Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
OK, so now at least I understand the rationale, but I still don't agree with it, because at its most basic level we have the G essentially deciding what can and cannot be said. Out of curiousity, does the law distinguish between visual indecency/obsenity and oral/written? I wouldn't regulate any of them, but there seems to be a difference between seeing two people screw and hearing or reading a description of it.
|
Sorry to intrude, and I don't mean to be insulting, beacuse you probably know this already --
I presume you are aware that the FCC only regulates the broadcast airwaves because those are the limits of its jurisdiction per the statutory scheme establishing the agency. Thus, it doesn't and can't regulate newspapers or magazines.
There is no federal agency regulating what newspapers and magazines publish.
[Sorry, but the form of your questions did not make it entirely clear that you knew this.]
The original justification for the differerent treatment has been set forth by Burger above.
I can add that the obscenity laws (or at least the Constitutional analyses of said laws) do not distinguish between media for the purpose of determining obscenity. Thus, as AG noted, obcenity laws whcih pass constitutional muster can be used against obcenity in media both regulated and unregulated by the FCC. In practical terms, however, the FCC never lets broadcast media get that far.
BTW -- Clear Channel's actions re Stern may also be precipitated by the $750,000 fine the FCC levied last week for the antics of one lesser shock jock "Bubba the Love Sponge." Not surprisingly, Bubba is now on the street.
S_A_M
P.S. I would be pleased if Howard stayed off the air in our area, because at least then my wife couldn't listen to him with our (pre-verbal) toddler around. I think she was tapering that off anyway.
