The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Supremes Take Fleeting Obscenity Case (Or An Object Example Of Why You Need To Vote)
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Ars has an article discussing the ramifications of an upcoming SCOTUS case regarding the FCC's fining of Fox over "fleeting obscenities" (that is, off the cuff, unscripted obscenities said at live events).
Me, the fact that the Court even took the case clearly shows the danger of allowing the Right to expand their control over it is. It's unclear what real issue is here in the first place - to me, at least, this seems to be a sop to the crowd over at the PTC, who have been otherwise taking a shellacking in the courts lately.
Me, the fact that the Court even took the case clearly shows the danger of allowing the Right to expand their control over it is. It's unclear what real issue is here in the first place - to me, at least, this seems to be a sop to the crowd over at the PTC, who have been otherwise taking a shellacking in the courts lately.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
AngelHedgie on
0
Posts
In fact I think it should be a rule.
Edit: Or hell, even quoting the whole article would be better than nothing.
Edit 2: Thank you Angel for the edit. I'm not detracting or thread shitting, it's just that some of use internet connections that block a large amount of outside links. This is not the case for Ars, but it happens a lot.
That's not the AngelHedgie way.
[Edit]
It's not like it was a very long or tough article though, having now read it.
Unfortunately, I had to read the link before I even knew what this thread was actually about, and now I feel my time has been wasted. Woe is me, I know, but the start of a new thread should really provide more information.
As for this case, the only real comment I have is that it's a bit funny to have Fox as the protagonist in a story. Rare.
[Edit 2]
What the hell is the PTC, AngelHedgie? Thanks.
I'm not 100% sure on that, but that's my understanding of the case at the moment.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Jeffe: At the very least, it would change how networks handle live broadcasts. Probably no more surprises.
I'm not about to rant about "slippery slope" 1st amendment stuff, as I don't see a guaranteed Orwellian future if they did vote in favor of the FCC, but this right here is a good example of just how petty the FCC can be, and that will get even worse if they win this.
Basically I think it would result on hardly anything being broadcast "live" anymore. Also networks would likely overcompensate out of fear and start editing out a lot of stupid shit that "may be considered offensive."
That's what I was thinking. I mean theoretically if some random dude on the street cursed or flipped off the camera during a live broadcast they could be fined.
Thanks.
Well, 99% of the problem is the PTC. Basically, anytime they see/hear something they don't like on the TV, they start an astroturf protest campaign to the FCC. Literally 99% of all complaints fielded by the FCC originate from PTC actions.
It would really help if the PTC wasn't allowed to petition the FCC.
There was a case where two jackoffs inspired by Opie and Andy infuriated a reporter during his broadcast to the point that he cussed them out on air. He was fired over that.
Spoiler is the relevant clip, from Youtube.
They already are, to prevent things like, say, some guy deciding to kill himself on live TV for the lulz.
This is still a bit of an unreasonable onus. It would apply to, say, some guy in a crowd yelling "fuck!" in a manner that's largely, but not entirely, obscured by ambient noise.
All because somebody might be offended by a four-letter word they like to pretend doesn't exist.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yeah.
Because that will happen.
Which congressman do you see leading the charge in defense of the F-word?
It was a theory question, really.
Al Franken.
Point.
Definitely a case of "I don't agree with what your saying but I'll defend your right to say it to the death"