DOCSLIB.ORG

A New “Slant” on Pacifica?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New “Slant” on Pacifica? A New “Slant” on Pacifica? BY LEITA WALKER AND MICHAEL GIUDICESSI o paraphrase one observer: in Pacifica,” the Federal Circuit tried to Though its members diverged in their somewhere up there, George explain.6 reasoning, the Supreme Court unani- Carlin is smiling.1 Even so, there’s hope for vulgarity- mously affirmed (Justice Gorsuch took First, in June 2017, in loving true believers (a small but fierce no part in consideration or decision of TMatal v. Tam,2 the Supreme Court contingent, we imagine) that Carlin the case). struck as unconstitutional the Lan- may freely shout his seven dirty words The government raised three ham Act’s prohibition on the from the afterlife with the metaphysi- arguments in defense of the dispar- registration of “disparaging” trade- cal knowledge that, “in this electronic/ agement clause: (1) that trademarks marks, ruling that “[s]peech may Internet age,” Federal Communica- are a form of government speech, not be banned on the ground that it tions Commission (FCC) licensees rendering the First Amendment inap- expresses ideas that offend.” may broadcast them without fear or plicable, (2) that they are a form of Then, in December 2017, the Fed- sanction. government subsidy, and the gov- eral Circuit decided In re Brunetti,3 The hope stems in part from Asso- ernment is not required to subsidize striking a similar prohibition barring ciate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s activities it does not wish to pro- registration of “immoral” or “scandal- public statement that Pacifica “was mote, and (3) that a new test—a ous” marks—terms the court held wrong when it issued” and should be “government-program” doctrine— were synonymous with “vulgar.” Bru- revisited given “[t]ime, technologi- should apply.8 The Court unanimously netti held the government lacked a cal advances,” and recent rulings of rejected the first argument, stating substantial interest in “suppressing the FCC.7 Further, the sweeping, pro- that the government does not “dream speech because it is off-putting.” Even speech declarations Tam and Brunetti up” these marks, “edit” them, or (out- if it had such an interest, the court relied on to invalidate prohibitions on side of § 1052(a)) inquire into “whether quipped, “[i]n this electronic/Internet the registration of disparaging and any viewpoint conveyed by a mark is age . it has completely failed.” immoral and scandalous (i.e., vulgar) consistent with Government policy Actually, what Carlin would say— trademarks stand irreconcilable with or . that expressed by other marks” and, in fact did say, mercilessly and Pacifica and its ruling that the FCC already registered.9 “If the federal reg- with bug-eyes—is, “There is no ‘up can regulate speech that, though not istration of a trademark makes the there’ for people to be smiling down obscene, is “indecent.” mark government speech,” the Court from.”4 said, “the Federal Government is bab- Moreover, he might point out I. Background on Recent Lanham Act bling prodigiously and incoherently.”10 that, while making these modernday Decisions Only four justices—Alito, Thomas, assessments of values and effec- Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts— tiveness, Brunetti also attempted to A. Matal v. Tam considered (and went on to reject) the distinguish FCC v. Pacifica Foun- Tam arose after Simon Tam, lead government’s other two arguments. dation5—the case arising out of an singer of the rock group “The Slants,” These justices also considered the afternoon radio broadcast of Carlin’s sought federal registration of his argument that trademarks are com- “Filthy Words” monologue. “The gov- band’s name—which he said he had mercial speech and thus subject to the ernment’s interest in protecting the adopted to “reclaim” the term and relaxed scrutiny outlined in Central public from profane and scandalous drain its denigrating force as a deroga- Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public marks is not akin to the government’s tory term for Asians. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y. 11 They con- interest in protecting children and The Patent and Trademark Office cluded, however, that they did not other unsuspecting listeners from a (PTO) denied Tam’s application under need to resolve this debate because barrage of swear words over the radio 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the disparagement clause could not the registration of trademarks that withstand even Central Hudson inter- may “disparage . or bring . into mediate review. Leita Walker is a partner in Faegre Baker contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, The remaining justices—Ken- Daniels LLP’s Minneapolis office, and living or dead.” After Tam unsuccess- nedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Michael Giudicessi is a partner in the firm’s fully contested the denial before the Kagan—found no reason to wade Des Moines office. Both practice media PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal into these issues, concluding instead law. Opinions expressed here are theirs Board (TTAB), he took his case to that because the Court had unani- and not their partners’, but they note those the Federal Circuit, which found the mously held § 1052(a) constituted partners who disagree can take a flying leap disparagement clause facially uncon- viewpoint discrimination, heightened at the moon. stitutional under the First Amendment. scrutiny applied and was not satisfied. 6 n Communications Lawyer n Winter 2018 Justice Thomas also wrote separately. not assert that the clause could sur- made on the logic of Pacifica. The Although he agreed that the dispar- vive strict scrutiny review. Rather, recent Lanham Act decisions, how- agement clause could not survive refining somewhat the position it ever, put the decision on even shakier Central Hudson analysis, he wrote to took in Tam, the government argued ground by suggesting that, one way express his belief that strict scrutiny that the clause did not implicate the or another, governmental regulation should apply regardless whether the First Amendment because trademark of scandalous and immoral—i.e., inde- speech was commercial.12 registration is either a government cent—content merits strict scrutiny subsidy program or a limited pub- and under that test violates the Consti- lic forum. Alternatively, it argued that tution. This article identifies two legal B. In re Brunetti trademarks are commercial speech strategies that emerge from those Tam did not address another pro- implicating only Central Hudson decisions. hibition in § 1052(a)—namely, one review.14 The court rejected all these barring registration of marks that “con- arguments, concluding that strict scru- sist[] of or comprise[] immoral . or tiny applied and that the scandalous A. Strategy No. 1: Arguing That the scandalous matter.” However, after clause could not survive intermediate FCC’s Indecency Regime Discriminates Tam, many predicted the demise of scrutiny, anyway. Based on Viewpoint this clause, as well. And, indeed, six In Tam, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Soto- months after Tam, the Federal Circuit II. Discussion mayor, and Kagan were steadfast that struck down the scandalous clause as In Pacifica, the Supreme Court con- strict scrutiny is automatic anytime unconstitutional. cluded nearly 40 years ago that the there is viewpoint discrimination,19 At issue in Brunetti was an attempt First Amendment permitted the FCC and in his separate concurrence to register the trademark “FUCT” for to “channel” broadcasting of indecent Thomas expressed his belief that use on clothing. The TTAB affirmed speech to the late-night hours. In so “when the government seeks to the PTO’s refusal to register the mark holding, the Court did not apply either restrict truthful speech in order to under the scandalous clause. On strict or intermediate scrutiny, though suppress the ideas it conveys, strict appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed that it acknowledged that the “Commis- scrutiny is appropriate, whether or not the FUCT mark was vulgar and there- sion’s objections to the broadcast were the speech in question may be charac- fore immoral and scandalous but based in part on its content” and that terized as ‘commercial.’”20 Meanwhile, concluded that the bar on registra- “the fact that society may find speech Alito, joined by Thomas, Breyer, and tion of such marks violated the First offensive is not a sufficient reason for Roberts acknowledged the possibility Amendment. suppressing it.”15 that Central Hudson’s intermedi- Because the meanings of “vulgar,” Instead, it engaged in a contextual ate scrutiny might apply, but only “immoral,” and “scandalous” are similar analysis, concluding that the FCC’s because trademarks have a commer- to, and perhaps synonymous with, the order was justified on two grounds. cial component.21 meaning of the FCC buzzword “inde- “First,” the Court said, “the broadcast Unlike trademarks, the speech tar- cent,” it is worth examining how the media have established a uniquely geted by the FCC’s indecency regime Federal Circuit defined these words. pervasive presence in the lives of all is purely expressive. Thus, it seems a The court began with the undisputed Americans,” meaning that when inde- foregone conclusion that strict scru- point that the word “fuck” is vulgar cent material is broadcast it “confronts tiny would apply if the FCC’s indecency and quickly concluded that FUCT, the citizen, not only in public, but also regime is deemed viewpoint based. the phonetic twin of “fucked,” is also in the privacy of the home, where So, is a ban on dirty words view- vulgar. It then went on to hold that the individuals’ right to be left alone point discrimination? The Federal a vulgar mark
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television
    Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Issue 5 2015 The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television Ellen Alexandra Eichner Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Alexandra Eichner, The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television, 92 WASH. U. L. REV. 1353 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss5/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SEVEN DIRTY WORDS YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY ON TELEVISION I. INTRODUCTION Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.1 For any American who has turned on his or her television since 1978 and tuned into one of the traditional broadcast networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox—these seven words have been conspicuously absent from broadcasting. Confusingly, with a flip of the remote over to a premium cable television station, these seven words may all occur in quick succession on one television show.2 When one of them does happen to make it to air on a broadcast network, it often becomes the source of an astronomical fine from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and years of litigation between the network and the federal government.3 A recent case resulted in a huge victory for broadcasters.
    [Show full text]
  • Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE SPOKEN ON POPULAR MORNING RADIO PROGRAMS By MEGAN FITZGERALD A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Megan Fitzgerald defended on October 31, 2007. Barry Sapolsky Professor Directing Dissertation Colleen Kelley Outside Committee Member Jay Rayburn Committee Member Gary Heald Committee Member Steven McClung Committee Member Approved: Stephen McDowell, Chair, Communication John K. Mayo, Dean, Communication The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Patrick and Kathleen Fitzgerald. Thank you for supporting all that I do—even when I wanted to grow up to be the Pope. By watching you, I learned the power of teaching by example. And, you set the best. Thank you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was completed under the guidance of my major professor, Dr. Barry Sapolsky. Dr. Sapolsky not only served as my major professor, but also as a mentor throughout my entire graduate program. He was a constant source of encouragement, motivation, and, at times, realism. In addition to serving on my committee, he also gave me the opportunity to work in the Communication Research Center.
    [Show full text]
  • "Indecent Proposal: the FCC and Four-Letter Words," Lawdragon.Com
    LAWYER PROFILES AND LEGAL NEWS Indecent Proposal: The FCC and Four-Letter Words By Debbie L. Berman and Wade A. Thomson In February 2006, the FCC issued an order resolving several complaints against various broadcasts. See 21 F.C.C.R. On the same day our nation went to the polls to elect 2664 (2006). The broadcasts at issue included Cher’s use its next president, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral of the F-word at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Nichole argument on when the F-word is indecent as opposed to Richie’s use of the F-word at the 2003 Awards, NYPD Blue’s artistically integral. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et employment of several other expletives, and the use of al., No. 07-582, centers on the Federal Communications “bullshitter” during The Early Show. The FCC found all of Commission’s policy of punishing broadcasters for so-called these fleeting expletives to be indecent, thereby adding “fleeting expletives” during hours that children are expected “shit” to the presumptively indecent word list. The FCC later to be in the audience. The case involves several nebulous reversed its finding in regards to The Early Show because issues and important societal concerns, including the the fleeting expletive occurred during a news show, while increased sexual content on television, who should decide the uses of the F-word during the award shows were seen what is indecent and what guidelines should be used. as deliberate and gratuitous. History of FCC Indecency Policy and Fleeting These orders were consolidated for purposes of review Expletives by the 2nd Circuit in Fox v.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC V. Pacifica Foundation Ann-Ellen Marcus
    Boston College Law Review Volume 20 Article 5 Issue 5 Number 5 7-1-1979 Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation Ann-Ellen Marcus Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ann-Ellen Marcus, Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 20 B.C.L. Rev. 975 (1979), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol20/iss5/5 This Casenotes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation '—On October 30, 1973, at two o'clock in the afternoon, New York educational, non-profit radio station WBAI, owned by and licensed to the Pacifica Foundation, 2 aired a recorded twelve-minute satiric monologue by George Carlin entitled "Filthy Words." 3 The Carlin monologue was broadcast during the course of a regu- larly scheduled live program. The program, whose format consists of com- mentary by the host and listener call-ins, on this day was focusing on contem- porary society's attitudes towards language. 4 The record was played towards the end of the program, and was selected because "it was regarded as an incisive satirical view of the subject under discussion."' During the course of his monologue, Carlin repeatedly discusses the seven filthy words that "you couldn't say on the public ..
    [Show full text]
  • Fk Yea I Swear: Cursing and Gender in a Corpus of Myspace Pages 1
    1 of 20 Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in a corpus of MySpace pages 1 Mike Thelwall School of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 1902 321470 Fax: +44 1902 321478 Youth-orientated social network sites like MySpace are important venues for socialising and identity expression. Analysing such sites can therefore give a timely window into otherwise hidden aspects of contemporary culture. In this article a corpus of MySpace member home pages is used to analyse swearing in the U.S. and U.K. The results indicate that most MySpaces of 16 year olds and about 15% of middle-aged MySpaces contain strong swearing, for both males and females. There was no significant gender difference in the U.K. for strong swearing, especially for younger users (16-19). This is perhaps the first large-scale evidence of gender equality in strong swearing frequency in any informal English language use context. In contrast, U.S. male MySpaces contain significantly more strong swearing than those of females. The U.K. female assimilation of traditionally male swearing in the informal context of MySpace is suggestive of deeper changes in gender roles in society, possibly related to the recent rise in ‘ladette culture’. Keywords : Swearing, gender, MySpace, social network sites. 1. Introduction MySpace is a highly popular youth oriented social network site, which apparently became the most visited web site in 2007 for U.S. web users (Prescott 2007). It has been described as replacing the (shopping) mall as the place where modern U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Onze Taal. Jaargang 82
    Onze Taal. Jaargang 82 bron Onze Taal. Jaargang 82. Genootschap Onze Taal, Den Haag 2013 Zie voor verantwoording: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_taa014201301_01/colofon.php Let op: werken die korter dan 140 jaar geleden verschenen zijn, kunnen auteursrechtelijk beschermd zijn. i.s.m. 1 [Nummer 1] Onze Taal. Jaargang 82 4 Gerda Havertong leest voor in het kinderprogramma Sesamstraat. Foto: Freek van Asperen / ANP Kippa Van voorlezen krijgen ze nooit genoeg Voorleesdiva's over het brengen van een verhaal Jan Erik Grezel Eind deze maand vinden voor de tiende keer De Nationale Voorleesdagen plaats. Bekende Nederlanders lezen op scholen overal in het land verhalen voor. Met deze campagne wil de initiatiefnemer Stichting Lezen het voorlezen stimuleren. Wat zijn de positieve effecten van voorlezen? Welke tips hebben professionals als Anke Kranendonk en Gerda Havertong? ‘Er was eens een ...’ De stem van Mirjam krult omhoog. Ze zit ontspannen op een kinderbed, haar peuters Sandra en Merijn met knuffels aan weerskanten. ‘... prinses’, zegt Sandra. ‘Precies! Er was eens ... een prinses’, leest Mirjam verder. ‘Die woonde in een gróóóót ...’ ‘... kasteel’, vult Merijn aan. ‘Ja, die woonde in een groot kasteel, want prinsessen wonen altijd in een groot kasteel.’ Dat mag zo zijn, deze prinses is niet gelukkig. Ze zit zonder prins. Dagelijks dienen zich huwelijkskandidaten aan, maar de een is ‘nog stommer’ dan de ander. Als Mirjam bij de passage komt waar de prinses in haar eentje het bos in gaat, fronst Sandra bezorgd de wenkbrauwen. ‘Wat zou ze daar gaan doen?’, vraagt Mirjam. Merijn schurkt nog dichter tegen z'n moeder aan.
    [Show full text]
  • Janet Jackson, the FCC and Indecency
    It was the Breast of Times, It was the Worst of Fines: Janet Jackson, The FCC and Indecency Interviewer: Emily Broeckaert Interviewee: Robert Ratcliffe Instructor: Alex Haight Date of Submission: February 13, 2013 Table of Contents Interviewee Release Form.................................................................................................P.2 Statement of Purpose.........................................................................................................P.3 Biography..........................................................................................................................P.4 Historical Contextualization..............................................................................................P.6 Interview Transcription.....................................................................................................P.22 Interview Analysis.............................................................................................................P.45 Appendix 1........................................................................................................................P.51 Appendix 2........................................................................................................................P.52 Works Consulted...............................................................................................................P.56 Broeckaert 3 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to explore the history of obscenity and indecency laws in the United States from the 1800’s
    [Show full text]
  • Swearwords on the Main Characters of “Bohemian Rhapsody” Movie: Sociolinguistics Perspective
    i SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Getting Bachelor Degree of English Department By: TRIYONO A320150087 DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SURAKARTA 2019 APPROVAL SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATION ARTICLE Written by: TRIYONO A320150087 Approved by : Consultant Dr. Maryadi, MA. NIP: 19580304 198601 3 0 0 1 i ACCEPTANCE SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATION ARTICLE by: TRIYONO A320150087 Accepted by the Board Examiners English Departement School of Teacher and Training Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta On August 2019 The Board Examiners 1. Dr. Maryadi, M.A. ( ) (Head of Examiner) 2. Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D. ( ) (Member 1 of Examiner) 3. Drs. Sigit Haryanto, M.Hum ( ) (Member II of Examiner) Dean, Prof. Dr. Harun Prayitno, M. Hum. NIP. 19650428 199303 1 001 ii PRONOUNCEMENT Herewith, I testify that in this article there is no plagiarism of previous literary works which have been raised to obtain bachelor degree of certain university, nor there are opinions or masterpieces which have been written or published by others, except those in which the writing is referred to in the manuscript and mentioned in literary review and bibliography. Hence later, if it is proven that there are some untrue statements in this testimony, I will fully be responsible. Surakarta, 29th of July 2019 The writer Triyono A320150087 iii SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan (1) untuk menemukan tipe-tipe kata-kata umpatan oleh karakter utama di film “Bohemian Rhapsody” (2) untuk menemukan alasan kata- kata umpatan oleh karakter utama di film “Bohemian Rhapsody” untuk mengumpat.
    [Show full text]
  • Brunetti (Pet)
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel JONATHAN Y. ELLIS JOSEPH MATAL Assistant to the Solicitor Acting Solicitor General ARK REEMAN CHRISTINA J. HIEBER M R. F ANIEL ENNY THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE D T MARY BETH WALKER JOSHUA M. SALZMAN MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be re- fused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises im- moral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is fa- cially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 10 I. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ....................... 10 II. The court of appeals erred in holding that the scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional ........
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 17 Freedom of Expression
    CHAPTER 17 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 17.1 INTRODUCTION TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION First Amendment law is complex and chaotic. Our starting point is the text of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. By its terms, the rule is absolute: ‘‘Congress shall make no law . abridging the free- dom of speech.’’ But it has never been interpreted that way by the full Court, although from time to time some justices have advocated an absolutist approach. The Court recognizes that Congress and the states (after the First Amendment protections were made applicable to the states through incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) can limit freedom of expression in various ways, including by implementing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and by treating some types of expression as less protected than others. The default rule is that all speech is protected, subject to certain limited exceptions for certain types of speech. The term ‘‘speech’’ is interpreted to include any means of expression, including oral, written, graphic, audio-visual, music, dance, and so on. If the government wants to regulate the content of protected speech (most speech is protected), its regulation must pass strict scrutiny. As stated by the Court: Content-based laws–those that target speech based on its communicative content– are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Laughing at Censorship, 28 Yale J.L
    +(,121/,1( Citation: Laura E. Little, Laughing at Censorship, 28 Yale J.L. & Human. 161, 212 (2016) Provided by: Yale Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Oct 26 10:57:02 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 28, Iss. 2 [2016], Art. 1 Laughing at Censorship Laura E. Little* INTRODUCTION Can a speech restriction ever be inherently good? Can we ever justify censorship as intrinsically beneficial, and not simply a justifiable means of protecting something more important than free expression? For those steeped in American law and culture, these questions may seem almost heretical. But they deserve exploring, particularly given the prevalence and variety of censorship in the United States and elsewhere in the world.' Happily, a context exists for exploring the questions that is less threatening and more entertaining than totalitarian thought control. The context is humor: jokes, cartoons, vignettes, and other expressions that make us laugh.2 Comedians know from experience, and research supports the proposition, that an audience will predictably laugh at a censored statement (specifically a "bleeped" or visually obscured statement) that the audience believes is censored. Does this "comedic truth" have deep significance for free speech theory and government censorship practices? U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • KNMC RADIO STATION HANDBOOK KNMC 90.1 FM Gollege Radio for the Hi-Line
    KNMC RADIO STATION HANDBOOK KNMC 90.1 FM Gollege Radio for the Hi-Line MISSION STATEMENT Our mission at KNMC radio is to bring a diverse and entertaining listening experience to the students of MSU- Northern and the surrounding community. lt is KNMG's intent to expose students and North Gentral Montana to programming that is cutting edge, stimulating, and thought provoking. It is KNMG's vision to be a station that is student operated and student driven. 2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the federal agency that regulates the ainruaves. The ainryaves are a national resource - meaning that they belong to everyone - and the FCC is the agency, which oversees its use. The FCC regulates such things as the broadcast spectrum for AM radio, FM radio, television, broadband communications, station operations, and most of the technical aspects of broadcasting. Each person involved with the operation of the station is expected to uphold the laws and regulations of the FCC. Deliberate violations of anv FCC requlations or policies. station policies, or campus policies. mav result in termination from participation in radio station operations. ***WARNING: WORDS lN THIS SECTION ARE OFFENSIVE*** LANGUAGE: Obscene programming is defined as appealing to prurient interests of the average person applying contemporary community standards. The piece must also lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens explained the attitude of the FCC in his opinion n a 1978 decision on George Carlin's famous "Filthy Language" piece about the seven dirty words you can't say: "Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the ainruaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment Rights of the intruder." The FCC rules on indecency are a little different from those pertaining to obscenity.
    [Show full text]