Use of the

[Levinson]

I'm sure this is right.  As someone whose venture into "real" legal practice was a year spent working for the Chidren's Defense Fund, I'm sure that I speak for Marian Wright Edelman in saying that children would benefit infinitely more from attention to many of them being without medical insurance, adequate education and shelter, etc., items of minimal concern by the "compassionate conservates" inhabiting Washington (yes, I know about "no child left behind," but let's talk about funding....), than from concern that they not hear someone saying "fuck."  Indeed, I have a hard time figuring out how one explains to a child exactly what is wrong with "fuck," as opposed, say, to "kike."  It is reminiscent of the Victorian preference for "white meat," because "breast of chicken" was just too sexually charged.

sandy 




-----Original Message-----
From: "Gordon Silverstein" <gsilver at berkeley.edu>
To: "Levinson" <SLevinson at mail.law.utexas.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:53:58 -0800
Subject: RE: Re: Use of the 


Though the real source of the problem may well be that many in polite company find fuck offensive (as they find many things offensive) .... the nub of the issue is that old favorite of con law -- the children. TV means open access to children and we are not to use the 'f' word in front of the children? Thus, the headcount of offensive words in the New York Review of Books really isn't going to help. The internet is probably the more interesting comparison group, since children do use the net, and don't tend to use the New York Review of Books (OK, faculty children excluded) ?


- Gordon







-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Levinson
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 2:48 PM
To: marty.lederman at comcast.net
Cc: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Use of the 


Can anyone explain the theory by which "fuck" is "profane."  "Indecent" I can (barely) understand, at least if one adopts a remarkably priggish sense of what can be said in "polite company."  For what it is worth, though, I think it would be an interesting exercise to count the number of "fucks" in, say, The New Yorker, Harper's, Atlantic, the New York Review of Books, and even, I believe, the Times Literary Supplement.  (How would one establish what is "decent" or "indecent" without making a prior decision about what counts as the source of information about "polite society" these days?)

I also appreciate Paul Finkelman's point in one of his postings.  I mentioned that I will have the honor of delivering the Melville Nimmer lecture at UCLA, on "The Pedagogy of the First Amendment."  If UCLA puts it on the web, then are they (or I) in any "danger" when I use a variety of words, quite literally beginning with "fuck" (because of Cohen v. California), that are, according to the FCC, "indecent" or "profane"?  

Incidentally, I assume that a number of you saw stories in the paper this past week about Howard Stern's emerging as an incredibly strong anti-Bush voice because of his anger at the FCC's idiocy.  

sandy

-----Original Message-----
From: "Marty Lederman" <marty.lederman at comcast.net>
To: <Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>, "Howard H. Schweber" <schweber at polisci.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:31:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Use of the "F-Word" on TV, even as an adjective, is now unlawful

Well, yes, the FCC does assert the power to ban blasphemy from the airwaves, but the most recent case it cited in which "profane" speech was punished was a 1931 Ninth Circuit case, Duncan v. United States, 48 F.2d 128, affirming a conviction for a radio broadcast that included the following:

"You're the infernal gang that put in and turned the dairy industry over to that damn scoundrel. * * * You're a fine example, by God, for the children of this school district.' 'He will do anything, there's nothing in God Almighty's world that * * * wouldn't do.' And, 'Wait until I get through some of the trouble you're getting an ex-convict to make for me and I'll put on the mantle of the Lord and call down the curse of God on you, that's what I'll do. You infamous harlot, you arch criminal, the people should tar and feather you and yours,' etc."

For the past 73 years, there has (understandably) been no effort to enforce section 1464's ban on "profane" broadcasts.  Until now.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Howard H. Schweber 
  To: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 12:47 PM
  Subject: Re: Use of the "F-Word" on TV, even as an adjective, is now unlawful


  At 03:27 PM 3/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:

    Upon receiving the award for Best Original Song at the Golden Globe Awards, Bono exclaimed "This is really, really fuckin' brilliant -- really great."  NBC broadcast the ceremony.  The FCC yesterday overturned longstanding FCC precedent and held (unanimously) that even such an "isolated and fleeting" use of what the Commission calls "the F-Word" as an adjectival "intensifier" -- i.e., as a synonym for "really" or "incredibly" -- is both indecent and profane when uttered on tv or radio, thereby violating 18 U.S.C. 1464 on both . . .
     
    The Commission's "independent" ground for its holding -- that the use of the word was profane -- was even more groundbreaking, for the first time extending that notion beyond blasphemous speech.


  The FCC asserts the authority to prevent blasphemy???

  Howard Schweber 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof



_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof