Speak Outs
Speak Out
Should the government regulate radio and TV broadcasts?

Jan. 13, 2012

By John Vettese, Student Voices staff writer

When U2’s Bono stepped onto an awards show stage and dropped the F-bomb on live television almost a decade ago, it was a turning point for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The government body in charge of monitoring the broadcast airwaves – for, among other things, use of vulgar language – decided to step up its regulation, supported by a law signed by President George W. Bush. Television and radio stations could be fined for each instance of language considered vulgar by the FCC, or every time a violent act was portrayed. Broadcasters have been monitored by the government since the 1920s. In 1978, the Supreme Court in the landmark case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation upheld the FCC’s power to punish broadcasters that aired indecent material during prime time, when children were likely to be watching.

But back then, broadcast media were people’s lifeline to the world around them – a small number of television networks and a small number of radio stations that the majority of Americans tuned in to for news and entertainment. The regulation was intended to protect children from content that might be suitable only for adults.

Today, with hundreds of cable channels and millions of Internet sites, how much does broadcasting really matter?

That’s a question the Supreme Court has to decide. Last week, it heard arguments in a case similar to Bono’s blunder at the Golden Globes. In this case, singer and actress Cher used the same vulgarity when she received a lifetime achievement award on the Billboard Music Awards show, broadcast by Fox. The network was fined, and fought back, claiming censorship and a violation to its freedom of speech. After a series of appeals, the court will decide whether the fine was constitutional.

Carter G. Phillips, the lawyer representing Fox, told the court that “today, broadcasting is neither uniquely pervasive, nor uniquely accessible to children.” In other words, broadcasting TV and radio aren’t the only options out there anymore, and they’re not the only place your kid brother is likely to hear dirty words.

“To the average American viewer, broadcasting is just one source among hundreds in a media-saturated environment, and a mere press of a button on the remote control away from other, fully protected sources,” Phillips said, arguing that broadcasters should not be “denied the same basic First Amendment freedoms as other media.”

Critics also argue that the FCC is inconsistent with how its rules are applied. Network broadcasts of the World War II-themed film Saving Private Ryan kept the movie’s gory battle sequences and harsh language uncensored, and the networks were not punished. For a broadcast about the history of jazz music, where musicians used similar expletives, PBS was fined.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, supports the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast media more strictly, saying that it’s even more important in a world where violence, vulgar language and sexual imagery are commonplace on cable and the Internet. If broadcast media were deregulated, it argues, they, too, could enter the no-boundaries realm.

Arguing for the FCC, U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote, “Generations of parents have relied on indecency regulation to safeguard broadcast television as a relatively safe medium for their children.”

What do you think?

Should the Supreme Court support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio? Does broadcast decency matter as much now that there are thousands of other media options? Or does the no-boundaries nature of cable and Internet make FCC rules more important, as the Obama administration argues? Is the FCC being inconsistent in applying its rules? Join the discussion!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
12/5/2014
Galena, OH
Jeff
Ms. Byrnes
I agree with most of the comments. Freedom of speech, freedom to watch what you want, all that stuff. The news on the other hand, should be strictly monitored. We need to hear the facts and only the facts. We should not have to decipher which channel is broadcasting opinions or partial truths when it comes to the news. Politicians and any other public official should also be strictly regulated. If lies are told, dole out punishment and retractions. Give us the truth when we watch the news, not some politically crazed president of a broadcast company's view or opinion. Each major channel should be held to a standard much like a witness in a trial and if they lie, strict punishment should be swift and just. Not getting the truth about our government and other news is destroying our country. DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!!!!

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg/pa
Emily
Mr. Hanna/Stroudsburg junior high
No, the government and Supreme Court don't have the right to take away things we want to watch or listen to on tv or the radio. Broadcast decency doesn't really matter now because there are so many other options, you can easily change the channel. The no boundaries of tv make it better because it lets people see what they want and the government doesn't have the right to tell them if they can or can't watch or listen to something. Yes, the FCC is being inconsistent with it's rules because they are only stopping some things and not all.

11/10/2014
Sidney/Montana
Cody
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
SCOTUS should not support the government regulations on TV and Radio. The freedom of speech and the press is given by the U.S. Constitution, so the government should not be involved in this. The Internet shows way worse content than television and radio could ever, so if the government can regulate tv and radio, why not regulate everything? If tv is too indecent, than the parents should be the force controlling television, not the government. It can be easily controlled by parents with prenatal controls and the government doesn't need to be involved.

11/10/2014
Sidney, MT
Ethan
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should not regulate radio and TV broadcasts. The First Amendment is the freedom of speech that is protected. That means that no matter how vulgar or how rude something is that it should be allowed. The person that says the bad words is expressing how they feel. Even though it can be too much for kids, the parents should regulate what they believe is appropriate for their children.

11/10/2014
Sidney MT
Mary
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The goverment should not support the government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and companies should have the liberity to broadcast whatever they please. Parents should be able to moniter what they want there kids to see. I also disagree with Taylor and Agree with Carter G. Phillips the media isn't the only "negative" source in a childs life. Also the FCC is inconsistent and obviously isn't always reliable. There's always going to be ways around these regulations, also children are going to be around vulgar behavior. Again the parents should be in charge of what they want there children to watch and hear, its not the governments responsibility. So therefor the supreme court should not support these regulations.

11/10/2014
Sidney/MT
Logan
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The governement should absolutely not have the ability to control what is broadcasted on TV and radio. Broadcast decency is somewhat important, but it is not up to the government to say what should or should not be put on the air. With so many other outlets to inappropriate or vulgar words, regulating TV and radio would not prevent children from this exposure. The FCC is being inconsistent with its rules. In the case of Saving Private Ryan, the FCC did not censor what is considered inappropriate language. Instead of the FCC picking and choosing what to broadcast, it should be up to the parents to make decisions on what their children are exposed to. Like Kortney stated, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. The government should not have the ability to take away freedom of speech by placing regulations on TV and radio broadcasts.

11/10/2014
Sidney High School
Tate
Mr. Faulhaber
The issue is whether or not the government should be able to regulate radio and TV broadcasts. The answer to this, as mentioned in the article, is that they already do. The FCC has censored a PBS program on music and Bono at the golden globes. The parents should be doing the censoring. The FCC's involvement is already substantial but cannot do it all. The FCC didn't censor Saving Private Ryan and this shows that the FCC cannot do it all. The parents should choose what the kids watch.

11/10/2014
Sidney/Montana
Adam
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should not support the government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. It is a First Amendment right to have the freedom of speech protected. In the case of someone saying something on TV it is no different. People have the right to say what they say as long as they are not in a, or working in a private organization that has rules or regulations that are different. Broadcast decency does still matter. It is not up to the government to decide what is and is not decent though. The broadcast decency is more for the show than the viewer. If a show has someone who is not decent with what they say or even how they act, then less viewers will watch it and after awhile that show will no longer air. As my fellow student Tucker also agreed, I do believe that the FCC is being inconsistent with its rules and regulations. The fact that the FCC is inconsistent is another reason why the Supreme Court should not support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio.

11/9/2014
Sidney/Montana
Sean
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should not support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. I don't believe that broadcast decency is as important today as it was back then, especially considering how dulled people have become to foul language and such. I also believe that The First Amendment has to take some sort of role in this. As it says in the article, "...a mere press of a button away from other, fully protected sources," people don't like these obscenities because how it will affect their children, but it they really cared that much, they wouldn't allow their children to watch or listen to that sort of stuff. I think a lot of this really falls to the parents, like how Tori said. I firmly believe that people should be able to have vulgar language in their broadcasts because it's almost the norm today, and it isn't the governments job to decide on what we listen to or watch.

11/9/2014
Sidney/MT
Christian
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should not support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. As stated by Phillips, "To the average American viewer, broadcasting is just one source among hundreds in a media-saturated environment, and a mere press of a button on the remote control away from other, fully protected sources." He is stating that why should the governtment be censoring media when media that is just as, if not more, vulgar than the content that the government is censoring. So broadcasting decency does not matter now that there are thousands of other media options. I agree with what Tucker said, the goal of the FCC is noble in protecting younger children from adult content, but they need to be more consistent about it. I believe that the no-boundaries nature of cable and Internet make the FCC rules less important.The First Amendment should also be considered. People and networks have a right to what they say and broadcast. If these networks want to make more money, then they will censor their networks in order to attract more viewers. They will do it within their own networks and not from what the federal government says.

11/9/2014
Sidney MT
Kortney
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The Supreme Court should not support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. The First Amendments guarantees freedom of speech. If the government decided to regulate what is said, it would be an infringement of the First Amendment. The article states that in the PAST broadcast media was the people's lifeline to the world around them. This was because of how little channels and radio stations were. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of different channels and stations going on every day at the same time. There are also millions of Internet websites. Back then, speeches were regulated because of the children watching them. Society is constantly growing, cell phones are a necessity, internet is used by almost anyone, and young children are playing on iPads or phones almost all of the time to keep busy. It isn't the government’s job to regulate what is said, it is the parents' job to make sure that their children aren't on certain websites or watching a certain show. Now days it is very easy and accessible to block channels on cable TV. You can set up passwords to watch different channels, get on your computer and block websites with the use of a password. All of these things are available for adults to regulate what their children see, watch, and listen to. As Marlene from Nimitz said, the regulation that the FCC implements won't change the vulgarity of certain shows. Since the FCC is inconsistent, they don't have much of a right to tell one station what they can and can't say, but let another station show whatever they want, no matter how gory, vulgar, or inappropriate it may be.

11/9/2014
Sidney/Montana
Taylor
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio because we still need to protect the youth in America. Broadcast decency still matters even though there are thousands of other media options because most young kids do not have access to the other types of media. We should help them stay pure and innocent for as long as we can without the influence of the media. Also, the regulations do not go against the First Amendment. The FFC may have been inconsistent, but that is something that needs to be fixed. There needs to be specifications on what needs to be censored. I disagree with Carter G. Phillips because it is possible to isolate children from inappropriate media options. I agree with Tucker in that networks should be able to keep their programs relatively clean. The only problem is that they have not been doing a very good job. All in all, regulations are a necessity when it comes to the media.

11/9/2014
Sidney/MT
Holly
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. Even if there are so many other ways to find indecency and vulgar language it still helps the parents that are trying to protect their children from hearing and seeing those things. It does matter that they regulate these broadcasts even though there are thousands of other media options. I agree with the Obama administration when they say "in a world where violence, vulgar language and sexual imagery are a commonplace on cable and the internet, it is even more important to regulate it." I agree with what Tori said. She says the government is not censoring political speech, but it is censoring vulgar speech which is not protected in the first Amendment. The FCC might not be consistent in applying its rules but if they censor during prime time hours when children are likely to be watching, they are doing their job. This regulation makes it much easier on the parent to protect their children from seeing these things at an early age.

11/9/2014
sidney/mt
hailey steinbe
faulhaber/sidney high school
The Supreme Court should support the government regulations on broadcast TV and radio because the news should not be a place of vulgarity. If you want to watch those types of channels there are many different TV shows that are not censored by the FCC. I do agree with Tucker about the inconsistency of the rules and regulations and they need to become more consistent on those. I also think that broadcast decency matters because there should still be channels that are not all about vulgarity and terrible things. The article talks about the importance of the regulation because we live in a world where violence, vulgar language, and sexual imagery are a commonplace on cable and the Internet. This is making people, especially children think that it is totally acceptable to act in these ways. The regulations on the TV broadcasts and radio however arguably are infringing upon on their First Amendment rights. I believe that TV broadcasts and the radio should be a place of

11/9/2014
Sidney/MT
Hailey
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The Supreme Court should support the government's regulation on TV broadcast and radio. Even though people could argue it is taking the broadcasters First Amendment right away. The radio should be able to be on while there are children in the room. Parents should not have to worry about having the programs on and there be vulgarity come on. If you want to watch those type of shows there are plenty playing on other stations. The Obama administration says that it is more important to regulate in a world where violence, vulgar language, and sexual imagery are a commonplace on cable and the Internet. This is telling children that it is ok to act in these ways. I do agree with Tucker when he says the FCC is inconsistent and if they are going to keep having these rules and regulations then they need to become more consistent. I still believe that broadcast decency matters because there should still be a place where you can get informed and it won't be filled with vulgarity and violence.

11/8/2014
Sidney/Montana
Brady
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I disagree with Tucker and believe that the Supreme Court should support the government's regulation of broadcast TV and radio. Just because there are many other media options doesn't justify deregulating broadcasting and allowing indecency. There could still be innocent ears listening, and the parents of America are reliant upon this censoring of vulgarity. I agree with the Obama administration in saying that cable TV and the Internet have entered a "no-boundaries realm." We can't allow broadcasting media to enter this same dangerous realm. Kids are already exposed to way too much vulgarity and indecency through video games, and we shouldn't add to this problem by deregulating broadcasting. Also, the FCC needs to be more consistent with its rules. In some cases they allow vulgarity, but in others they do not. They need to draw a definite line so the companies and people can be treated fairly. U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. made the comment that, "Generations of parents have relied on indecency regulation...” This regulation will only become more important as the amount of indecency and vulgarity in our world goes up and up.

11/6/2014
Sidney/Montana
Tucker
Mr Faulhaber /SHS
The Supreme Court should not support the government's regulation on broadcast TV and regulation. Given that thousands of other media options are in some instances one channel away from the FCC censored news channels, the government's eforts can be seen as futile. I do agree with the goal of the FCC to protect younger children from adult content. I also believe that the FCC is being inconsistent with its rules and regulations. The First Amendment should also be considered in that it should be able to be exercised on broadcasting networks. Networks should be responsible enough to keep there programs relatively clean for sake of the innocent, but it shouldnshouldn't be limused to and fined for incidents.

4/9/2014
Sidney/MT
Megan
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
This article expresses a First Amendment free speech issue when the question is asked, should TV and Radio broadcasting be regulated by the government? The article notes that the Obama administration is in support of the FCC's regulations on broadcast media for violence, vulgar language, and sexual imagery. U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Varrilli Jr. said, “Generations of parents have relied on indecency regulation to safeguard broadcast television as a relatively safe medium for their children.” I agree with this view. The radio is for family listening and parents shouldn't have to worry about their "little sponge" hearing vulgar words, and corrupting the youth. Carter G. Phillips would say that children have access to the internet where they could hear and see the same thing they would on broadcasting if it weren't regulated. My feeling on that is that just because it is available doesn't mean that it is ok. There are a lot of things on the media that shouldn't be there, and just because it is now the norm doesn't mean that it should continue to be.

4/9/2014
Sidney/MT
Megan
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
This article expresses a First Amendment free speech issue when the question is asked, should TV and Radio broadcasting be regulated by the government? The article notes that the Obama administration is in support of the FCC's regulations on broadcast media for violence, vulgar language, and sexual imagery. U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Varrilli Jr. said, “Generations of parents have relied on indecency regulation to safeguard broadcast television as a relatively safe medium for their children.” I agree with this view. The radio is for family listening and parents shouldn't have to worry about their "little sponge" hearing vulgar words, and corrupting the youth. Carter G. Phillips would say that children have access to the internet where they could hear and see the same thing they would on broadcasting if it weren't regulated. My feeling on that is that just because it is available doesn't mean that it is ok. There are a lot of things on the media that shouldn't be there, and just because it is now the norm doesn't mean that it should continue to be.

4/8/2014
Sidney/MT
John E.
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue at hand is whether or not the government should be able to regulate radio and TV broadcasts. The simple answer to this, as mentioned in the article, is that they already do. The FCC has censored Bono at the golden globes and they censored a PBS program on music. I agree with Tori's statement on the parents doing the censoring. I believe that the FCC's involvement is already substantial but cannot do it all, clearly stated by not censoring Saving Private Ryan. In the end it is the clear job of the parents to choose what kids watch.

4/8/2014
Sidney/Montana
Cash
Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The issue of this blog is whether or not the networks have a first amendment right to broadcast whatever they choose. I personally believe that they do in fact have that right. As the article states, television is no longer the only venue for children to be exposed to vulgarity. As some people on this blog believe that tv does have an influence on vulgarity of children, I'd like to disagree. I'd say the only influence tv has is the influence we give it, if we treat tv as the lady bastion of authority, then children will emulate what they see. However, if we treat tv as what it actually is. A source of entertainment, then our children will look to role models and peers to emulate instead

4/8/2014
Sidney/MT
Lexie B
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue discussed in this article is whether the regulation and censorship infringes on the First Amendment rights of TV and radio broadcasting. TV and radio has the same rights as everyone else. I agree with Tori and the fact that parents have a compelling interest. They do not want their children exposed to graphic images at a very young age. However, parents are able to block the channel if they so choose to. The article says that "the FCC is inconsistent with how it rules are applied." I agree, they have shown the movie Saving Private Ryan. They kept in gory images and were not punished. On another show, PBS was fined for a history show on jazz music. I think that if the government wants to be involved in censoring they need to get the facts straight. So they will not punish a network for showing Saving Private Ryan, but Bono cannot curse. The facts need to be straight. I think that it is important to note that children are watching this stuff, but the children can see and hear the same thing on the internet. I believe that the government should not be regulating this because TV networks and radio broadcast have a first amendment right to free speech, and if the government wants to be part of it they need to figure what to censor and what not to.

4/8/2014
Sidney Montana
Erin
Mr. Faulhaber SHS
The issue in this article is whether or not radio and tv have the same free speech rights as everyone else. I think they do. As Phillips said in the article, "broadcasting is just one source amount hundreds in a media-saturated environment." The FCC harshly regulating some broadcasts won't help kids in the way they are hoping because there are too many outlets available to them. If a parent is worried about what their kids are watching there are other ways they can handle that themselves. As Trey from Texas said in an earlier entry, "it is impossible to cover every base." If a change is needed, the parents are going to have to go through with it, not the government.

4/8/2014
Sidney/MT
Tori
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue here is whether or not the government should regulate radio and TV broadcasts. This is a compelling interest for parents who don't want their children exposed to graphic material at a young age, and TV broadcasters who want "free speech rights." As the article said, broadcasters have been monitored by the government since the 1920s. While freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, it does not apply in this instance. The government is not censoring political speech; it is censoring vulgar speech, which, as the Courts have decided in cases such as Morse v. Frederick, is not protected in the First Amendment. I believe that the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio during prime time hours, when, as Vettese would agree, children are likely to be watching. Broadcast decency does matter, even though there are thousands of other media options, because some families still sit down and watch TV as a family at night. The FCC is important because these broadcast companies are not making an effort to censor their programs. Although, the FCC should be consistent in their regulations, as it appears from the article that they may not be. Ultimately, it is up to the monitoring of the PARENT to make sure their child isn't seeing material that he/she isn't supposed to. However, it would be significantly easier if certain programs during prime time were censored. I don't believe that Ariana and John realize how incredibly difficult it might be for a parent to censor everything their child sees if the television broadcasters are given free reign.

4/8/2014
Sidney/MT
Nicole
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue at hand is whether or not federal censorship infringes on a company's first amendment and free speech rights. It becomes an issue of portraying American culture and reality versus protecting the and influencing younger generations. The government has an interest in this because there have been studies related to exposure of violence and later life activities, and in general what people are exposed to and later life influences. Yes the government has reasonable interest in what is being broadcast, but it's disgusting. Government needs to stay out of small business. The article noted that Bono blundered at the Golden Globes, and then federal regulation was demanded. Who is being represented from Bono's blunder? The company who is carrying them, not the United States of America. It's kind of like school speech and yearbooks, what is said in a yearbook has a direct reflection on the school, not the whole town or state of Montana. People should have the option to choose what channels they want to watch or block from their kids. "But what if some parents aren't responsible and let thier kids watch bad shows?" If all kids watch the same federally regulated shows, it's going to lead to indoctrination, and no imagination, and to me that is terrifying. This view goes right along with Kaitlyn M's comment, and I feel that if we let them regulate the fowl words, soon they'll be regulating all words. NO!!! Do not let the government regulate it, because corporations and businesses still have freedom of speech.

4/7/2014
Sidney/MT
Rietta
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
The issue stated in this article is whether or not the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio, and its constitutionality. Many broadcasters would say that this government regulation is a definite violation of their First Amendment, free speech right. As stated in the article, Carter Phillips-the lawyer representing Fox-said, that "broadcasters should not be denied the same basic First Amendment freedoms as other media." He does have a point because if one media has to abide by certain rules and regulations than that should apply to all of the different medias. According to the article, critics say that the FCC is inconsistent with how its rules are applied. I can also understand the other side to this argument. For generations, parents have relied on the fact that TV and radio stations will be relatively safe for their children to listen and watch. According to the article, Obama is also in favor of regulating broadcast media more strictly. He argues that if they didn't have some regulations they could enter the no-boundaries realm. I don't agree with Marlene at all. If the government did regulate broadcast media I think their would be some change. I do not think that there won't be any change. There has to be some sort of change; if the rules were broken and the medias had to pay of fine I don't think that they would just keep breaking them. Therefore, I think that we should put regulations on the broadcast TV and radio for the well being of the future generations.

4/7/2014
Sidney
Michael
Mr. Faulhaber SHS
Our current state as a society is on a downhill slope, virtually irreversible, and our youth will be the ones to inherit the world. Since the 1920's, as the article stated, television broadcasts have been monitored and regulated, and it wasn't up until 1978 that the Supreme Court had said that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) was told that they could indeed fine stations for vulgar language and extreme graphical images seen. The contradiction to such a decision was also mentioned on the article with the WWII-themed film "Saving Private Ryan," with the showing of very strong graphical images. I honestly feel that the federal government would be achieving little if they regulated the radio and television broadcasts because the internet is a very vast ocean of information. Sure, a 10 year old child probably doesn't know how to navigate through such an ocean outside of "Facebook" and "YouTube," but that doesn't mean that an older sibling couldn't help them to see or hear strong content. Not to mention that government regulation of radios and television would lead to a slippery slope of the internet within the United States being regulated. Along with propaganda being utilized by the factions we call political parties, the government would be able to brainwash individuals to their ideology. Taylor from Sidney High School had said, "The issue in this article is the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech." Indeed it is, because the radio and televised programs is the person hosting or sponsoring the broadcast's right to speak freely about an issue. Because the people are given the rights, not the federal government, we may exercise these liberties. In this instance, the government would be infringing the rights of the people, which would be wrong. Radio and Television stations are privately owned entities, and therefore are given protective rights, even if these rights are not guaranteed. The Supreme Court should oppose government regulation of T.V. and radio.

4/7/2014
Sidney, MT
Juan
Mr. Faulhaber
The issue presented in this article is whether or not radio and television broadcasts have the first amendment right of free speech. The article brings up how the US Solicitor General says that parents have relied on these regulations to safeguard their children. I believe that is true people used to but now there are different ways to safeguard your children you can simply block the channel you don't want your kids to be watching. I also believe that FCC is inconsistent with its rules because if one company will not be fined for something none of the companies should be fined. As stated by Dominique the inconsistencies make the FCC's rules and regulations make little to no sense. I believe if the government is going to keep regulating this area they need to start being consistent with their regulations. I believe the radio and TV broadcasts do have first amendment freedom of speech rights and that the government should not be regulating this.

4/7/2014
Sidney/MT
Lexi
Faulhaber/SHS
The issue of this article is whether or not the radio and television broadcasts have first amendment rights to free speech without censorship. I am on the fence with this subject. I believe that broadcasters have been censored for years for good reason, but kids are finding other ways to see inappropriate words and behavior. Fines are acceptable and constitutional. But the thousand of channels on the radio, tv, and Internet make it difficult to regulate. I think there should be regulation but less because it's not the same as it was back in the 20s. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli said that parents rely on regulation, and I agree with him for an extent. Parents can't control everything kids see, so regulations help with that. I agree with Maci from SHS that I don't want my future children watching inappropriate behaviors. The FCC is definitely being inconsistent with their rules. Internet, cable, and radio are different and need to be controlled differently as we'll.

4/6/2014
Sidney/MT
Colin
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue of this blog is whether the government should be able to regulate radio and tv broadcasts or not. I do believe that the government should be able to regulate tv broadcasts and radio. There are some things that shouldn't be seen or heard on the radio and tv broadcasts. Children can easily turn on a television and watch something that could contain vulgarity. I agree with Maci that tv influences bad behavior. l also agree with Donald B. Verrilli Jr. that, “Generations of parents have relied on indecency regulation to safeguard broadcast television as a relatively safe medium for their children.” I believe that the government should be able to regulate radio and tv broadcasts.

4/6/2014
Sidney, Montana
Taylor
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue in this article is the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech. Regulating radio and TV broadcasts is very difficult. It is also very difficult to keep the regulations the same. I do not think that that the government has the ability to regulate these things and therefore should be regulated by the states. I really agree with Maci in the previous comments that if we do not regulate these things it will influence bad behaviors. Children learn things through observation and by watching inappropriate things on TV they can learn bad habits. As the text has said critics argue that the FCC is inconsistent with how its rules are applied. This is why I think that it should be regulated by the states instead of the National Government.

4/6/2014
Sidney/Montana
Reanna Peterson
Mr. Fauhlaber/Sidney High School
The issue presented in this article is whether or not government regulation of radio and television broadcasts is unconstitutional by violating the broadcasters free speech rights, or if it is necessary to protect children from indecency. Many broadcasters and people like John from Porterville would definitely argue that government regulation is a violation of rights. John believes that it is considered propaganda and others broadcasters believe that their network should not be punished as it is not the only place a child would be exposed to indecency. President Obama, as stated in the article, is in favor of regulation. He believes that the government has a strong and important interest to regulate the media in order to prevent it from becoming without boundaries. I strongly agree with Trey Masters from Irving, Texas. I believe that that broadcasters have free speech rights and also that the government interest is not relevant enough. I do not think that strong television regulation, by any means, is going to keep children from being exposed to indecency. During prime time television, I find it hard to believe that very many kids are tuned in to the most popular adult-show. If they are, I feel that it is the parent's responsibility to be able to predict and intercept the indecency, not the government's.

4/6/2014
Sidney, MT
Tresha
Sidney High School
The issue in this article is the constitutionality of censorship and punishment of broadcasting networks by the FCC. I don't believe that the FCC can censor or fine the broadcasting networks constitutionally. These networks are in no way infringing on the rights of citizens so where's the justification? Kids aren't just hearing expletives on TV but also from the computer, books, and people. Should we start fining people for cursing or is that where the line is drawn? I do believe that Ms. Maci Holst has a point that kids shouldn't be forced to watch some of the nasty things on television but they aren't really being forced to, are they? There are plenty of channels on the TV and even if the Supreme Court decided to stop censorship of broadcasting there would still be family friendly shows out there. I guess I just think that no kid is being forced to watch tv so why should a broadcasting corporation be forced to censor a program that kids might not even be watching. This is the parents' problem not the networks'.

4/6/2014
Sidney, MT
Dominique
Mr. Faulhaber/SHS
No, the government should not regulate radio and TV broadcasts. The Constitution says nothing about regulating these forms of broadcasts. The FCC regulations as said in the article are unfair and very inconsistent on how rules and fines are applied. In the article the film Saving Private Ryan was able to keep the gore, and harsh words uncensored while PBS was fined on a history of jazz music. The musicians used the same language as Saving Private Ryan, and was still fined. With these kinds of inconsistencies, the FCC's rules and regulations make little to no sense. I agree with Samantha of Belleville, NY. She states Freedom of Speech is a guaranteed right by the Constitution. There are many, many more things we should worry about that children can get involved with. The FCC and their rules and regulations should be canned along with many other useless government agencies.

4/6/2014
Sidney/MT
Ariana
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The issue at hand is whether the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio, especially for things like vulgar language which would have a negative impact on the children watching TV. Also, because there are hundreds of cable channels and millions of Internet sites, broadcasting might not be worth regulating in modern times. I don't believe that the Supreme Court should favor government regulation of radio and TV broadcasting. Its a shame that some celebrities and/or the networks they are on allow the use of vulgar language. But the censorship should be up to the network and the people on TV. As John said, "Government regulation of radio and TV is what one would call propaganda." I agree with this, because on the issue of such things as vulgar language, its not up to the government to decide our morals. It is up to the parents to censor what their children watch, and up to the network and actors as to what they say on television. It would be an infringement on individual's rights if the Supreme Court were to allow the government to have such an extent of regulation on radio and TV. Also, if a limited amount of regulation were allowed there would have to be absolute consistency in applying these rules. Once again, despite the Obama administration saying that regulation is important because such vulgar things are so commonplace, it is more important to allow the people to use their First Amendment rights to say what they would like to say. Then it is simply up to the parents to monitor what they would like their children to hear.

9/27/2013
Watertown/ Ma
Kaitlyn M
Mr. Rimas/ Watertown High school
No, the government should not regulate radio and TV broadcasts. The government could have different opinions when its comes to censoring. If we give them control then they would soon control other things.

2/25/2013
San Juan, PUERTO RICO
Jonathan Ríos
R. Cotto / University of Puerto Rico
I support regulation; there has to be a limit. The media's influence on the people should be for the good of our nation and future.

2/20/2013
Sidney, MONTANA
Maci Holst
Mr. Faulhaber Sidney High School
Heck yes they should. I dont want to have my future children watching the shows that some channels put up. All it does is influence bad behavior. From drinking, smoking, fighting, sex, to cursing is just some vulgar behaviors. Society needs to realize that a child wants to be like the pretty, sexy people on TV. No matter how much a parents tries to control the broadcaster, it is utimately the providers fault.

12/10/2012
CA
Yovana
MHS
The supreme court should regulate the broadcast on TV and radio to an extent. Broadcast decency still matters even if there are thousands of other media options. The no boundaries nature of cable and Internet make the FCC rules more internet. Somehow the media must be regulated or things can get out of hand.

12/9/2012
California
Melissa
Monache
Only to an extent. I don't think that things should be too censored, but then again I don't think little kids should be exposed to porn.

12/6/2012
Montgomery, TX
Kevin
Mr. Metzger, Montgomery High School
In my personal opinion on this matter, I believe that the government should regulate a little on what is being broadcasted, but only to a certain extent. I think that in our society a child can walk into their school and hear way more explict words than they will ever hear on television. To say that the FCC shields children for "bad" words is insane.Not to mention that it ishould be the responsibility of the parents to moniter what a child is watching and not the braodcaster. But on the other hand explicit seual activities is something that a child may not be able to find out side of the so called "Boob tube". So i do believe that they should regulate what goes on the air, but not to the point where the worst word a network can say is "nerf herder".

11/16/2012
Belleville, NY
Samantha
Colby/Belleville Henderson
The government shouldn't have any interference with radio and TV broadcasts. Freedom of Speech is a guaranteed right by the Constitution, there simply is no arguement for the opposing side.

9/16/2012
east peoria, IL
Heather
East peoria community high school
I think that it should be limited still just not as much. Yes there are vulgar shows on the TV but its not like little kids are going directly to those shows. Anyways if you cannot control what your kids are watching then that's your fault not the network TV's. Plus kids hear curse words all the time and sooner or later there going to start using them. trying to cut that out of the TV doesn't change or help that facet. People slip up and say curse words it happens.

5/11/2012
Porterville, CA
John
Smith/Monache
Government regulation of radio and TV is what one would call propaganda. It is in clear violation of the first amendment right of freedom of the press. This means that the press is free from any form of interference by the government, hands down.

5/11/2012
Porterville, CA
Andres
Mr.Smith/Monache
The Supreme Court shouldn’t support the government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. Broadcast decency doesn’t really matter now there are so many media options. Preventing kids from seeing and hearing vulgar language and violence doesn’t mean its not their and that they don’t know about it, it just makes kids be more into that.

5/10/2012
Porterville CA
Anthony
Smith/Monache
The government should not be allowed to regulate any aspect that is related to freedom of speech. The radio and TV are forms of freedom of speech along with internet. It’s not ok for the government to regulate phone calls so it wouldn’t be ok to regulate TV and the radio.

4/30/2012
Porterville/CA
Mario
Smith/Monache
I don't think the government should regulate or interfere with TV and or Radio. Interference of these two is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. The constitution clearly states that one has the freedom of speech to these actions would violate these rights. In simple, it's none of the government's business to intrude.

4/12/2012
Irving/Texas
Trey Masters
Bradley/Nimitz
The regulation of language and violence in media by the FCC is slowly becoming a moot point. No longer is there the necessity that once used to exist when media was people's only source to the outside world. Children are unlike they've ever been, playing violent video games, and listening to music with lyrics that would make George Carlin shudder. This is simply not the age it used to be,and I think that because of this, the FCC is performing a service that they no longer need to provide. It's becoming difficult to walk through a mall, school, or grocery store without hearing cursing. While I don't necessarily condone the language being used, and don't condone cursing at all, I think that it's almost impossible to completely censor the user-based society we live in. With options like the Internet, and cable, it's impossible to cover every base. If the government wants to change the children, we should probably start trying to change the adults, not the television.

2/20/2012
Irving/Texas
Melissa
Bradley/Nimitz
I really don't see the need of the FCC regulating what can be seen or said on television. We are living in an age where kids are born hearing vulgar language. Kids in elementary school use that language and although they might get in trouble with their teachers it doesn't seem to stop them from saying things that they shouldn't. The fact that the FCC has the right to take off certain words really wont stop people, most importantly children, from hearing those things. It doesn't matter what they are allowed to say anyway. There are many other places where the FCC cannot control. Kids will get a hold of these things and there is no one that will help stop things from being said. I mean, it seems that parents don't even care, so why should the Supreme Court or the FCC still keep trying? I don't think the FCC is very consistent anyway. It just wont work. It's not like it's very consistent anyway. There has been times when I'm flipping through the television and I hear vulgar language coming from certain shows. What right does one station have that others don't? I think this is an issue that a lot of people will disagree with.

2/13/2012
Irving/ Texas
Marlene
Bradley/ Nimitz
It's true, we do live in a world where technology facilitates vulgarity ,obscenity and sexual imagery. However, I don't think that any regulation that the FCC implements will change it. If a person pursues crude jokes and violent images, he will find them. It's kind of sad, but it's also true. It's not the governments job to censure the ears of people as much as its not in its power censure their mouths. It's the parents job to educate their children, to refine them to their own discretion. And, It's the child's job to mature and make a choice. With that said, if the FCC does have rules implemented they should set an example and be consistent with them. Different networks shouldn't have lee-way; every network should have to follow the same regulations or else suffer with the ramifications. I, myself don't really have a problem with obscene language because I see them as weak words that have only been given an insipid meaning behind it. It's like in Harry Potter, the name “Voldermort” ha dark, evil and painful connotations that people have given to it. Same with any other swear word. If you don't believe in it and you don't pay any mind to it, then you shouldn't get offended; it's only a word.

2/11/2012
Irving/TX
Dalena
Bradley/Nimitz
The right thing the Supreme Court should do is to regulate broadcast TV and radio. However, with the events we have going on nowadays makes that task a little harder than it sounds sometimes. During a live TV event, such as the Super Bowl or the Grammys, there isn’t much that we can do. There is no way we can censor a live event for we never know what may occur next. Though regulating broadcast TV and radio can be important because it can be a bad influence to the youth, it isn’t as important today than it used to be. Nowadays, the youth can be inappropriately influenced by so many other sources, such as the internet, that regulating broadcast TV and radio may not even be as important.

1/23/2012
Irving/TX
Yasmin
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. Yes, it is true that there are many other ways other than just TV for people to keep up with news and current events but TV and the radio is a main source to some people. This could be the only way for some people and it doesn't need to be corrupted with nonsense profanity and vulgarity. It may seem like limiting someones thoughts and words is prohibiting their First amendment, but when it is inappropriate, profane and vulgar I think there should be a limit. FCC should put a limit to what is inappropriate to a certain degree. It may also seem as if the FCC is inconsistent to what they censor but things not all things that are profane are inappropriate, it could just be an accidental slip with profane language. Not all profanity is horrible, it could just be something as simple as a small joke.

1/22/2012
Irving/ Texas
Michael
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
I believe that the Supreme court should support the government regulations and on Broadcast Tv and Radio, because the relation is intended to protect our Children from content that might besuitable only for adults. Such content includes, Vulgar and harsh languages. Yes the Broadcast decency does matter because every person can easily get his or her hands on Tv and Radio set, anytime and anywhere. Again, It is cheaper and easier for people of any age to have access to Tv and Radio sets. I think that the no-boundaries nature, of cable and internet rules make the FCC important because of the limit on what they do and areas the cover. The FCC should apply the rules to both broadcast airwaves, The Internet, cable, and other media options. Such regulations, if successfully implemented will help process our children from predictors and vulgarity among others. It is my view that government regulations to check the excesses of broadcast airwaves, The internet, cable, is imperative for the society as a whole. I do believe that indecency regulations are important and should be put in place.

1/22/2012
Irving, TX
Allison
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe the FCC's power to regulate television and radio should be limited. As many have pointed out, children hear and see “indecent” things many places besides in front of their televisions, the hallways of the public schools and even their homes being examples. Since the government obviously has neither the right to regulate behavior in our homes nor the ability to police public schools, the government should limit their regulation of television and radio to public stations. While the argument could be made that children's shows ought to be protected, I believe choosing what children are exposed to should be and is up to the parents' discretion. It's not as though as soon as the government gives an inch, broadcasting stations will go a mile and kids will hear their favorite cartoons using explicit language. While there's still a demand for wholesome shows, parents will be able to let their kids watch them. As for other channels, keeping their children away from “inappropriate” content is the parents' job, while the government's is to protect our liberty and freedom of speech.

1/22/2012
Irving/Tx
Lucy
Bradley / Nimitz
As conflicted as I am about the issue, I don't think the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV & radio. The person who is watching TV or listening to the radio is responsible for their own actions and consequences. If a parent does not want their child to watch explicit shows on TV where cussing and inappropriate content are exposed, then they should take the initiative to block those channels and advise their kids to not watch those kinds of things. Personally, I don't usually like to hear or see anything vulgar, so the open media does not affect me in any way because I have learned to just ignore it all. If I can ignore everything that the media is exposing, so can other people. There's plenty of ways that we can live a healthier lifestyle and stay away from the negatives....some of us just choose not to do so & find ways to blame the government regulations. In America, we are given the freedom of speech and press, so why do we have to limit what is being said, written, or heard? That's just absurd!

1/20/2012
benson/arizona
jonathan sooter
mr.sorenson/benson high school
the government should regulate TV and radio broad casts. why is that some of the martial is inappropriate for some of the kids that listing and watch it. example are the sexual content in lyrics and shows because they get the bad impression.

1/20/2012
Irving,TX
Richard
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio, but the Supreme Court needs to understand that there are other forms of media where people can view all the things that they are trying to protect us from. No matter how hard the Supreme Court or the FCC tries to censor the radio or TV or how many rules they make regarding to what can be said or shown, the American people will always find a way to view them.

1/20/2012
Irving/Texas
Kacie
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio because now-a-days, vulgar language and inappropriate scenes have become more of a trend. Obviously the FCC has been doing a good job of incorporating these laws since the 1920s because they have been proven to work, but it is obvious that times are not like what they used to be. Times are different and we now live in an era where cursing every five seconds is okay and acting in an inappropriate way just because you saw it on TV and if it's on TV it “must be okay”. Yes, there are other ways besides the radio and broadcast TV, such as the internet, for Americans to follow this abominable trend but, wouldn't you want the FCC to start a new trend therefore impacting the internet? I do agree that FCC should be a little more consistent with their rules and regulations because all networks or stations should be fined if they are doing the same what PBS had been doing – allowing such vulgar language and inappropriate scenes. I think the Supreme Court should allow the FCC to regulate broadcast TV and radio because my future children and their children should not be exposed to the things that I have been a witness of during my lifetime.

1/19/2012
Irving/TX
Cathy
Bradley/Nimitz
Personally, I do not think the Supreme Court should support the government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. I feel anything that is unconstitutional should not be pursued. In this case, limiting what a network or station can show or say is unconstitutional. If so many people are concerned about what their children or future generations see or hear on TV or radio, why not just flip/change the channel/station? Because of a few opinionated groups, others are being punished. If a person doesn't want their children to be offended by what is being said on TV, why not flip or restrict some channels? There are many cable companies that let the parents choose what channels to block and make private. There are many other options to keeping vulgar things on TV private. Same goes to radio, solutions are easily found. Broadcast decency doesn't matter as much now that there are thousands of other media options. If we control TV and radio, we'd also have to control the internet. People can even go as far as to complain about repulsive pictures or words in the newspaper. Also, what will the FCC consider “vulgar”? Will they have to make up a “forbidden list of words”? Will they come up with a solution to what kind of fines will come with the words being used? These worries can be avoided if the Supreme Court doesn't support government regulations of TV and radio.

1/19/2012
Irving
Lauren
Bradley/Nimitz
The Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio as it always has. The laws were put in place for a reason and that reason is even more relevant today. Broadcast decency matters just as much as it did when the regulations were established. Internet and cable's “no-boundaries” system already creates a world where “inappropriate” and “vulgar” don't even begin to describe the words and images available to anyone with an internet connection. The FCC regulating the internet is neither realistic nor reasonable, considering the vastness of that particular media, so I don't see how that is a valid argument for critics to make. Despite the multiple medias today, citizens continue to tune into TV and radio with similar motives. Broadcast media is so named because it provides information and entertainment without the viewer necessarily instructing it to. When one watches the news, a live performance or awards (Golden Globes) he/she depends upon the network to filter out explicit content. We, as citizens, have always made this assumption that we, and those dear to us, would be protected from such “racy” content. Phillips claims that people are simply a “press of a button” away from other “fully protected sources.” The problem is that once the FCC withdraws it's authority and allows Fox to get away with issues such as this, other networks will undoubtedly follow and, though I realize that the FCC is not always consistent, one can hardly expect it to give singular pardons to only one channel/network. Then there will be no other “fully protected sources” for parents to turn to.

1/19/2012
Irving, TX
Jocelyn
Bradley
I do believe that the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcasting TV and radio. Times have changed a lot since these laws were first started, and as our generations increase I believe that it should actually be enforced a lot more. We as teenagers are surrounded by vulgarity. We hear it in the hallways at school, and even sometimes from our role models which most of the time are celebrities. Although I do believe that throwing a little cuss word around when you're stressed or frustrated is a stress reliever, I do not believe that it should be thrown around every 5 seconds just like other people do, and I am a person whom wishes that when I have kids that they are not exposed to things like this as much as I have been.

1/19/2012
Benson AZ
Chace
Marv Sorensen
I must apologize for my previous comment posted yesterday. I had misunderstood the question and assumed they had been talking about the SOPA proposal. TV and radio sensor ship I agree with, there are certain things that should not be said on the radio or shown on the TV when any one can be watching

1/19/2012
Arizona
Nicole
Mr. Sorensen
In my oppinion I think that the FCC should still keep the censor regulation on tv and radio broadcasts. It's sad to say that kids today are used to hearing the vulgar language but it doesnt make it any less true. Parents today count on tv shows like Disney and Cartoon Network to not have that kind of violence and language. If the FCC gives these shows free reign , likely chances are they will start using vulgar language and violence and then what hope do we have of preventing our future generations from starting out on the wrong foot?

1/19/2012
Irving, TX
Lilly H
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes. The Supreme Court should support government regulations on TV and radio broadcasts but only to an extent. With all the numerous social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube flooding the internet with new information, it's impossible to regulate the dispersion of information effectively and not to mention fairly. It's just not a feasible task. Instead of relying on censorship to shape information, sitcoms, and broadcasts to our liking, we should accept a new approach to regulation- warning banners. We already see them at work when we watch movies or TV shows or when play games. They typically state the nature of the content, giving viewers a fair admonition. That perhaps the upcoming movie contains vulgar language or violence. In such a digitally pervasive era, we should take it upon ourselves, or in many cases, the parents should take it upon themselves to regulate what their children watch on TV or search on the internet not the government. The no-boundaries nature of cable and internet are, without a doubt, making the execution FCC rules inconsistent too, but it can't be helped. Social media won't bow down easily to FCC rules, and if anything, the burgeoning social media culture will probably even weaken the rules with time.

1/18/2012
Irving/Texas
Nicole
Bradley/ Nimitz
I think that the Supreme Court should support the government regulations, because this world is only going to get better if we can teach the younger generations better than we were taught. We grew up with foul language everywhere we went. Yes,. I am aware that the same will happen for the younger generations, but if we could have a tiny impact on them causing them to try and change things for their children then I feel that is more than worth it. I think that once people start realizing that profanity isn't all it's cracked up to be then that will slowly impact those future music artists and the future internet runners. Change has to start somewhere, so why can't it start here. I think the FCC rules do have an extremely important job no matter whether the no-boundaries of cable and internet are there. As I said before, we have to start somewhere in getting out country and future world to be in a better place. I can't say that that the FCC is being inconsistent as much as people are just trying to find petty things to complain about. I mean seriously, it's WW2 footage- as much as I personally hate language and feel that if it's not needed or excessive then get rid of it- that is American history. But I also agree that the jazz music should have gotten to be portrayed as it was too to an extent. I have to say that overall I can't stand that I head 5 year old children cursing and their parents laugh thinking it's cute- UM HELLO, IT'S NOT! Something has to change so our younger generations can change too.

1/18/2012
Irving/Texas
Marvin
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The government has every right to listen in on television and radio broadcast. They already do in order to find some sort of terrorist activity. I know there are companies out there that claim to have their first amendment right taken away from them. But that is required to have all of our other amendments protected which are taken advantage of by those who claim to be patriots. The FCC is doing their job by setting rules to the game. Every single television show and radio channel should obey these rules.

1/18/2012
Irving/Texas
Aubrey G.
Bradley/Nimitz High School
The supreme court should not support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio. There's so many other channels that adults should be free to watch what they want, no matter the vulgarity. Many cable providers make it possible for parents to put locks on channels that they don't want their children watching. If people have the power to self-regulate their television it is a waste of time and effort on the government's part to do what is already being done. I see the point in the original initiation of regulations, but in modern times there are hundreds of channels on television and many radio stations for viewers to choose from. According to what I just read, the FCC picks and chooses what is decent and indecent. If PBS thinks its okay and necessary for a jazz musician to be vulgar on television then why should they be stopped if another channel is allowed to? Another thing with this picking and choosing, if the FCC is about protecting children from seeing bad things, why would they allow shows to broadcast that influence young adults in horrible ways, such as showing young women that if they become teenaged mothers they can have a TV show, or teaching children that if a group of people with fake tans gets drunk and becomes promiscuous said friends will become rich celebrities? Current society is used to how television and radio works; parents know that there are some stations or programs their children shouldn't watch, and they have the power to control what is seen and heard if they have the initiative. I see it as irrelevant and pointless for the government to control what we watch when people are perfectly capable themselves- especially if the FCC let's show's that rot young minds be seen while educational channels are being fined.

1/18/2012
benson AZ
jonathan
marv Sorensen
If the supreme court were to do so, our understandings of what is occuring in this world, would be limited. It would be against the constitutional right of the citizens. Reason being, that would prove that the supreme court does not want the people of this country to know anything that the government is doing in our modern day life. (To hide information that is happening in this country). Maybe the supreme court would do that, in a cast to hide updates, new laws, maybe even to hide communication and sources to learn from. Like the news!

1/18/2012
Montana
Taylor
Mrs. Campbell
Life today is built upon emotions and opinion. However, advertisements and broadcasts need to be aware of people’s emotions and opinion. Yes, I know that everyone’s opinions differ; however, if you stay somewhat mutual, the problems will not be as high. The government needs to regulate what is going on with TV shows and radio shows. Yes, I know this kind of goes against the 1st amendment, but this is protecting our country. Although no one will ever have the same emotions and opinions, the government can make it so maximum problems will not surface.

1/18/2012
Benson AZ
Chace
Marv Sorensen
Sick, wrong and sacrilegiously unamerican. Cutting out are free speech, limiting our communication and potentially destroying our best and largest source of information. The government is taking advantage of its power, trying to sensor us, to control and influence our thinking or our free speech and press. Which is protected under the constitution.

1/17/2012
Irving/Texas
Ashley Lenart
Bradley/ Nimitz
I think that the Supreme Court should support government regulations on broadcast TV and radio, because of the fact that these regulations have been in play since the 1920's and have been doing a fine job protecting younger generations. Just because times have changed and younger and younger children are being exposed to vulgar usage of words, doesn't mean we should just let the regulations slide. If anything, we may want to make the regulations stronger in order to shield the children, that because of older siblings or no supervision have been prematurely exposed to adult language and shows. I think that despite the myriad of selections on TV and radio, decency still matters. I think it's silly to use vulgar language to “make a point” or to just cause attention when you can use perfectly decent language and make the same point. Just because it may seem cool to use vulgar language and view vulgar things because some celebrities do, doesn't make the usage any more acceptable. If anything,I think that celebrities should practice being more role model-like because they have so many children and young adults who do look up to them. I think that the FCC could be a little more consistent with their application of regulation rules, but I also see the point of fining a show on PBS and not fining the network (s) that show the movie “Saving Private Ryan”. I agree with the FCC's decision mostly because PBS is a broadcast network that is largely dedicated to children, therefore when you show something with indecencies in it on this network children will be more likely to view the show than if it were a movie you could more easily shield a child from.

1/16/2012
Benson Arizona
Ryan
Mr. Sowernson
In my opinion it seems the FCC is being inconsistent towards the broadcast networks. If you dont want your child to be exposed to vulgar lanuage and sexual content, then simply change or block the channel. There are plenty of other media options out there so ultimately the choice is yours.

1/13/2012
Benson Arizona
Evan
Sorensen Benson High School
The Supreme Court should not regulate TV and Radio broadcasts since it is a violation of US constructional rights and when they do regulate it isn’t showing the true nature of people and their personalities. Instead of regulating speech and images the FCC should just put a warning on Channels and Stations on the TV/RADIO sayings "this station is will use profanity and or vulgar ideas” so citizens who want to avoid them know not to listen/watch. I do not believe that the freedom of the internet makes this regulations more important since everyone can choice weather or not they want to watch a TV Channel or Listen to a Radio Station. The FCC will always be inconsistent with applying rules like the rest of the government because they always have those few expectations and ways past laws.

Related News
Related Resources
Share