for the justices. NO ONE has ever lived that was fit to sit on the court for a lifetime. NO ONE.

Read the book Men in Black to see what an assortment of bloody morons and idiot have rendered opinions over the years. Frightening that so many people of suck low caliber have dominated the court.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/0895260506#reader_0895260506

[mostpost]

at lunch I read the SC decision on the unions.....This is the biggie, to me. This is a huge victory for "union" employees, IMO. Imagine this >>> you work for a company, and the union withholds part of your paycheck to fund a particular political cause (in this case, democrats). It's nonsense.

Kagan and Breyer were the 2 dissenting opinion

I don't think it says that exactly. I think it says that if you are not a union member, you do not have to pay that portion of dues that go to political activities. Unlike previously the union can not collect the dues then rebate them when you object. You still have to pay that portion of dues which can be shown to be charged to expenses related to representing members and nonmembers in the workplace. Since the law requires unions to represent all workers, it is only right that all workers share in the expense of that representation.

I don't think this decision absolves union members of contributing to the political activities of the union.

If I read this decision correctly; that non union members do not have to contribute to the unions political fund, but do have to pay for representation;
that they can now refuse upfront to pay the assessment rather than have to pay then file an objection; that union members are still required to contribute to the political fund as part of their dues, then I agree with the decision.

[ElKabong]

mosty,

This (below) is what I was addressing...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story

In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.

"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1stAmendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”

[mostpost]

mosty,

This (below) is what I was addressing...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-union-donations-20120621,0,2860404.story

In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the union had a duty to seek approval from the dissenting members before using their dues money for the special political fund.

"This aggressive use of power by the SEIU to collect fees from nonmembers is indefensible,” he wrote. “Even a full refund would not undo the violation of 1stAmendment rights.… Therefore, when a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the unions must provide a fresh … notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.”

The first paragraph makes it seem as if the union must ask its members for approval before using their dues money for the special political fund. But the second paragraph, which is a quote from Alito's ruling makes it clear that he is talking about nonmembers of the union. Union members have to contribute whether or not they agree with the stance of the union. They have to do so because the union leaders were elected by a democratic vote of the members.

Just as you or I have to obey laws we may find objectionable because the representatives that passed them were elected by our votes. Just because our favored candidate did not win, does not abrogate our duty to obey.

As I said, I agree with this ruling. If you disagree with union political goals and you are not a member of a union, that union should not have use of your money even for a brief period. If the union represents you in a labor/ management issue, then you should be required to pay your share of that representation. The law requires the union to represent nonmembers as well as members.