Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I've had issues with the FCC's crack down on obscenities in the last few years, so I was happy to read a federal appeals court agrees with me. The funniest part, though, was this:

I don't get the relevance of off screen use of words to the question, other than a cheap political hatchet job. i wonder who appointed the Judge who wrote the decision?

That said, the FCC crap drives me nuts, but it started well before Bush.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't get the relevance of off screen use of words to the question, other than a cheap political hatchet job. i wonder who appointed the Judge who wrote the decision?

That said, the FCC crap drives me nuts, but it started well before Bush.

I think it was to illustrate that certain words (speficically "fuck") do not have the meaning associated with sexual intercourse when uttered in excited or frustrated manner. I think the FCC's argument was that fuck means "to fuck" every time it's uttered, and Bush and Cheney's use of the word help demonstrate that's not necessarily the case.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't get the relevance of off screen use of words to the question, other than a cheap political hatchet job. i wonder who appointed the Judge who wrote the decision?

That said, the FCC crap drives me nuts, but it started well before Bush.

I don't know what you mean by "started", but the main proponent of all the tightening of restrictions regarding obscenity was Michael Powell. What a tool.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I don't know what you mean by "started", but the main proponent of all the tightening of restrictions regarding obscenity was Michael Powell. What a tool.

look. I would never defend any of the sanctions by Bush. But the Howard Stern type sanctions started at least with Clinton, and maybe even before. creating precedent is a dangerous thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think it was to illustrate that certain words (speficically "fuck") do not have the meaning associated with sexual intercourse when uttered in excited or frustrated manner. I think the FCC's argument was that fuck means "to fuck" every time it's uttered, and Bush and Cheney's use of the word help demonstrate that's not necessarily the case.

so you are arguing that Bush/Cheney's every action is by definition above the law?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't get the relevance of off screen use of words to the question, other than a cheap political hatchet job. i wonder who appointed the Judge who wrote the decision?

That said, the FCC crap drives me nuts, but it started well before Bush.

The majority, Pooler (who wrote the opinion) and Leval were Clinton apppointees. Hall, the dissenter, was appointed by W.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The majority, Pooler (who wrote the opinion) and Leval were Clinton apppointees. Hall, the dissenter, was appointed by W.

Really?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Really?

I guess it's now the Conservative position to seek to expand the authority of federal agencies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I guess it's now the Conservative position to seek to expand the authority of federal agencies.

I didn't read the decision. I won't. So i can't comment. I just think, it is a shame when people trusted with the integrity of a great institution like the Federal Courts allow political bias to intrude into things like the wording of a major decision. Not the holding, but to use those examples.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just think, it is a shame when people trusted with the integrity of a great institution like the Federal Courts allow political bias to intrude into things

What about the DOJ?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Really?

No. Shifter must have misread it. Pooler wrote the decision for the majority, and was a Clinton appointee. Hall joined the decision and was a W. appointee. Leval dissented, and was a Clinton appointee.

FWIW, the decision is here.

My favorite comment about it is Jonathan Adler's at the Volokh Conspiracy:

• Is Kevin Martin Indecent?
  
  Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's struck down the Federal Communications Commission policy governing "fleeting expletives" as "arbitrary and capricious." FCC Chairman Kevin Martin responded with an expletive-laden statement. Given the Second Circuit's ruling, could a network air Martin's remarks without fear of federal sanction? Discuss.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Shifter erred. Pooler wrote the decision for the majority, and was a Clinton appointee. Hall joined the decision and was a W. appointee. Leval dissented, and was a Clinton appointee.

Oops, my bad.

Harmless error?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. Shifter must have misread it. Pooler wrote the decision for the majority, and was a Clinton appointee. Hall joined the decision and was a W. appointee. Leval dissented, and was a Clinton appointee.

I knew all that. that's why i asked about the one who wrote it. when 'ole poor cite screwed it up I decided not to correct the error. I am not an officer of this court,

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I knew all that. that's why i asked about the one who wrote it. when 'ole poor cite screwed it up I decided not to correct the error. I am not an officer of this court,

More than an hour later, I am starting to suspect that Hank does not plan to finish that sentence.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
More than an hour later, I am starting to suspect that Hank does not plan to finish that sentence.

The odds of Hank finishing that sentence are about the same as Scooter Libby finishing his.