The F*&!ing FCC

According to a business blog post published on the Washington Post website today, the Supreme Court will rule on the FCC's role in continuing to censor America's mass media.  Apparently, the suit comes out of a 2nd Circuit (New York City) decision which stated that the FCC overstepped its bounds in fining ABC for an episode of NYPD Blue in which a woman's backside was exposed before she entered a shower.

For those of you who do not remember the incident, back in 2003, America's innocence was taken as its collective eyes were burned by a 3 second image of buttcheeks.  Yes, buttcheeks.  A woman was shown quickly getting into the shower, and her back and butt were visible.  No breasts, no nipples, and nothing else.  Still, the FCC fined ABC.

The main argument against the FCC's alleged role is admittedly more policy than law.  In short, the public already has unbridled access to violent, pornographic, and crude material over the internet, and uses vulgar language throughout the day.  Children swear and talk about sex in school, and women are just as adult as men and should be treated as such.  Their sensibilities are not offended by the F word.  In such a climate, the federal government has little legitimate policy interest in enforcing public decency when there is no more public decency.  Furthermore, the rise of digital media has obliterated any spectrum scarcity justifications.  With no more policy concern upon which to predicate FCC fines, the sole defense which the FCC could legitimately offer is precedent - precedent which is starting to show its age.

It is likely that many folks with backgrounds in law will have their own precedent and citations to attack this argument, but that does little to weaken its validity.  The fact remains that in the age of an open internet, the idea of censorship is archaic.  Furthermore, at a time when women, children, and businessmen may all be more crude and vulgar than any stereotypical depiction of a working man, the idea that their eyes and ears must be protected is nearly insane.    We do not live on the set of Leave it to Beaver, and in truth never have.

If one does need to cite law - this being an impending Supreme Court case - there is always R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.  Now please, what kind of speech in not protected now?

In conclusion, here is the article.  Please, leave any comments on this post that will spark lively discussion. Oh, and fuck...