• Home
  • News
  • C-SPAN Seeks to Broadcast ‘Fleeting Expletives’ Oral Arguments

U.S. Supreme Court

C-SPAN Seeks to Broadcast ‘Fleeting Expletives’ Oral Arguments

Posted Oct 29, 2008 5:52 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

U.S. Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips doesn’t plan to use a euphemism for the F-word when he argues the so-called fleeting expletives case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now C-SPAN wants to broadcast audiotapes of the argument, raising the issue whether it will violate the Federal Communications Commission rule that is challenged in the case.

The oral arguments will address whether the FCC can fine broadcasters for celebrities’ unscripted use of expletives during live TV appearances.

But any broadcast of the Supreme Court arguments likely won't violate any FCC rule because of a higher indecency threshold for news broadcasts, according to a story in Broadcasting and Cable that is cited in Legal Times. C-SPAN spokesman Peter Kiley told Broadcasting and Cable that C-SPAN won’t bleep out the offending words, but will likely air a warning. It is asking the Supreme Court for permission to air the broadcast soon after the argument concludes.

The Legal Times story says the C-SPAN request “sheds light again on the court's inscrutable criteria” for decisions on whether to release oral arguments to broadcasters the same day a case is heard. Last term, for example, the court granted access to audiotapes for the lethal injection case, but not for the death penalty case involving child rape.

Comments

1.

Jim in Ohio
Oct 29, 2008 12:14 PM CST

Decades ago Columbus, Ohio had an “improper language” ordinance. As I recall, the SCOUS reversed in a 6-3 per curiam decision in Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U.S. 1053, 93 S.Ct. 565, 34 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972).

Cason had not the funds for representation beyond trial. Trial counsel. After loosing at trail and in the Franklin County Court of Appeal. The local OSU Law School clinic took over in the Ohio Supreme Court and SCOUS.

While gathering material to support counsel’s brief, I found a slang dictionary thad had nearly 300 definitions for th “F” word, none of whic were related to coitus.

The defendant had been charged becaused he allegedy had used in mixed company the vernacular for the imperative suggesting that one engae in coitus (”**** you!”) and using the vernacular to allege one had an Oedipus complex (”******-******”).There was NO allegation that he had “abused” anyone as the ordinance required. The affidavit in no way hinted as to what the mix in “mixed” was.

NPR’s All Things Considered” broadcast the pilot’s voice as he expressed disappointment with his computer. He said over his radio to the pilot in a nearby plane, “I can’t get a fucking beep” The two U.S. planes were engaged with Middle-East planes in a combat scenario and the rockets would not fire until the computer beeped.

Since the warplanes were approaching each other at about 1200 mph, it is not too difficult to understand the pilot’s lack of time to reach for a thesaurus for more polished diction.

I submit that the FCC has repeatedly overreacted during the past few years.

I have resisted the temptation to have M’s “David” painted on one truck door and one of Renoir’s nudes painted on the other truck door; then parking the truck at the FCC building.

Jim 2008010-29-4 1414 -0400

NPR was the only medium I heard or saw that did not bleep the modifier for “beep.”
the veer


UTV suggesting
ooort counsel;

a black civil rights lost at trial and I wrote the brief on firsyt appeal (as expected - fighting word involved, you know).

A civil right attorney lost on first I was involved in the local court of appeal

Flag this comment

2.

Jim in Ohio to moderator: Please delete prior post
Oct 29, 2008 12:22 PM CST

Decades ago .... 2008010-29-4 1414 -0400 needs deleted because it is permeated with errors in spelling, grammar and format. I apologize for your inconvenience.
Jim 2008-10-29-4 1423 -0400

Flag this comment

3.

Ellen Barshevsky
Oct 29, 2008 9:34 PM CST

This is too complacated for ME.  All I know is that if you say bad words, you should NOT get to make ORAL arguments about it.

The guys up here seemeto know something, but I am confused.  I showed this post to my boyfriend, and he said the guy was over the top. 

And some people think I am nuts?  PUH-LEEZE!.  I’m just a small town gal trying to make a living in the big City, and this is what I have to put up with?

I believe in FREE speech, but NOT free LOVE.  I ONLY LOVE MY BOYFRIEND, Alan.  So there, I said it, Now mabye he will MARRY me.  Thank GOD for the FIRST AMEMENDMENT.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.