The â??fleeting expletivesâ?? decision

April 28, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
This morning, the Supreme Court said in another of its 5-4 decisions that the federal government has authority to regulate occasional instances of profanity on broadcast television and radio, called â??fleeting expletives.â??

But the high court also ordered a federal appeals court to determine if the Federal Communications Commissionâ??s policy of penalizing â??indecentâ?? speech violates free speech protections of the First Amendment.

Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC â?? all of which have TV stations in Indianapolis â?? had joined in fighting the commissionâ??s stance.

What do you think? How far should the government go in regulating the airwaves?
  • The fleeting expletives don't bother me.

    As the father of a three and a five year old, the thing that bothers me is the graphically violent movie advertisements. I can't watch a Sunday afternoon Colts game on TV without exposing my children to all forms of murder and mayhem that are far more disturbing to me and my children than a fleeting a--hole.

    That needs to stop!
  • Joe, I couldn't agree more! When that Last House on the Left movie came out, they were showing horrible images of implied sexual violence before 8pm, and nobody cared. And that's just one example. People are numb to violence but will grab a torch and pitchfork if someone says sh*t. I'm a lot more concerned about getting the channel changed before my kid sees the horror we call entertainment than I am her hearing some random expletive on the local wacky morning show. But American culture isn't exactly known for having either its priorities in order or truly decent values, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised we'll take up time in the Supreme Court to quibble over the b-word. Yeesh. What a bunch of a-holes! :)
  • Guns, bombs, explosions, killings, murder, glorification of crime, gore... all of that is just gravy on Primetime TV.

    Nudity and curse words... that gets the endless wrath of the FCC.

    And that reversal of logic is insane.

    Why is violence so accepted and woven in to TV, but bad words (oh no!) and images of even the most attractive people in the flesh (yikes!) can't be tolerated.

    It's misguided priorities and heaping piles of ignorance. Bare skin never killed anyone and a curse word cannot be nearly as bad as seeing the image of somebody being shot. Being desensitized to Skin and Words can't be nearly as harmful as being desensitized to Crime, Guns, and Murder. But that's Primetime TV for you and your Gov't hard at work (not so much).

    Why are people so shocked by a naked person and a word? The human body (ignoring 75% of the waistline-bulging American Population) is natural to see. And a word is just a word. But seeing some dude shot and killed and a building exploding while cracking down on Nudity and Words is just flat out crazy.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by