{"id":45095,"date":"2012-02-20T12:41:34","date_gmt":"2012-02-20T17:41:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/?p=45095"},"modified":"2012-02-20T17:54:20","modified_gmt":"2012-02-20T22:54:20","slug":"what-counts-as-indecent-programming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/socimages\/2012\/02\/20\/what-counts-as-indecent-programming\/","title":{"rendered":"What Counts as Indecent Programming?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In 1964, in Jacobellis v. Ohio<\/a>, a case regarding an allegedly obscene film, Supreme Court Justice Stewart<\/del> Potter Stewart famously wrote in his opinion,<\/p>\n

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of hard-core pornography]…But I know it when I see it…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, the problem is that not everyone has the same reaction to what they see. While the 1964 case specifically dealt with a film, and a judgment on whether it crossed the line from pornographic (legal) to obscene (not), similar arguments are common regarding what is appropriate on TV. The Federal Communications Commission<\/a> may impose penalties, including large fines or revoking a broadcaster’s license, on networks that air “indecent or profane programming during certain hours.” Last month the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the FCC’s regulations and whether they violate free speech guarantees.<\/p>\n

Dmitriy T.M. sent in a segment from The Daily Show that highlights some of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the FCC’s standards for prime time, and the seeming arbitrariness of decisions about what is “indecent”:<\/p>\n

\n