What Is The Policies Of The Children's Television Policy?

Although Television has been censored since its creation throughout the last decade it has started to become more flexible with allowing explicit language. Cable television such as HBO do not have to follow the rules of the FCC because those are channels that customers pay a premium price to be able to access these channel. Other channels like Comedy Central, TNT, or FX do not have the same freedom. Why is that? Comedy Central is known as a channel that never airs anything that children can really watch. South Park is rated MA, for mature audiences. Workaholics is a show that portrays three men’s lives who go through many shenanigans, smoke used, and get into trouble. The FCC should allow these shows to start using more explicit language and to not bleep the words.

Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court. Roth ran a business in New York by selling books, photos, and magazines. Roth was charged with 4 counts for sending inappropriate circulars and an inappropriate book. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld Roth’s appeal. Alberts was prosecuted for the sale of lewd books, and for writing inappropriate advertisements within the books. Albert’s conviction was upheld by a lower court. The Court must decide if indecent material is protected by the freedom of speech and press in the First Amendment. All ideas, even the most foolish, controversial, and intolerable, are protected by free speech. The only exception is when they interfere in more important safeties. However, indecency has been demonstrated to have no redeeming

Susan Jacoby's essay represents her unique image as a “First Amendment Junkie” and what it means for her in society of her times. Her belief that the First Amendment must be carried on at all costs without regarding the content, which in this case she expresses particularly in pornography. Jacoby states that allowing censorship of pornography could open up the possibilities of censoring other things if so, what could be those other things? Could we agree with her? Had we censored pornography back in the 70's would we as women be where we are now? After analyzing Jacoby's article, She does not excuse or deny that pornography can be or is vulgar,

Two years after the Janet Jackson incident, Congress passed legislation increasing the FCC’s maximum fine for indecency tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000. In a floor statement, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said that “[w]hen families are watching a Sunday night football game, they shouldn’t have to brace themselves for a televised strip tease.” However, the Commission waited nearly a decade before finally announcing its first maximum fine of $325,000 against WDBJ Television, Inc., in Roanoke, Virginia.

The main issue at hand is whether or nor obscenity is considered speech and if so is it protected speech under the Constitution. I must wager that obscenity is and indeed should be considered speech for the purposes of the Supreme Court in First Amendment matters. As to if it is or should be protected by the constitution is a more difficult question. I believe that a test of reasonableness is sufficient to govern this topic by members of the court. If there is legitimate purpose for material no matter what facilitates its dissemination then there is a compulsory reason for constitutional protection. If not and the main cause of material is to inflict injury on any party including society there is no compelling reason to afford such speech any constitutional protection.

However, those who are against censorship on the Internet believe that it violates their right to free speech. Because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio and television, Internet users believe this is the only available forum that guarantees the open exchange of ideas. The freedom of expression is a right guaranteed to Americans and therefore should not be restricted by the government.

Net-neutrality became a big topic of debate in the United States last year. Net-neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISP’s) should be giving access to all web traffic equally, without blocking access or favouring certain websites. In the first quarter of 2014, the FCC began to propose rules that would allow ISP’s to have control over their consumers access, basically going against net-neutrality. After being ruled out, ISP’s pleaded for the court to reappeal the case, which ended up ruling in favour of the rules by the FCC. This issue is interesting to look at for the ways in which the media reports it, because the majority of people are for equally accessed web traffic, but the media needs

order had created a set of three primary rules for net neutrality to govern how broadband

At the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this year, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler told his audience, “John Oliver took the ultimate arcane issue, Title II, and made it something that got people interested. And that’s good.” (Macri, Guiseppe) Mr. Wheeler was referring to a segment by John Oliver, comedian, political satirist which aired June 2014 in which Mr. Oliver cleverly explains Net Neutrality and why it is important to each of us. “During his 13-minute segment, Oliver name-checked Netflix, Google, Usain Bolt, Superman, the game Monopoly, and Mein Kampf, and compared the FCC hiring former cable company lobbyists to ‘needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo.’” (Brody, Ben) (John Oliver on Net Neutrality, can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU.) He concludes by telling his audience that the FCC is now accepting comments on the matter and encourages us to take advantage of the FCC’s invitation. He then provides the web address. The following day, the FCC receives 45,000 comments resulting from Oliver’s show, which crashes their website. (Macri, Guiseppe)

There is more to obscenity than one thinks. I learned about Roth v United States (1957) and Miller v California (1973) and the tests created as a result of each obscenity case. My understanding of obscenity has expanded because originally, I thought obscenity was just pornography and taboo but actually it is anything that is consider obscene such as specific behavior, language and images. I think nudity is less dangerous than I originally thought because nudity is not sex, even though the majority of the people do associate the two together for some reason. Thanks to the Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc. (1991) case, I have a better understanding of nudity since that case shows both sides towards nudity. Thanks to my changed perception, I now watch

Yet at the same time, these two sets of companies compete for customers, creating a glaring conflict of interest. Whilst these issues seemed to be resolved by the middle of the twentieth century, the advent of the internet introduced a whole new set of problems. The term net neutrality, first coined by Tim Wu, Professor of the Columbia University Law School in 2003, came to represent a question that had long been perceived as being of relatively little concern – is unfettered access to the internet a right, or a privilege? (Cheng and Bandyopadhay 2011: 60) (Greenstein 2007: 61, 85) The debate around internet regulation and net neutrality first gained traction in 2002, when the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) controversially ruled that broadband internet was to be classed as an information service rather as a telecommunications service, and thus made it exempt from a considerable range of content and conduct regulations that it would otherwise have been subject to. For those Americans, as exemplified by organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who saw the internet as a space of uninhibited free expression that needed to be protected from the influence of corporate meddling, this decision was very frustrating. As promoted by Wu and others, net neutrality came to represent the belief that ‘internet data packets should move nondiscriminatorily’ – that is, the data (‘packets’ essentially being a technical

Additional provisions include those giving families control of the television programming that comes into their homes through the use of "V-Chip" technology, and prevent undue concentration in television and radio ownership so that a diversity of voices and viewpoints can continue to flourish, through modified ownership limits (“Telecommunications Act of 1996,” Federal Communication Commission).

Obscene material "is not protected by the First Amendment,” (The Dynamics of Mass Communication Tenth Edition, page 377) and broadcast stations cannot air obscene material at anytime. The problem with this is that no one had come up with a set standard of what obscene material is. Due to the difference in beliefs between

If not, how does the court judge what is considered too obscene to be protected and what is not?

It is obvious that for years, the government has been trying to regulate this type of content but has seen very limited success. Part of the reason for this is because certain regulatory actions intended to protect only a small group, such as children, should not require the prohibition of material that adults have access to in other arenas. It is for example, legal for people to rent pornographic movies or buy nude magazines, so distribution of this type of material on the Internet should not be completely limited. People shouting out for protection of their 1st Amendment rights have made a good point when arguing against complete censorship. What seems more feasible is a sort of multi-layered approach to regulate illegal and harmful content on the Net. This would make it possible to form some sort of insulation for children