Nude on TV? Even in America You Can Do It
Published in La Stampa
(Italy) on 22 June 2012
by MAURIZIO MOLINARI (link to original)
(Italy) on 22 June 2012
by MAURIZIO MOLINARI (link to original)
Translated from
by Linda Merlo.
Edited by Tom Proctor.
The Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. begins a ten day period that promises to make their mark on public life in the United States with a ruling on profanity and nudity on television. The verdict rejected the Federal Communications Commission’s request that Fox TV, NBC and ABC pay fines of $1.24 million for violations of public decency regulations. In particular, the penalties were for obscene phrases related to what was said by the singers Cher and Nicole Richie during the Billboard Music Awards in 2002 and 2003, which were broadcast by Fox, and likewise comments by U2’s Bono at the Golden Globe Awards ceremony that aired on NBC in 2002. The illegal nudity, however, was broadcast by ABC in an episode of NYPD Blue, which is about the New York police. In it, you see – with clarity and for a few seconds – an actress’ buttocks in a scene that has been rebroadcast on other occasions in recent years by 45 affiliated local stations.
The FCC had decided to use an iron fist against such violations in the aftermath of the 2004 Super Bowl, when singer Janet Jackson suddenly uncovered a breast during the halftime concert, which raised public outcry in the following months. But after eight years of distance, the mood about these topics in America has changed. The Supreme Court has seemingly upheld this in a ruling written by Judge Anthony Kennedy and unanimously approved thanks to the consensus of all eight robed ones present - Sonya Sotomayor was absent, as she recused herself from the case.
Kennedy's argument is that large national networks and local stations “couldn’t know they were violating the norms,” which were “too vague,” besides the fact that the FCC “had failed to give fair prior notice.” In essence, this means challenging the wording of current regulations and suggesting their reworking in the light of the change in common sense about modesty.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the standard-bearer of liberal values in the Supreme Court, actually wanted to go further, defining those rules as unconstitutional and referring to freedom of expression. Thus, this would take advantage of the case to review the legal criteria of “public indecency” that dates back to judgments in the 1960s and 1970s. But this path would have led to a confrontation with the conservatives, and Kennedy’s mediation has served to avert that.
Thus, Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1988 but who has often sustained arguments dear to Democrats, has confirmed himself as the decisive anchor of the Supreme Court. Now America looks to him in view of the other two verdicts expected by the end of the month: one on the constitutionality of the law against illegal immigrants in Arizona and one on the healthcare reform passed by Congress in 2010.
Both cases deal with the central issues of the election campaign, since they see President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney on opposing barricades at the helm of their respective factions that split the nation by fomenting continuous public protests. Justice Bader Ginsburg herself has explained the delay of the verdict on Obama's healthcare reform with the fact that the Supreme Court has a “sharp disagreement” on the matter, suggesting that the mediation of Kennedy on this issue promises to be even more difficult.
The FCC had decided to use an iron fist against such violations in the aftermath of the 2004 Super Bowl, when singer Janet Jackson suddenly uncovered a breast during the halftime concert, which raised public outcry in the following months. But after eight years of distance, the mood about these topics in America has changed. The Supreme Court has seemingly upheld this in a ruling written by Judge Anthony Kennedy and unanimously approved thanks to the consensus of all eight robed ones present - Sonya Sotomayor was absent, as she recused herself from the case.
Kennedy's argument is that large national networks and local stations “couldn’t know they were violating the norms,” which were “too vague,” besides the fact that the FCC “had failed to give fair prior notice.” In essence, this means challenging the wording of current regulations and suggesting their reworking in the light of the change in common sense about modesty.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the standard-bearer of liberal values in the Supreme Court, actually wanted to go further, defining those rules as unconstitutional and referring to freedom of expression. Thus, this would take advantage of the case to review the legal criteria of “public indecency” that dates back to judgments in the 1960s and 1970s. But this path would have led to a confrontation with the conservatives, and Kennedy’s mediation has served to avert that.
Thus, Kennedy, who was appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1988 but who has often sustained arguments dear to Democrats, has confirmed himself as the decisive anchor of the Supreme Court. Now America looks to him in view of the other two verdicts expected by the end of the month: one on the constitutionality of the law against illegal immigrants in Arizona and one on the healthcare reform passed by Congress in 2010.
Both cases deal with the central issues of the election campaign, since they see President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney on opposing barricades at the helm of their respective factions that split the nation by fomenting continuous public protests. Justice Bader Ginsburg herself has explained the delay of the verdict on Obama's healthcare reform with the fact that the Supreme Court has a “sharp disagreement” on the matter, suggesting that the mediation of Kennedy on this issue promises to be even more difficult.