find a single case of the FCC fining a speaker for political comments at a government meeting. You know, the kind of political speech that is the most protected. I'll wait |
That speaks only to the FCC's power to fine the broadcaster, not the person making the statement. To be clear: the FCC cannot fine a speaker for indecent speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is broadcast. There is also a logical flaw in claiming that reading aloud from the text of a book in a public school library is obscenity. |
Oh. Were they “political” comments now? VA station fined for obscene content: https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/fcc-slaps-virginia-tv-station-with-325000-indecency-fine-1201458034/ The FCC plans to issue what it says will be the highest fine ever against a TV station for a single incident of airing indecent content, slapping a $325,000 penalty against a Roanoke, Va., TV station for airing a sexually explicit video clip of an adult film website during a news broadcast. |
that's a news article where a TV station was find. Find a case where a speaker was finded for comments before a government body |
How many titles in the FCPS library contain at least one of Carlin’s seven dirty words? |
It’s not protected speech if it violates obscenities law. And you can broadcast obscenities and clock it as “political”. But of course Republican are defending fthe right to broadcast obscene material to our kids. No morals or values. All about the Freedumb. And if kids are harmed while you exercise your Freedom and broadcast obscene material, so be it. |
This has no relevance to speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is political speech or not. (Note, however, that almost anything said by a member of the public at a school board meeting would count as political speech under 1st Amendment precedent.) |
then you should have no problem citing to a case were a speaker before a movement body was fined - still waiting |
The issue isn’t he speech in the public forum. It was when that speech was broadcast. This is why so many live event are on delay. I would imagine going forward SB meeting won’t be broadcast lie or I’ll be on a delay. Since Republicans can’t control themselves. I guess next up is standing on tables no screaming, like in Loudoun? |
if you're trying to fine the speaker, the issue is that it is a government forum set up so that members of the public can address their elected officials. This is the core of political speech protected by the first amendment. There is zero chance that you can come up with an instance of a speaker being fined under these circumstances |
Since she clearly states she believes the material she is broadcasting is obscene, it certainly makes things easier. We’ll see what happens. Maybe FCPS gets fined. Maybe her. Maybe not. I know during the Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake boob slip at the Super Bowl, both the broadcaster and Jackson were fined. So individuals who internationally put material hey know is obscene on the airwaves certainly can be fined. Is the graphic picture she broadcast a the SB meeting worse than a nip slip? I think so. We’ll see what he FCC says. It doesn’t help her case that she’s broadcasting material while arguing it’s obscene pornography. She can’t say she didn’t know. So, nice of her to admit it. Public discourse got so gross under Trump. I’d love th FCC to clean up the airwaves one and protect kids from the GOP and gross Trumpmpers like this lady. My kid was actual assigned to listen to the meeting for AP Gov. So, I reported it too. It’s a SB meeting. It should be appropriate for all ages. |
Again. The issue isn’t addressing the SB. The issue is broadcasting it. I’m fine with letting the FCC weigh in. I’m sure she got legal advice before pulling this stunt. And they said: here’s a loophole that lets you expose young kids to obscene material. |
Interesting. Sitting on a shelf in a HA, it’s pornographic and displays pedophilia. When it’s broadcast to young children, it’s “political speech”. Republican “values”
|
if the govenerment sets up the broadcast, then she has no part in it. She does have a right to address her elected officials that is protected by the constitution, they can't then broadcast the meeting and hold her responsible for the broadcast |
There are exceptions to protected political speech, no porn is one. Come on, man. Con Law 1. |