Pray for Denial – FCC Petitions for Cert.

USA Today Reports that the FCC has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of Fox v. FCC (prior post here).

…FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, a longtime supporter of President Bush, stepped up government vigilance on indecency. “As the broadcast networks become ‘edgier’ to compete with cable,” he testified before the Senate in November 2005, shortly after he became chairman, “prime time on broadcast television has become less family-friendly.”

I’m really sick of people like Kevin Martin co-opting the word “family” as code for “those who agree with me on censorship issues.”

My family can handle fleeting expletives, racy content, and sexual expression. When we don’t want to watch it, we turn off the TV. My family believes in the Constitution. My family can think for itself without Kevin Martin telling us what is “decent” and what is “indecent.”

Senator Craig, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Jim Bakker, Bob Barr, and Ted Haggard all touted their “family values” cred. Look at them. If their “values” are “family,” then I’d rather have been created in a lab.

Freedom is a family value
.

3 Responses to Pray for Denial – FCC Petitions for Cert.

  1. […] you have an FCC packed with ass-hats like Kevin Martin and Deborah Taylor Tate, this is the kind of cold wind that will blow across the sea of free […]

  2. […] the chairman of the FCC is none other than Kevin Martin. I doubt that he’ll be able to stop obsessing over dirty words on TV broadcasts long enough […]

  3. Tara says:

    What’s your take on how the S.C. will rule now that they have granted cert? One commentator suggests that Court should and will only focus on the APA issues because the 2nd Cir. never actually reached the First Amend. issues. She suggests the Court will rule in the FCC’s favor on the APA issue, thus remanding to the 2nd Cir. for further action (a substantive ruling on the First Amend. issue). http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20080331.html If that’s the case, wouldn’t S.C. review be a good thing? Judging by the dicta contained in the 2nd Cir.’s opinion, a remand could only result in a favorable First Amend. decision. (Of course, any such decision would likely be appealed as well.) Or is the S.C. likely to go out of its way to find a way to analyze the First Amend. issue, just as the 2nd Cir. did?

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: