Merged SCOTUS strikes down video game law

And if IIRC the FCC rules only apply unti 9 or 10 at night, at which time they can broadcast anything they wisah, but of course they don't jiggly nekkid breasts then.

Yes -- 10 pm to 6 am local time is the "safe harbor." (As in, safe from the FCC's rule.)

It doesn't necessarily help the big broadcast networks, because a show that airs at 10 pm in the Eastern Time Zone is usually shown simultaneously in the Central Time Zone, where it's 9 pm and outside the safe harbor. So the networks would have to rejigger their practices considerably if they wanted to include "indecent" content in a prime time drama.

But yeah, presumably there's no legal impediment to NBC (e.g.) airing Dunstan's Dirty Fun Time Happy Hour at 2 a.m. Yet they never return my letters and demo tapes. Bastards.
 
Newspapers are not regulated and yet I never see any swearing or nudity in them. What makes you think broadcast media will suddenly fill with porno and "****"?

Because NYPD Blue aired on boadcast and tried to push the envelope.

Actually I more agree with Dunstan. I think the networks may have some more adult fare that they air late prime time, but will want to keep it otherwise fairly family friendly as a branding issue. If rules relax, it won't be one of the bit three to push the envelope, but a smaller network might do so to distinguish itself and pursue that as a niche market.
 
Thomas's dissent - Is OK with law because he believes parents have an near absolute right to filter communication to their children. Talks a lot about Puritan history preceding the Constitution and the zeitgeist of the "founding generation". This man continues embarrass himself.

His dissent is really bizarre:

[L]ike a nostalgic colonial version of Michael Chabon, Thomas launches into what is surely one of the oddest, most discursive examinations of the Joys of Puritanical Parenting. He scoots across the centuries, from the late 1600s in "the New England Colonies, [where] fathers ruled families with absolute authority," to late 18th-century Monticello, where Thomas Jefferson told his daughters how to dress. "The Puritans rejected many customs, such as godparenthood, that they considered inconsistent with the patriarchal structure," Thomas notes. He observes that colonial parents were warned not to "let their children read 'vain Books, profane Ballads, and filthy Songs' or 'fond and amorous Romances, … fabulous Histories of Giants, the bombast Achievements of Knight Errantry, and the like.' " He notes, further, that in colonial Massachusetts, "a 'son' of 16 years or more committed a capital offense if he disobeyed 'the voice of his Father, or the voice of his Mother.' " With a nod to Locke and Rousseau and changing views of parenting, Thomas observes that John Adams, Noah Webster, Gouvernor Morris, Sir William Blackstone, and others were adamant that the pliability of the youthful mind required vigilance in the upbringing of one's children, and that this imperative was impressed upon the Founders. He notes, I suppose with approval, Thomas Jefferson's bossy and controlling letters to his daughters. He describes early school textbooks containing "vignettes illustrating the consequences of disobedience," including one called "Pictures of the Vicious ultimately overcome by misery and shame," and a treatise from 1848 warning that the "number of children who die from the effects of disobedience to their parents is very large."
 
It doesn't necessarily help the big broadcast networks, because a show that airs at 10 pm in the Eastern Time Zone is usually shown simultaneously in the Central Time Zone, where it's 9 pm and outside the safe harbor. So the networks would have to rejigger their practices considerably if they wanted to include "indecent" content in a prime time drama.

Unless it's a live show, why is that so hard to do?
 

Lithwick simply misses the point. Thomas's originalist analysis inquires whether the First Amendment would have been originally understood to forbid legislation barring speech directed toward children without the consent of their parent or guardian, and concludes that it would not. One can agree or disagree with his conclusion as a historical matter, but the point that Lithwick totally misses-- or chooses to overlook-- is that Thomas is looking to history to find what is according to his theory of constitutional interpretation the correct reading of the provision at issue. He isn't expressing agreement or disagreement with any of the sources cited as a normative matter; he's simply arguing, given the state of the law of parent-child relations in 1789, that the First Amendment could not have been understood to bear the meaning the majority ascribes it. This is how originalist scholarship is generally done; there's a ton of it out there, and there's nothing "bizarre" about it.
 
Unless it's a live show, why is that so hard to do?

It's not hard to do necessarily, it would just require a big change in how the networks run. There's no particular reason why they couldn't tell their affiliates in the Central (and Mountain?) time zones that as of date X, they won't be running shows simultaneously with the Eastern broadcast. So from now on, the NBC affiliate in, say, Chicago, needs to buy some Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy episodes to fill the 7-8 pm time slot that they used to fill with the shows that air at 8 pm Eastern.

(Ok, actually, there would be some issues at the margins. Since we're talking about broadcast here, there will be stations in, say, eastern Indiana (which is in the Eastern time zone) that are broadcasting the "Brave New Indecent Show" at 10 pm Eastern, but whose signal can be received by Miss Prissypants in western Indiana at 9 pm Central, who fires off an FCC complaint. But, assuming that broadcast signals never cross more than one time zone, that just means that they'd need to air the BNIS at 11 pm local time.)

Anyway, I basically agree with you -- the reason why the big networks don't air clearly "indecent" shows has less to do with FCC regs than it does with market realities and brand image concerns.

But where the FCC regs do matter is for those shows that aren't clearly on one side of the line or other. If you're airing a sitcom at 8 pm, and you step on the wrong side of the "indecency" line, your network gets a massive fine. Whereas without those regs, it's more of a continuum -- the more risque you are, the more viewers you annoy, but it's more of a gradual thing because different viewers draw the line differently from where the FCC would.

So with the FCC rules, shows outside the safe harbor have to tread in fear of the FCC rules. Without them, shows can position themselves wherever they and their networks want on the "indecency continuum."
 
I have to wonder how backwards the US is in this. Nudity is a serious no-no, but splattering another human being, that's fine. :boggled:

Glad I live here where there is nudity on acceptable on the TV after 9pm and violence is kept out of kids hands unless their parents buy it for them.
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder how backwards the US is in this. Nudity is a serious no-no, but splattering another human being, that's fine. :boggled:

Glad I live here where there is nudity on acceptable on the TV after 9pm and violence is kept out of kids hands unless their parents buy it for them.

A while back, I recall an interview with a Spanish actress, Victoria Abril, regarding the NC17* rating that her film, Atame' (Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down), received in the US (this was one of the first movies to receive the newly created rating). She made a pithy comment about the US market that showing a woman screaming in fear or pain is only an R rating, but showing a woman screaming in pleasure is NC17.



*Context for those not from the US: In the 90's the MPAA came out with a new rating NC17, that had all of the criteria that the X rating has, but they actually copyrighted. This was to address more adult-oriented movies (mostly foreign and indy) that were not actually porn films, since the X rating had been co-opted by the porn industry due to the lack of copyright (which was an intentional decision when they originally designed the ratings in the 60's).
 
So I tell my children the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol does that mean they should be allowed to walk into the 7/11 when they are 14 and buy them.
Maybe in your case it is different but children have a habit of sometimes not doing what you tell them they can and cannot do. Unless you think you can watch them all of the time.

This case is about language and violence, not toxic substances. The thing is, by the time they are at an age where you can't watch them all the time, they pretty much know what you are trying to hide from them, anyway. At 8 or 9, my child doesn't have the money or the transportation to run out and buy video games, at all, let alone the ones I may or may not approve of. At 14, though, he/she would be allowed to go to the mall, without me present, and by that point, the language on the back of the bus is far worse than the content of a video game. If this is about children having the right not to be exposed to foul language and violence, well, they are going to have to gather quite a few arrest warrants because 9th grade is just chock full of criminals.

ETA- If I catch my kids doing what I told them not to do, my issue is with them, not the person who made it available to them.
 
Last edited:
This is how originalist scholarship is generally done; there's a ton of it out there, and there's nothing "bizarre" about it.

Except that originalism IS bizarre. In this case, Thomas isn't just trying to divine the beliefs of long dead founding fathers, he's trying to divine the beliefs of an entire dead society.
 
ETA- If I catch my kids doing what I told them not to do, my issue is with them, not the person who made it available to them.

Which I am certain invariably elicits the utterance of 'Awww, Mom, you're so mean. You never let me do anything.'
 
Except that originalism IS bizarre. In this case, Thomas isn't just trying to divine the beliefs of long dead founding fathers, he's trying to divine the beliefs of an entire dead society.

That particular flavor of originalism is bizarre, and even Scalia made fun of it at oral argument, quipping that Alito wanted to know "what James Madison thought about video games."

The ordinary sort of originalism, as in "what did phrase X mean at the time this constitutional provision was adopted," isn't -- in fact, it's so uncontroversial that it's fair to ask whether that's even really a separate school of thought at all.
 
This case is about language and violence, not toxic substances. The thing is, by the time they are at an age where you can't watch them all the time, they pretty much know what you are trying to hide from them, anyway. At 8 or 9, my child doesn't have the money or the transportation to run out and buy video games, at all, let alone the ones I may or may not approve of. At 14, though, he/she would be allowed to go to the mall, without me present, and by that point, the language on the back of the bus is far worse than the content of a video game. If this is about children having the right not to be exposed to foul language and violence, well, they are going to have to gather quite a few arrest warrants because 9th grade is just chock full of criminals.

ETA- If I catch my kids doing what I told them not to do, my issue is with them, not the person who made it available to them.

The violence in some video games is a lot worse than anything they will ever see at that age. Although agreed even if they are not allowed to play certain games odds are their friends will be talking about it.
 

Back
Top Bottom