...broadcast regulations.

First one in 30 years. Last one was George Carlin and his 7 dirty words bit.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080317/scotus_broadcast_indecency.html?.v=2

Discussion in progress here:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080317-supreme-court-to-hear-fcc-appeal-o f-fleeting-f-bomb-ruling.html

Seems we are going to get a chance to see just what kind of court we have now. This case will have significant implications on future broadcast regulation. Might even end up with a new legal test or two, depending.

What is the definition of a "fleeting" expletive? What other kinds of expletives are there? Is this in any way connected to the legal distinction between "indecency" and "obscenity?"

A fleeting expletive would be Bono blurting out the F word at the Grammys unexpectedly.. a none scripted F bomb if you will...

That's it exactly.

Alfredo, I don't know and am curious to hear that sorted out among other things. Will be a good one to follow, IMHO.

To my non-legal ear, Bob's definition seems to make sense: If the profanity happens spontaneously during a live broadcast, then it is a "fleeting" expletive. On the other hand, if a radio station plays a piece of recorded music that has a cuss word in the lyrics, then that is not a "fleeting" expletive, and it falls under a different set of rules.

The legal definitions of obscenity and indecency, as they were taught to me in my days at volunteer-operated radio stations, are:

Obscenity-Anything that runs afoul of contemporary community standards and that has no artistic, scientific, political, or cultural value.

Indecency-Anything that runs afoul of contemporary community standards but that can be shown to have artistic, scientific, political, or cultural value.

The definition of obscenity is so narrow that virtually every use of profanity is excluded. Even if somebody yells the F-word, he could then say that this is a poem and that it therefore has artistic value. In practice, when either of these is charged against a broadcaster or an artist, the road ahead is painful because both parties then have to spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in court, working out a satisfactory definition of the contemporary community standards that should be applied, proving (or disproving) artistic merits, etc.

This is what happened at the Jello Biafra/Dead Kennedys obscenity trial in the mid 1980s: an entire year was spent in court arguing over a poster that had been included in the Dead Kennedys _Frankenchrist_ LP. The case was dismissed, but Biafra felt that he didn't really win because he spent an entire year of his life sitting in court, arguing over minutia, when he could have been doing more productive things.

I would also think its not fleeting, if its in a prepared script.

From what I understand, "obscenity" has to meet all points given such as the one mentioned about community standards. I think there are 4 points altogether. "Indecency" only has to meet one of these points. It's virtually impossible for something to have NO artistic, scientific, political or cultural value and in the event that it does, still has to get through the other points!

I found a reference to the obscenity test:

http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Censorship/3-prong-test.html

This came out of a 1973 Supreme Court case, Miller vs. the State of California. The three "prongs" of the test are:

(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, [Roth, supra, at 489,]

(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and

(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary.

Are we talking about obscenities then, and not just profanity?

What's the break down then? Obscene, vs profane, vs pornographic.

Is the real question being a fleeting bit of profanity obscene?

Personally, I don't see the harm given the organization is working hard to prevent it from happening in the first place. The kiddies are gonna hear it in the wild plenty, there is just no getting around that, unless they are very heavily sheltered. (and that comes with other problems)

Without a known harm, speech really shouldn't be regulated like that. I'm wondering about the test for fleeting, if there ends up being one. Knowing those tests helps with lay person judgment, and it's just cool to think about how the courts actually sort stuff out.

There's an abundance of absurdity in practically any government content regulation at all.

For one thing, there's the irony of having the First Amendment chipped away by far-right groups that bring out torches and pitchforks whenever the Second is examined through 21st century eyes.

Then there's the fantasy of the so-called Safe Harbor rule, in which "indecent" (though not "obscene") content is permitted between 10PM and 6AM, when, our federal nannies believe, no children are listening. As a veteran Dad, I can promise you that children are keenly aware of the forbidden treats they might find at night.

We're in a world where what KSKD says--that kids will hear it in the wild plenty--is so universally true that any parent who thinks otherwise is leaving their child unprotected and unschooled in the ability to distinguish good from bad. That's a fundamental responsibility of parenting, not our big federal Brother.

And, for now, we have an Administration that finds enough time on its hands to pander to its base by threatening to impose ruinous fines on any licensee that shows the bad judgment to run live network coverage of something as dangerous to our freedom and sanity as a human breast, or a word that can be heard on any playground any day in any city in the country.

(But casual bloody murder? No problem-o).

And it's not like you can't find extremely explicit written material in your neighborhood public library. Look at what Rabbit Angstrom does with the gold coins in John Updike's Pulitzer-winning "Rabbit is Rich."

Do it the true conservative way: let the market decide. Let parents do their job.