Via Jonathan Adler, I see that while I was away FCC chairman Kevin Martin did not react well to
the Second Court of Appeals decision to strike down the FCC's policy governing "fleeting expletives". The court characterized the policy -- designed to make the network liable when someone unexpectedly swears during a live broadcast.-- as "arbitrary and capricious."
Martin's response -- on the FCC's web site, no less -- contains the following:
I completely disagree with the Court?s ruling and am disappointed for American families. I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that ?shit? and ?fuck? are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.
The court even says the Commission is ?divorced from reality.? It is the New York court, not the Commission, that is divorced from reality in concluding that the word ?fuck? does not invoke a sexual connotation.
A few questions:
1) Did Martin write this himself or did people with actual training in press relations whip this statement up?
2) By the FCC's interpretation, is Martin is obnoxiously hitting on erveryone who reads his statement?
3) Am I obviously encouraging rape and bestiality when I say, "F#$% Kevin Martin and the horse he rode in on?" or could I have a different intent in mind?
4) As Adler asks, "Given the Second Circuit's ruling, could a network air Martin's remarks without fear of federal sanction?"
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE