When does F not mean F?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a call for protecting emotive speech

The Supreme Court of the United States does not always deal cogently with nontraditional language. The most recent example is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in which the Justices became sidetracked into attempting to define the f-word and then to determine whether, when used as a fleeting expletive...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Federal communications law journal 2011-12, Vol.64 (1), p.1-46
Main Author: Hopkins, W. Wat
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
California
Communication
Decency standards
First Amendment-US
Freedom of speech
Law
Laws, regulations and rules
Profanity
Supreme Court decisions
Television stations
Terminology
Twentieth century-Fox film corporation
United States
United States Federal communications commission
United States Supreme court
Words, Obscene
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Supreme Court of the United States does not always deal cogently with nontraditional language. The most recent example is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in which the Justices became sidetracked into attempting to define the f-word and then to determine whether, when used as a fleeting expletive rather than repeatedly, the word is indecent for broadcast purposes. The Court would do well to avoid definitions and heed Justice John Marshall Harlan's advice in Cohen v. California to provide protection for the emotive, as well as the cognitive, element of speech.
ISSN:0163-7606
2376-4457