Cher changed our world today. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Cher's favor against the FCC, which had issued a fine because Cher used a word that the FCC doesn't like on television. Now thanks to her, we can say whatever we want. And thanks to an episode of NYPD Blue, the Supreme Court also ruled nudity is now okay on TV, too. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explains the big victory for the First Amendment in the Rewrite.
Cher and the Supreme Court
-
Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:33 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Dear Lawrence,
Time for a rewrite:
Did you even read the Supreme Court decision? It's at and I expect an apology and correction on the air, admitting you didn't read the decision.
The Supreme Court only ruled very narrowly, making a specific point of avoiding ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC rules and laws on indecency and nudity. All they ruled on was the violation by the FCC of changing policies/rules (making a fleeting expletive being allowed not allowed) and then fining the stations/networks for such acts committed prior to the changes. Basically due process of the law (see 5th and 14th amendments). Yes, the justices were f***king cowards, but you did a huge disservice.
As a station manger at a public radio station, I'll now be faced with a bevy of wanna-be anarchists programmers wanting to air every song with a dirty word, and citing your show as proof they can do anything they want. The FCC rules remain in effect with a fine of $325,000 per word or utterance. One word's fine is more than our radio station's budget for an entire year. If they air, for example, George Carlin's wonderful commentary "Seven Dirty Words You can't say on Television" unedited I could be facing over $40 million in fines. Are you willing to make up the difference between what we can afford and any fine? Please let me know, so I can inform our lawyers.
However, Ginsberg in her concurring opion , joined Clarence Thomas (2009) in calling for a re-examination of the famous 1974 Pacifica case, saying the Pacifica decision ,upholding the FCC's right to regulate "indecent" speech was wrong.
I expect an apology and correction on the air. And now back to something just as important: trying to raise money for our broken transmitter, so we can fully return to the air seeking out truth, justice and democracy.
Sincerely,
Rychard Withers
General Manager
KFCF-FM
rych:
If it has anything to do with sex (especially the homesexual variety), obscenity, drugs, hate speech directed to successful white males, etc. than Larry O'Donell just can't resist his "progressive" knee jerk reaction to be all school girl giddy to support it.
Rychard is correct but your self-righteous hatrd is just ignorance as if you are adding something of value. You need to re-read Rychard's words not one idiotic or ignorant ranting no, nothing but intelligence and information to enrich and correct. Big difference go get an education or just shut up.
Dear Mr. O'Donnell,
It's time for a rewrite:
Did you even read the Supreme Court decision? It's at the Supreme Court dot gov web site. Go ahead and take a moment and read it.
Nowhere does the SCOTUS change the FCC policies on indecency and nudity. Nowhere did they rule on whether it was a free speech issue. Instead they went out of their way to emphatically state they would not make such a ruling.
What they did was rule that the FCC's change in rules/policy, in which they went from a policy of "an occasional fleeting indecency is OK" to "zero tolerance." Then the FCC fined Fox and ABC for events that took place PRIOR to the rule changes. The SCOTUS ruled that was wrong. (Basically a violation of the 5th and 14th amendments due process clause.) They made no change in the FCC's ability to enforce indecency/nudity/profanity rules, or to modify them. Yes, the SCOTUS were f***ing cowards. \
However in a concurring opinion Justice Ginsberg joined Justice Thomas (2009) in saying that the Court should re-examine Pacifica (1974) as that decision was wrong. Pacifica was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC had a right to restrict language after an airing of George Carlin's wonderful "Seven Dirty Words you Can't Say on TV"
So now, due tou your erroronous reporting, I'm going to be facing a bevy of wanna be anarchist radio DJs and programmers insisting it's OK to play dirty songs on the air, citing you as the source. As manager of a public radio station, I find it shocking that your action might force our station off the air when we can't afford the FCC's $325,000 per word fine because you said it was OK. One word's fine is more than our entire operating budget for a year. SO now, after hearing your "rewrite" of the facts, if one of my DJs plays George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" we could be facing over $40 million dollars in fines. Are you willing to make up the difference in what we can afford and what any fines might be?
I hope you will apologize and correct your on-air error.
As for me, I need to get back to rasing a few thousand dollars to get our broken transmitter repaired so we can fully get back on the air and advocating free speech, truth, justice and democracy.
Sincerely,
Rychard Withers
General Manager KFCF-FM
Rych is so right. It was an embarrassment to see the usually incisive O'Donnell so misreport, misunderstand and misrepresent the Court's ruling. He demeans himself and MSNBC, and from here on, calls into question the accuracy of any of his pronouncements. What a shame. He owes his audience an apology. Too bad he'll have to wait until Monday, as his show does not air on Fridays. But he might at least post an apology on this blog in the meantime.
What ever the decision, there is such a thing as respect for the viewing audience and good taste, something the very talented Cher should consider.
The viewing audience doesn't HAVE to watch things they find "tasteless", all they have to do is pick up the remote and find something else to watch or turn the TV off
Cher is an extremely free spirit. She has political views that seem to differ from the mainstream. One cannot fault her for that as the First Amendment gives her a right to. Agree or disagree. I don't particularly aspire to her views but I give her credit to express them as you and I have the same opportunity. Personally I wish that she would stay out of the political foray and focus on her new and exciting concert tour. Cher is a decent person and deserves credit for coming from her humble beginnings to be America's true Diva. Cher is an icon and when she is gone from this life, she will always be remembered for her incredible talent and what she has contributed to her genre of the times. She is not done yet with a new album that will be released soon. I wish her well and many more years to entertain us not only with her music but with her rapier wit. She is one of a kind. Check her out on twitter @Cher.
While I do not subscribe to Cher's political views, the First Amendment gives her the right to express her views whether we agree or not. Cher is an Icon who will live in the infamy of her musical talent and rapier wit. No one can take that away from her. Cher is more grounded than most of the entertainers in modern history and needs no one to criticize her for her views though some may disagree.
I watch and enjoy O'Donnell regularly. So I am especially surprised and disappointed at his incredibly incompetent, misleading and erroneous interpretation—and reporting— of the supreme court ruling on the FCC fines for nudity and profanity.
Really bush league! Hey, read the ruling! And if you can't do that, at least read the New York Times' accurate account. The court did NOT rule that now it's okay to display nudity and speak profanity. They threw out the FINES because the FCC had not made its rules, and changes, clear soon enough.
How disappointing from a leading MSNBC anchor. He devalues himself and MSNBC, and that's a shame.
Cher changed things up a bit today!