FCC rebuffed by court on indecency fines

The decision by the federal appeals court in New York was a sharp rebuke for the FCC and for the Bush administration.
The New York Times

The story "FCC rebuffed by court on indecency fines" published June 4, 2007 at 3:35 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[DougDbug]

The President did it, so everybody else can do it too?

The President did it, so everybody else can do it too? Whatever Bush does is now legal for everybody else?

I can't believe such juvenile reasoning from the Supreme Court.

I guess that means that means an end to the sexual harassment laws, after what Clinton did in his office...

[unknown unknown]

RE

"The President did it, so everybody else can do it too?"

FCC has to enforce it's censorship policies in a fair and uniform manner or they risk challenges to their authority. The fact that didn't enforce their rules uniformly, hence the example with the president and vice president, all the networks to prevail in court.

"I can't believe such juvenile reasoning from the Supreme Court."

It wasn't the Supreme Court, and I believe the "The President did it, so everybody else" was just a paraphrase the actual decision is much specific and reasoned.


"I guess that means that means an end to the sexual harassment laws, after what Clinton did in his office..."

The sexual harassment suit against Clinton was brought by Paula Joans, what he did in his office was with Monica Lewinsky.

[judggy]

Court opinion on TV profanities

DougDBug is right on this one. What the President and Vice-President said were not on television, unless the networks secretly eavesdropped and deliberately aired it later, in which case they should be fined for that. The court screwed up big time. What someone says in a private conversation, even if they are the president, has no legal relevance at all in a case about what can be broadcast on TV into everybody's home. After all, the whole case is about broadcast TV. What about that didn't the court understand??