Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Supreme Court Debates 'F-word' Without Using It
WASHINGTON - A clearly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday debated indecent language for an hour without anyone using the words in question.
Circumlocutions like "the F-word" and "the S-word" sufficed as the court considered the year's highest-profile free-speech controversy. All signs now point to a tight decision over whether broadcasters can be fined for allowing use of so-called "fleeting expletives," which are swear words used in passing.
The court's conservative justices showed sympathy for the Federal Communications Commission members who want to punish broadcasters. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia denounced the "coarsening" effect of swearing, while Chief Justice John Roberts warned about "impressionable children" being harmed by inherently dirty words.
"Why do you think the F-word has shocking value?" Robert asked rhetorically. "It's because it's associated with sexual or excretory activity; that's what gives it its force."
Added Scalia, "that's what gives it its' zing."
But other justices sounded more willing to tolerate the occasional swear word, with Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a Navy veteran, noting that sometimes "you can't help but laugh" at how a swear word is deployed. More pointedly, some justices suggested the FCC's stern new swear words policy came about arbitrarily.
"There seems to be no rhyme or reason with some of the changes the commission has made," Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
The dispute in the case called FCC v. Fox Television Stations centers on two questions. The broader one is whether regulators violate First Amendment free speech rights by fining broadcasters for an occasional swear word. The other question is narrower, and it might be the only one the court actually decides: whether the FCC acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in changing its policy about indecent language in 2004.
"It was, at a minimum, a rational policy choice," Solicitor General Gregory Garre insisted.
Loosening indecency standards, Garre warned ominously, could lead to "Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street."
Attorney Carter Phillips, representing Fox Television Stations, retorted that "there was no explanation" for the FCC's policy change.
The policy change in question arose following a live 2003 broadcast of the "Golden Globe Awards," when the lead singer Bono from the Irish rock ban U-2 declared his award was "really, really, (blank)ing brilliant." During the 2003 Billboard Music Award, quasi-celebrity Nicole Richie declared "it's not so (blank)ing simple" to remove "cow (blank) out of a Prada purse."
And during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Cher celebrated by denouncing her myriad doubters.
"I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right." the Fresno High School dropout originally known as Cherilyn Sarkisian said. "So (blank) 'em. I still have a job and they don't."
FCC career staffers initially considered such language the kind of passing expletive, drained of sexual content, that's been grudgingly accepted for the past three decades. This reasoning dates back to a mid-1970s Supreme Court decision, involving comedian George Carlin, in which the court determined that "isolated use of a potentially offensive word" differs from the "verbal shock treatment" of profane repetition
The politically appointed FCC, then reversed the staff decision and declared that even a fleeting reference to what the commission called "the F-word" could be deemed unacceptable. The fines for broadcasters could potentially reach as high as $325,000.
"It's one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit words for sexual activity," Garre told the Court.
Countered Stevens, "that's a word that is often used with no reference to sexual connotations."
A court decision is expected by next June.
- Posted in
32 Comments so far
Show All"Why do you think the F-word has shocking value?" Robert asked rhetorically. "It's because it's associated with sexual or excretory activity; that's what gives it its force."
Chief Justice John Roberts associates fucking with shitting and pissing? Interesting. Very interesting. One might think the Supreme Court of the Homeland might find better ways to use its fucking time.
-- EKATON --
right..........they're all out of their 'vulcan' minds................
Makes one wonder how Roberts spends his free time, doesn't it?
All hail George Carlin!! (RIP)
Don't these people have anything better to do????!!!
What fascinates me most about this story is the Supreme Court's assumption that people have no memory that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who first used the "F-word" on the Senate floor. (which wasn't widely reported of course).
For the full story see: June 24 2004 Common Dreams
Published on Thursday, June 24, 2004 by Reuters
Cheney Utters 'F-Word' in Senate - Aides
"The incident occurred on Tuesday in a terse discussion between the two that touched on politics, religion and money, with Cheney finally telling Leahy to "f--- off" or "go f--- yourself," the aides said.
"I think he was just having a bad day," Leahy was quoted as saying on CNN, which first reported the incident."
Apparently the ruling class can have a "Bad Day" but anyone else should be fined. Unfortunately we're stuck with these idiots on the Supreme Court for a very long time!
(EKATON: John Roberts comment is interesting...and creepy)
"...Chief Justice John Roberts warned about "impressionable children" being harmed by inherently dirty words."
So that would mean any and all parents who use "inherently dirty words" within the hearing distance of their "impressionable children" would be guilty of... what? A crime? Child abuse? Contributing to the delinquency?
And why does the SC and the FCC pretend that "impressionable children" do not watch cable? And why do both still pretend that our speech must be regulated by what a child might or might not hear?
What fucking century is this, for fuck's sake?
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't like to see the f-word used on TV, especially during the "family hour".
It is not the governments job to legislate morality, but judging from some of the comments posted, the morality in this country is in the toilet. If we can't practice self regulation, then maybe then, unfortunetly, the government must step in.
Excellent comment.
With all due respect I'd say that position is the opposite of "old fashioned." If you want to control what your family hears you need to take responsibility, not demand that government control what others say. If you want a real 'family hour' turn off the damn tube and have a conversation, play games or music.
We need to be more than passive consumers swallowing everything indiscriminately than getting upset when we're fed rot.
Also: if this is truly a government of the people than what good will it do for the government to 'step in'? In the end you are always talking about one vision of morality imposing itself on another, and that is unjust.
Maybe you're watching too much TV. Maybe everyone needs to turn off the TV for 23 hours a day and the world would be better off.
The problem with this is its about Fox being able to use more effective marketing in my view. Revenge Girl girl remarks "Apparently the ruling class can have a "Bad Day" but anyone else should be fined"- I'd put Fox squarly in the ruling class. Freedom of speech is a vital issue, and while this decision will relate I wish the example was more evocative of freedom and less of greater corporate power.
I would suggest that civility and decency is a community responsibility. Personal responsibility is required, but others need to take responsibility too.
I agree completly, but if someone does not feel the desire to conform to 'our' sense of 'civility and decency', are we going to compel them to with the mechanism of government?
What I was referring to specifically is television, in that case I think it is firmly the responsibility of the individual view to select what they will and will not watch. In a community dialog it is appropriate to call upon a person speaking outside the accepted norm to stop. In mass media it is not appropriate to terminate content because it offends. If a book offends you, don't read it. Demanding that everything we MAY or MAY NOT encounter meet our moral standards is antidemocratic, in my view.
Agreed. I was thinking mostly of children and their inability to decern what is decent and what isn't.
"Demanding that everything we MAY or MAY NOT encounter meet our moral standards is antidemocratic, in my view."
True. People must employ their own moral standards, but should not force them on others. At the same time, I do feel that some protection is needed for those that cannot protect themselves. Say the parents are gone and a child gets control of the TV.
Its a touchy area. And I don't have a good answer for my own mind.
Thanks for your toughts.
Tom Edgar
Recently a young(20s) lady, a daughter of a friend took on a "Tour Guide's" job on an outback bus tour during University break.
Her clients were all from the American deep south. One accidentally dropped a bag on Sarah's foot "Jesus bloody Christ." Upon which several of these very young (teens) voiced their objections. Sarah then said "If you find that objectionable, and I remind you your touring the "Bush". I advise you to get off now, because that could be the preamble to an affectionate welcome where we are going." One girl said truculently. "We are not used to that in my country."
Sarah only said. "Yep well you are the foreigners and this is not YOUR country."
Now I do not use profanities I have always thought they were used by people with an insufficient grasp of the English language, one of the reasons why schoolchildren in the schoolyard can invariably outswear any adult.
As shock value, emphasis, profanity can be excused, Carlin, as much as I loved him did over indulge. High Court Judges, in my experience, will pontificate publicly whilst profaning privately.
Those linguists who have studied the English language amongst us will know that most of the words used have their origins in normal everyday usage from the past. Shakespeare often used them. Ye gods if you took "Bloody" (Churchill's favourite)out of the lexicon most Australians would be tongue tied.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
Yes, all so called "dirty" words come originally from some culture or subculture's everyday language.
The association of a word with psychologically disturbing realities (sex, bodily functions, etc.) or lower class activities, makes the word "dirty" (Thus, the need arises for a new "cleaner" word); and upper class usage makes it acceptable (For example the words jazz, rock and roll and other slang which has become everyday, used to mean sex). The media will always push the envelope in order to get shock value and sell crap (I mean stuff). But when an individual does it (unless you are Cheney) it's considered taboo. The lack of George Carlin's "7 dirty words" in mainstream media doesn't make the media less disgusting! If people are concerned with their children then they should turn the TV off.
If you look up the words for "Devil" or "money" in the Thesaurus there are dozens of equalivent words because these concepts make English speakers uncomfortable.
The English language morphs because of complex psychology. Now some people think that Anglo-Saxon words are "dirty" but scientific terms are "clean", perhaps because the current era values science over nature. It's all a matter of perception and language is always changing.
George Carlin's "7 dirty words" routine used satire to open people's minds to how silly it all is. I especially liked Johnny Rotten's comment when asked about the shocking language The Sex Pistols used he said: "I speak nothing but the fucking English language".
Words only have shock value if people are shocked. The Supreme Court is obsessed with this idiotic issue because they have too much time on their hands and they are the sort of people who think they can control others. The concepts embeded in so called "dirty" words are especially salient in their minds - for some reason!
Truly ironic isn't it? The SCOTUS will allow the state sanctioned murder of a human being, put a mass murderer in power and yet they get queasy over the word "fuck".
Help reduce the deficit - TAX CHURCHES!
Well, I for one am so tired of grown ups hiding behind "the children". OMG!! "What about the children?" "The innocent, impressionable children." Holy crap. I wish they could just be honest. Let's face it, there isn't a child yet that has been traumatically injured by hearing someone say "shit" or "fuck". Ever. Truth be told, there aren't any adults who have been harmed by it either.
But the whiny adults who don't have the balls to say," I think that's vulgar, and I don't want them to be able to say that" just piss me off! Of course, censorship sounds so much more noble when they do it "for the children". Sheesh.
Let me get this straight . . . the US government is slaughtering thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis on a daily basis (and that's only the "official" wars - doesn't include all of the covert crap that we usually don't hear about), and somehow a word with four letters is this big, evil entity threatening our children and culture? I don't particularly like all the vulgarity and whatnot in TV and movies either, but let's have a little sense of perspective here.
Four-letter words were not always considered dirty -- only after the great great great grandchildren of the Druids/Celts wanted to be pretentious and use Latin Derivatives.
Olde Englishe, Current Polite Conversation
F---, the verb was used for Fornicate
F---, the noun sometimes used for low-grade human
S---, the verb was used for Defecate
S---, the noun now is Feces
S---, the pronoun is used for Stuff
T---, the noun is compacted lump of Feces
P---, the noun now must be Urine
P---, the verb now must be Urinate
P-----, the adjective now expected to be Angry
A--, the noun is one word for Symbol of major party
A------, the noun must now be Anal Sphincter or current leader of other party
I could go on but could get into poor taste.
Hardly anyone ever misunderstands what is meant when four letter words are used to express an idea or emotion. Isn't that good communication?
There is one frequent exception: L---.
When someone hears something over and over, Or for that matter sees it over and over, even if it is offensive it becomes more acceptable to that person. Just because you have been exposed to bad language or use it does not make it right or good. If we are striving for what is right... for instance the war issue. We need to reach for right living right decisions in all we do. We need to lift up our fellow human being and set an example to all we meet. Making right choices in small things leads to right choices in big things. And a rightous person is not afraid to go against the crowd and stand up for what he believes in because every day he does what he knows is right he practices what he preaches. Do not let the worlds morality dictate who you are especially not the television. Don't say or do things that you or your mom would be ashamed of. Kimberly
How many of our best and brightest can dance on the head of a pin? What's the purpose of this effort and what does it hope to obtain. This isn't an issue about which to muster the forces of government. It's the lazy way out of persuasion and long-suffering. No wonder religion is failing, it keeps trying to hand it's job over to the state.
The current Supreme Court is one of the main reasons we have swear words.
Now thats a really good one!
If this wasn't so goddam big a waste of time it would be laughable. 40% of the world population will be murdered this year by pollution as Bush, Big Coal and company spew mercury into the air. 500,000 Americans will be murdered by big tobacco and congress subsidizing tobacco that is being grown in radioactive fertilizer (phosphate fertilizer due the phosphorous coming from COFFINite) and the tobacco not being washed before it's ground up and put in cigarettes. Industrial pollution by climate change has brought 1/4 of mammals to the brink of extinction, the most massive animal cruelty there ever was. The same is true for 1/3rd of amphibians, though that data is old and it's probably worse now. The Bush crime family is preparing robot attack jets to kill everyone whose not gleefully slobbing their knobs. And the supreme court wants to debate if swear words should be broadcast or not... Ridiculous.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Steve
Frank Zappa had it right when he debated any irate neo-com on censorship, "They are words, just words". The fact is the "words" they are so distasteful of, are normal bodily functions - assuming they are exactly what the words discribe. What every human being does with regularity and in private, mostly, doesn't seem to raise my ire. If they want to censor things that are far more distructive than the act of pro-creating and deficating, then I would suggest all things having to do with war would be better put to the axe. Or murder amd killing of all types. Can you imagine how void of its usual content Fox news would be if they didn't mention war? Or for that matter anything that detailed the bloody circumstances around celebrated murders? The kind of thing that high light the killing of a mother and fetus, or some other dastardly event where bodies, body parts, and blood are part of the scene? Now we are talking obscene. If the state wants to control words, they need to control what the government does that is obscene first, in a "do as I do" manner, rather than "do as I say,and ignore what I do" way that is normal these days.
Zappa was right about a lot of things. He understood words, but he also had a basic grasp of the relative importance of things. John Roberts would probably look for the evil in "blisters" because it rhymes with "sisters" and is thus an assault on the family. When are the neocons going to understand that you find what you look for and become what you hate?
I would suggest another problem that allowing filth in everyday language and common culture (TV-movies-videos) generate in my opinion. Whatever you allow as a standard...then the lower elements of a society must use something worse to prove their (difference) status. Rap was a good example. Insulting language to ladies is common.
Its sort of like lowering the standards in school, you tend to get lower performance.
Nanoo
I happen to be the founder of The Fuck You Club here in MN. We are a group of mature ladies from various walks of life who gather at least once a year. We talk politics, environment and personal issues. It's a week end thing and we enjoy dancing, singing, cooking, drinking and smoking. No men or children are allowed. It's a great time for us to cut loose from the demands made on our lives and the F-word best describes how we feel about many things not even remotely related to sex. I'm sure the members will get a fucking good laugh over the supremes.
it was Vice President Dick Cheney who first used the "F-word" on the Senate floor
Sadly to say, that was probably the first time in many of moons that the senate had a touch of reality to it. But I'll argue it wasn't the first. Its my understanding that the floors of congress and senate, back in the day so to speak, had some rather heated exchanges and fist fights. And if I remember right, one was also shot during debates.
Got me going now. I'll have to look that up :-)
As long as Republicans dominate the Supreme Court, it'll be nothing except an S-word and a C-word.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
I can't believe those people are supposed to be "smart"? "F" word - "S" word. Everyone does it - why are they so afraid to say it? For a country who likes to go to war so often, they are all afraid of the most insignificant things. We are truly a screwed up country. The Untied States of America.