Back to the 50s We Go

[Maksutov]

The continuing intimidation by the FCC of various media has resulted in Garrison Keillor being censored. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050816/ap_en_ot/people_keillor) Too bad old Garrison wasn't chomping down on a chicken breast (Shame! Shame!) in the accompanying photo. Fortunately the wimps at the station in Kentucky reversed their decision.

Just more evidence of the ongoing assault on the First Amendment by those who consider themselves above the Constitution. I'd like to send each of these puritanical prudes a copy of Keillor's The Book of Guys. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140233725/qid=1124204224/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-7263025-4645462?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) They would probably advocate burning it.

Ah, America, the Land of the Free (as long as you're the same as the popular majority, or, more importantly, the minority in power). :roll:

[CalabashCorolla]

When the conservative watchdogs start in on Garrison Keillor...sigh...

I'm not exactly sure what the group that got uptight about his show was worried about...chances are that Keillor's demographic is pretty devoid of impressionable youths (and the youths that DO listen to his show are likely beyond the point of being weak-minded enough to go out and get high, have sex, etc. at his urging :wink: ).

As for the older listeners, if no one had complained about the show, why get fired up in the first place? Aren't they mature enough to hear a reference to something that 52% of the population, as well as countless chickens and turkeys, have? Apparently, breasts are illegal in certain parts of the U.S. [-X

[SeanF]

When the conservative watchdogs start in on Garrison Keillor...sigh...
What "conservative watchdogs" would those be?

I'm not exactly sure what the group that got uptight about his show was worried about...
What group would that be?

Didja read the article?

:)

[sarongsong]

...there were no listener complaints, but station officials had worried about recent moves by the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on language it considered obscene...Now if Garrison's spot appeared as a commercial, I'd bet 'station officials' would have had no concern whatsoever.
Speaking of the 50's (http://timelines.ws/20thcent/1954.HTML)...

[Swift]

<snip>
As for the older listeners, if no one had complained about the show, why get fired up in the first place? Aren't they mature enough to hear a reference to something that 52% of the population, as well as countless chickens and turkeys, have? Apparently, breasts are illegal in certain parts of the U.S. [-X
Actually, close to 100% of the population has breasts, some are just developed differently. :wink:

The lack of maturity is not with the listening audience, but with station management and the FCC. These people need to grow up. :roll:

[gethen]

Garrision Keillor censored for using the word "breast." I'm surprized the radio execs let "Tomato Butt" get through. :wink:

[CalabashCorolla]

When the conservative watchdogs start in on Garrison Keillor...sigh...
What "conservative watchdogs" would those be?

I'm not exactly sure what the group that got uptight about his show was worried about...
What group would that be?

Didja read the article?

:)

Yes, I DID read the article. I had actually read it earlier in the day and was happy for the chance to respond to it. :)

The thrust of my reply was that groups such as the FCC and public organizations concerned with "decency" standards in the media have been tending to lean more conservatively in the past few years than they had in the past...thus the "Return to the 50s" title of the thread. Most of this concern (and rightly so, in many cases) comes as a result of the persuasive nature of the media and its role in the decision-making of the more impressionable members of society, namely, its young people. The measures taken in the '90s to rate video games and put explicit lyric warnings on music CDs were good steps because they put some responsibility in the families of such impressionable folks to safeguard them from offensive and negatively infulential content. As of the past few years, however, measures proposed and inacted to limit potentially offensive content on the broadcast media have been considered by some to be over-reaching and unnecessary. Why? Because simply taking something potentially offensive off the air bestows no responsibility in the public to decide for themselves what is or is not too offensive to listen to/watch. It also limits what one may decide to listen to/watch, as well as what one may choose to broadcst themselves, which of course brings up many First Amendment issues.

Why did the Kentucky station in particular choose to cancel Keillor's show? As they had not received much, if any, negative response to the show's offensiveness, my belief is that the station officials themselves must have found the show's content, if not offensive, then potentially so, to such a degree that they decided to ultimately pull the plug. This, in my opinion, follows the same conservative thinking that got Howard Stern's show cancelled and put $8,000 drapery in front of a bare-breasted statue in Washington. Of course, I should have just said "the station officials" instead of "the group" in my previous post, but at the time I was feeling lazy :wink:

Most of all, I find it amusing that Garrison Keillor would be the target of any sort of censorship controversy, as I have found his sort of commentary to be dryly humorous and fairly innocuous, at least when compared with other media lightning rods. So the opening line to my last post was more of an exasperated "Ohhhh nooooooo, they're going after Garrison Keillor now!" than an actual charge. Thinking that his commentary is going to majorly offend and attract government action because of content like "breasts" and "get high" goes beyond enforcing community standards and borders on prudishness.

[Celestial Mechanic]

To paraphrase Garrison Keillor:

Kentucky--where all the public officials are below average.

:o

[mike alexander]

The perfect censorship is self-censorship. Once you get the hoodwink over their heads, you're home free, because they'll do your job for you.

[mike alexander]

It was my fate to sit opposite to a fine turkey, and I asked my partner if I should have the pleasure of helping her to a piece of the breast. She looked at me very indignantly, and said, “Curse your impudence, sir, I wonder where you larn manners. Sar, I take a lily turkey bosom, if you please. Talk of breast to a lady, sar!—really quite horrid.”

-Peter Simple by Captain Marryat

[Gillianren]

absolutely--return to the 50s, nothing; return to Victorianism! will we all soon be reduced to no longer possessing legs, but limbs instead?

actually, Shakespeare said a lot of things that wouldn't make it on TV today, in part because he lived in a society that didn't find them shocking. (like the racist bits.) what I find worrisome about the current FCC regs is that they are trying to protect a society that, by and large, is not as shocked as they are.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but I clearly and distinctly remember reading that the FCC had fined someone even after all the complaints were determined to be the same person using a variety of false names. so much for community standards, right?

[tracer]

Just more evidence of the ongoing assault on the First Amendment by those who consider themselves above the Constitution.
What I don't understand is, why does the U.S. Supreme Court consider the Internet to fall under the 1st amendment's guarantee of "protected speech", but does not consider broadcast TV and radio to fall under the same guarantee?

[Gillianren]

because it's a business. precedent set regarding the movie industry, more's the pity, some seventy-plus years ago, as I recall.

[Swift]

Just more evidence of the ongoing assault on the First Amendment by those who consider themselves above the Constitution.
What I don't understand is, why does the U.S. Supreme Court consider the Internet to fall under the 1st amendment's guarantee of "protected speech", but does not consider broadcast TV and radio to fall under the same guarantee?
My take on this (I'm not a legal expert) is that since broadcast frequencies are a limited resource (there are a limited number of allocated channels and stations), that the federal government has a right to regulate them and allocate them. At that point, they can start inserting restrictions (I'm stating, not agreeing).

This is a reason why satellite radio is not so restricted.

Websites do not have such restrictions (is there a possible limit as to the total number of websites?) but I'm not sure the caselaw is as well tested. I also think there are in place some limitations on the internet, mostly dealing with pornography.

(edited to fix typo)

[Sam5]

Just more evidence of the ongoing assault on the First Amendment by those who consider themselves above the Constitution.


Uhh, actually, the First Amendment allows for the freedom of use of a certain kind of machine, and that machine isn’t a television transmitter. It’s a “press”, a printing press. A flat metal bed with a big screw-gear on it and a handle on it that uses movable type and ink to press the ink onto a large sheet of paper. Television is not a “printing press”. Nor is radio. That’s what allowed the FCC to establish broadcasting standards and guidelines in the first place.

Now don’t get mad at me about this. I’m just the messenger.

[Gillianren]

yes, but it would be nice if you'd gotten the message right, as case law clearly indicates that one does not have to use a printing press to be covered by the First Amendment, which also covers freedom of speech.

[Samara]

It was my fate to sit opposite to a fine turkey, and I asked my partner if I should have the pleasure of helping her to a piece of the breast. She looked at me very indignantly, and said, “Curse your impudence, sir, I wonder where you larn manners. Sar, I take a lily turkey bosom, if you please. Talk of breast to a lady, sar!—really quite horrid.”

-Peter Simple by Captain Marryat

What with all the creationists, flat-earthers, fundies and whatnot, I think where being swept back to the middle ages

[sarongsong]

and remember payola (http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/jul/jul25a_05.html)? Apparently, the FCC doesn't.

[Sam5]

yes, but it would be nice if you'd gotten the message right, as case law clearly indicates that one does not have to use a printing press to be covered by the First Amendment, which also covers freedom of speech.

Sure you can speak, but you can't televise everything you say.

This goes back a long way to the early newsreels and some case law regarding whether or not they should be considered to be "the press".

That was when the term "the press" began to mean, somewhat, "the media". However, the case law regarding the FCC was different for various reasons.

Also, the First Amendment allowed for censorship by the States. Remember that the First Amendments refers to "Congress".... "Congress shall make no law... etc." The First Amendment says what "Congress" (and, generally, the Federal Government) can not do, and it mentions the printing "press", a machine. It doesn't mention TV.

Of course Case Law involves a lot of confusing and conflicting "interpretations" of stuff that isn't even in the Constitution.

[Enzp]

and it mentions the printing "press", a machine. It doesn't mention TV.

With all due respect, I think this is trying overly hard to be clever.

Printing press, the machine. Am I to believe that the founding fathers intended it to be OK to print things on a press, but if I made hand copies, it would not be OK because it was not done on a press? That is silly. The obvious intent was that we as a society should be unfettered in our right to issue our ideas.

Just as some try to make freedom of speech a technicality by saying a painting or some such is not "speech," then we have to wonder if a poem is protected until we add music. Singing is not speech, strictly speaking. That is a specious argument, but one some have made.

Clearly as intended by the first amendment, standing in front of a TV camera and stating a point of view is equivalent to putting it on paper in a printing press.

[Van Rijn]

Clearly as intended by the first amendment, standing in front of a TV camera and stating a point of view is equivalent to putting it on paper in a printing press.

Not quite. In the system the U.S. has today, airwaves are a scarse resource and are licensed. This isn't the same as a printing press or a web site where anyone can, with a bit of cash, set one up. And it has been the case that there have always been some things that can't be said or done on the airwaves in the U.S., though those rules are far looser than they used to be - I regularly watch stuff on 8pm primetime network TV that would have shocked me when I was a kid.

Cable is different, since again, it isn't a scarse resource.

This case is silly, but it does bring up a question. Do you think there should be some rules, or should it be legal to show everything including X rated video and extreme violence - such as people being really killed or tortured? Is the question where the line is drawn or whether there should be a line?

[Sam5]

and it mentions the printing "press", a machine. It doesn't mention TV.

With all due respect, I think this is trying overly hard to be clever.

Printing press, the machine. Am I to believe that the founding fathers intended it to be OK to print things on a press, but if I made hand copies, it would not be OK because it was not done on a press?

No, "art" was ok, as long as it wasn't forced on people. But nude art was generally restricted by the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Also, do you remember hearing the old phrase, "Banned in Boston", regarding certain kinds of books? Cities and states still had the right to do a lot of "press" banning up until about the 1970s. Larry Flynt was involved in some major court cases about that. Then the Supreme Court took over some states rights in its rulings.

When I found out about the "press", I was studying some decisions early in the 20th Century regarding movie newsreels. For a long time, they were not considered to be "the press". Only newspapers, magazines, and books were printed on "the press". Movies, radio, and TV were NOT "the press".

Many people today think that "the press" always meant "the media", but it didn't. It meant the "printing press".

In some ways, such as in news, the Supreme Court has interpreted "the press" to mean "the news media". That is one reason why it is less restricted than the entertainment media of TV and radio. The Court has also taken away many rights of the individual states to censor "the press". Times change. We are living in the 21st Century with an 18th Century Constitution.

[Enzp]

Obviously "the press" didn't include movies before there were any. And just like allowing women and blacks to vote, we sometimes take too long to bring our interpretations of the law up to date. So even if it were the case at some point, it would be wrong to make a statement legal if printed, but illegal if it were spoken by a character in a movie. SO even if the founding fathers did not anticipate movies, there is no doubt in my mind they would not have made a distinction.

Yes, some art was made restricted, such as nudity. Sculpture in the US Capitol notwithsatanding. But aside from nudity, when I mentioned paintings, it was with the making of a political statement in mind. SOme folks object to nudity regardless of its point or purpose. In the case of a political painting, the only objectionable part of it is its message.

So tangential examples aside, I maintain that a message delivered via a painting is no less protected than one delivered off a printing press. For sake of argument, assume the mesages are equivalent.

Many people today think that "the press" always meant "the media", but it didn't. It meant the "printing press".


That is true, but when the press meant only the press, the press was the only mass means of communication there was. SO by saying "the press" in the first amendment, they were in their way saying "by all means of public utterance." Speech and press together had that sense. There is no reason at all to believe the founding fathers intended that spoken word and press-printed material would be protected while paintings, song, and interpretive dance - or whatever - would not be.

On the other hand, having lived through the McCarthy era, I have no trouble at all believing a court would act on a we don't like you so we will interpret the law against you basis.

And I further believe that though the broadcast media may be something of a special case in that we control their content to a degree, the things I cannot say on TV without sanction are also things I cannot shout out in a shopping mall without sanction. I cannot stand on the doorstep of a public school cursing, any more than I can do it on TV.

So on TV or radio, they may decide I cannot use certain words because they are in and of themselves offensive, but they cannot tell me what I can or cannot say with the acceptable words. SO if I wish to state that I disagree with a political party or an elected official, they cannot tell me not to either in print or on TV. On TV they can stop me from cursing in the process or having a nude persons image included.

[Gillianren]

okay, Sam5, you're getting into my area of expertise, here, so let me clear up a few of your misconceptions.

"Banned in Boston" did, yes, apply to books--printed on that printing press you're so determined was all that the First Amendment covered. it is also true that certain books have been forbidden to be purchased through the mails due to obscenity standards. (certain works of Joyce, for example--one wonders how anyone read through them to determine that they were obscene in the first place.)

the obscenity standards in Boston were much stricter, probably due to Boston's puritan history. however, note that past tense. you see, over the last century, the courts (did you ever look up Marbury v. Madison, as requested?) have repeatedly expanded First Amendment protection. in fact, should a case regarding television censorship be brought forward today, I think it might be interesting, as we are still operating on seventy-year-old case law.

now, case law may be contradictory and complex, but it is the legal standard the Supreme Court uses, in addition to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which does have in it a clause known (to my 8th grade history teacher, at least) as the "elastic clause." it is this clause of the Constitution that enables governmental regulation of things that didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. and that, you see, is why we are able to have an FAA, an FCC, and any other alphabet soup agency that holds sway over modern inventions. the Founding Fathers, in their strangely maligned wisdom, knew that they didn't know everything, and they also knew that new things were created all the time. (they should do, given how many of them were created by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson!) certainly it is not outside the realm of probability that (probably) Jefferson imagined a government accustomed only to bows not being allowed to pass laws regarding firearms.

I'm afraid I don't know the relevant case here. I read the part about the film industry being considered a business and therefore not under First Amendment protection in The Celluloid Closet, by Vito Russo, though I know there are literally dozens of other books that would have the same information. however, The Celluloid Closet does make interesting reading for other, unrelated, reasons.

[sarongsong]

...you see, over the last century, the courts (did you ever look up Marbury v. Madison, as requested?) have repeatedly expanded First Amendment protection.So why is Judith Miller in jail?

[captain swoop]

Most BBC Drama and Sitcom wouldn't get on the Air in the USA I am afraid.

We have a 9PM Watershed, after which Nudity and swearing are allowed.

[Jim]

...you see, over the last century, the courts (did you ever look up Marbury v. Madison, as requested?) have repeatedly expanded First Amendment protection.So why is Judith Miller in jail?

Because she has refused to identify her source in a criminal investigation.

The First Amendment says she can say what she wants, not that she can refuse to say where she got it.

[Gillianren]

it's been considered a courtesy that reporters are not required to reveal their sources (see "Deep Throat"), but, to my knowledge, there's no actual law about it, and its coverage under the First Amendment is therefore open to interpretation. besides, I said the courts were widening the interpretation; I didn't say everything was covered. (clearly not, hence discussion of TV censorship!)

[Jim]

Well, tv "censorship" is covered by the First Amendment in a couple of ways.

First, while freedom of what you say is protected by the FA, how you say it is not. There are bunches of laws, regulations, rules, etc that make obscenity in a public forum a crime. I can, by FA, stand up in the town square and call my governor a jerk; that's protected. But, if I call him a (insert appropriate obscene epithet here) jerk, I could be fined. Not for what I said, but for the way I said it.

Second, the airwaves are a limited resource and are under the control of the federal government. (Which, btw, makes sense. Even with this control, I often have to put up with some other radio station two states away walking all over the broadcast signal of my favorite when atmospheric conditions are just so.) Since the gov controls them, the gov can set certain standards as to how they are used. Those standards do not violate the FA, but do follow the laws, etc on how you present things. (Although the FCC seems to be going off the deep end lately.)

(Houston is going through a mild furor concerning public access stations on cable here. Seems someone goofed and ran an x-rated video clip*. Now the city council is trying to figure out how to prevent a repeat and still allow FA expression.)

* No, I didn't see it. I always miss the good stuff.

[sarongsong]

...The First Amendment says she can say what she wants, not that she can refuse to say where she got it.Okay, but she didn't 'say' anything.

[Argos]

Most BBC Drama and Sitcom wouldn't get on the Air in the USA I am afraid.

We have a 9PM Watershed, after which Nudity and swearing are allowed.

Puritans... We have that at 5 pm. 8)

[Celestial Mechanic]

...you see, over the last century, the courts (did you ever look up Marbury v. Madison, as requested?) have repeatedly expanded First Amendment protection.So why is Judith Miller in jail?
And Robert Novak is still walking the streets and storming out of studios? :roll:

[PatKelley]

...The First Amendment says she can say what she wants, not that she can refuse to say where she got it.Okay, but she didn't 'say' anything.

She most certainly did. I think it is best stated by the resignation notice of a freelance journalist when the board of The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) debate centered over whether or not to give Judith Miller the "Conscience in Media" (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001008093) award:

..."The First Amendment is designed to prevent government interference with a free press. Miller, by shielding a government official or officials who attempted to use the press to retaliate against a whistleblower, and scare off other would-be whistleblowers, has allied herself with government interference with, and censorship of, whistleblowers. When your source IS the government, and the government is attempting to use you to target a whistleblower, the notion of shielding a source must be reconsidered. To apply standard practices regarding sources to hiding wrongdoing at the highest levels of government perverts the intent of the First Amendment.”

[genebujold]

While the debate raged on in this thread, the radio station that had pulled his show decided to put it back on the air.

They polled the listening audience, and the feedback was highly favorable for his show, and the detraction was almost totally negligeable.

Since one of the key ingredients of any FCC finding is community perception, the radio station felt they had a very strong case for defending itself against any FCC action, and put him back on the air.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050816/ap_en_ot/people_keillor_1

[sarongsong]

...She most certainly did...I'd certainly like to hear what it was.August 16, 2005
...Miller, who never wrote about Plame, is now serving jail time to protect a source who provided information she did not print....Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601173_pf.html)I do like ASJA's decision, tho---good find! Within (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?schema=&vnu_content_id=1000966 666&WebLogicSession=QwONGue2IsDD6EPCfyucOETo7Ogjlw D9UGUeLGV37jT17AteBtPu|-6725990071611172283/177738805/6/7005/7005/7002/7002/7005/-1) their link:June 22, 2005
MR. McCLELLAN: The President has actually talked about both the questions that you brought up recently....No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States, and he has urged anyone who has information that can help resolve this matter to come forward and give that information to the prosecutors...

[publiusr]

Alternating voice on

Yes indeedy ladies and gentlemen...I've been arrested. Why we've never had such a comotion---at least not since Brainard the anarchist bombed the 50th annual Eugene V. Debbs Society meeting. We found the bodies of the Tolerudes floating face down in Lake Wobegon.

And stand by for some of those powdermilk biscuits.

Sing-song voice off.