If you don't want it on TV, write the work "FUCK" on your head, see, and that won't get on TV, right?
- Abbie Hoffman, Yippie Workshop Speech, 1968
The LA Times (annoying reg. req.), among others, reports that CBS News stations are claiming that they may have to eliminate live local news coverage if the FCC doesn't relax its jihad against indecent and profane broadcasts (Profanity Rules Bother News Shows):
The CBS affiliates said in their filing with the FCC on Tuesday that if Congress passed a law to revoke the licenses of repeat offenders of indecency rules, as some lawmakers have proposed, stations might be unwilling to take the risk of airing any live news between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when the FCC says children are likely to be watching.
The original concept of the "heckler's veto" is that if a heckler threatened violence against a speaker or in general it would be legal for the government to prevent the speech in order to prevent the threatened violence. A heckler, therefore, would be able to control what can or cannot be said by selectively threatening violence. In other words, a heckler would have an effective veto over otherwise free speech. Luckily, legislative schemes that permit a "heckler's veto" are unconstitutional. Read on...
The concept of the heckler's veto doesn't simply apply to the possibility of violence. In Reno v. ACLU, the Communications Decency Act case, the Supreme Court held that a law that made it illegal to knowingly disseminate indecent material to persons under 18 in chat rooms, newsgroups and the web, would be unconstitutional (among other reasons), because:
It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would be discoursers that his 17 year old child--a "specific person . . . under 18 years of age," --would be present. [citation omitted]
It seems to me that the CBS news stations are pointing out the FCC's version of a heckler's veto. Sure, news stations can bleep things out and use pixelation to obscure images, but that costs money. Furthermore, you certainly can't do it live.
Imagine a protestor yelling "fuck" over someone else's public speech. Both speeches might be audible, but the news station would have to bleep both, making the original speech inaudible. Furthermore, viewers might be left with the impression that the speaker was the one using "profane" language.
Imagine a group that supports George Bush (or Kerry, whatever). What if they go to an anti-war (or pro-Bush, whatever) march with placards that say "Fuck Bush" (or "Fuck Liberals", whatever). If you bring enough placards with the words "fuck" on them to a protest march, you'll be able to keep the cameras turned off.
Bonus: Will painting "FUCK" on the roof of your home keep the news copters away from your neighborhood?
Ain't censorship great?