 sj |
||
|
||
Songs & the First Amendment
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Songs & the First Amendment |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: Songs & the First Amendment From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 02 - 10:32 AM Songwriter charges FCC with violating First Amendment rights Associated Press Published Jan 30 2002 NEW YORK -- A New York poet is suing the Federal Communications Commission, claiming the agency violated her First Amendment rights when it deemed one of her songs indecent and fined a radio station for playing it. The 1999 song, ``Your Revolution,'' didn't include any of the seven words prohibited by the FCC but it contained vivid sexual imagery. Poet Sarah Jones said she was surprised by the ruling because she wrote the song as a criticism of the degradation of women in hip-hop. Her lawsuit, filed in federal court Tuesday, asks the court to overturn the FCC ruling and seeks an injunction against a $7,000 fine the FCC imposed on Portland, Ore., radio station KBOO-FM for airing the song. The station contested the fine in July, but no action has been taken, said Jones' lawyer, Lisa Davis. The FCC declined to comment on the case. In the past year, the agency has come under scrutiny for what some say is inconsistent enforcement of its policies.
|
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 10:48 AM I am shocked, shocked, to learn that an agency of the U.S. Federal Government might enforce its policies in a capricious or inconsistent manner. While I am a strong supporter of our first ammendment rights, I suspect that constitution protects Ms. Jones' right to sing and publish her song but remains silent on guaranteeing air play. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: allie kiwi Date: 30 Jan 02 - 04:05 PM Why does everyone assume that everyone knows what this First Amendment is? Don't live in the USA, and dont have a constitution, let alone any amendments. Allie |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: GUEST Date: 30 Jan 02 - 05:06 PM Sorry about that Allie! My grossly myopic cultural oversight. Here it is, the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The first 10 amendments are what makes up the US Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
|
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Bennet Zurofsky Date: 30 Jan 02 - 06:11 PM The First Amendment, among other things, protects free speech against governmental interference or suppression. It is the first item in the Bill of Rights. Its text is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Although it only mentions "Congress" the amendment has long been construed to apply to the entire Federal Government, including the FCC. Since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has also been held to apply to all State, County and Municipal governments in the United States as well. Contrary to the belief of many, it has no application whatsoever to private actions. Thus, one only has free speech rights as against governmental entities or officials. There are no Constitutionally-based free speech rights as against private corporations or individuals. Mark Clark (any relation to the WWII General by the way?) is therefore wrong when he states that the First Amendment is "silent" on the issues raised by Ms. Jones' case. If a privately-owned radio station refused to air her song, no matter the reason, there would not be a First Amendment issue. If, however, the FCC takes an action against prohibiting stations from airing her song then that raises a First Amendment issue because the FCC is a federal government agency. Ms. Jones' case, in fact, raises a great number of very interesting First Amendment issues since a majority of the US Supreme Court has never held that the First Amendment should be read literally as prohibitting all governmental abridgement of speech. The airwaves, in particular, have been subjected to regulation, approved by the US Supreme Court, of a type that the Court would not approve if a governmental agency did the same thing to a print medium like a newspaper. Personally, I would like to her win. Whether she will or not remains an open question. -Bennet Zurofsky, Esq. |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Gary T Date: 30 Jan 02 - 06:12 PM Of course the right to free speech protected in the First Amendment doesn't guarantee air play, but in this case the government appears to be prohibiting air play, which could be seen as a violation of that right. |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 06:34 PM Bennet, Thanks. I considered that for a while before posting but I finally decided that the FCC must be the one enforcing George Carlin's famous seven words. I reasoned that there must be some precedent for governmental control over broadcast media or the censorship wouldn't exist. Unfortunately, in this case I didn't go so far as to actually research the background for such censorship. Shame on me. Like you, I'm pulling for Ms. Jones. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: allie kiwi Date: 30 Jan 02 - 06:43 PM Thanks for the explanation of the amendment - it makes more sense now. Allie |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Jan 02 - 06:58 PM Well Allie, it's still the most popular and in many ways misunderstood. Bennett did a fine job (as I would expect) in presenting it. The problem Allie with our Constitution and it's amendments comes from the many interpretations of the words and trying to ascribe meaning to them. There are several schools of thought ranging from literal reading to trying to interpret what they intended when the framers wrote the documents and then applying that to today in both cases....and a lot of people are in between the extremes. Questions that cannot be worked out often wind up before the Supreme Court composed of nine justices who have varying interpretations of what the documents mean. It sounds a little nuts, but it works pretty well, especially since it still relies on individual interpretation of something that was written in an entirely different culture over 200 years ago. Kinda' like figuring out what the meanings and words are to old folk songs. Big difference is that you rarely go to jail based on the wording of a Child ballad. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 02 - 06:36 AM What I find most interesting is that the FCC finds it acceptable to allow the misogynist lyrics of rap and heavy metal by men to remain on the airwaves, but a feminist backlash against them is considered "unfit"! Here is a link to a Village Voice article about it, which also quotes some of purportedly "objectionable" lyrics: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0125/lee.php |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Midchuck Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:24 AM One thing: In arguing gun control with good liberals, I have at times heard the argument that since at the time of enactment of the Second Amendment, "Arms" meant swords, flintlock muskets, and muzzle-loading brass cannon, those are all the arms the framers intended to protect the peoples' right to. Thus modern repeating firearms aren't protected. Of course, I don't buy that argument. But if a good liberal is going to take that position, he should, as a matter of consistency, apply it to the rest of the Bill of Rights as well. That would mean that "freedom of speech and of the press" refers to face-to-face speech in private or public meetings, and hard-copy printed media or private pen-and-ink correspondence. Radio, television, telephone, much less the internet, have no protection, since they didn't exist when the amendment was drafted and so the founding fathers couldn't have intended to protect them. It's absurd. But it's consistent. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Charlie Baum Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:37 AM Complete lyrics to "Your Revolution" on a website from KBOO-FM, the station which was fined. Scroll up at that site for more information from the station, and for more links. --Charlie Baum Transcribed below: The Song
Your revolution will not happen between these thighs
|
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: GUEST Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:35 PM Thanks for looking that up for us Charlie. |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: SeanM Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:21 PM That is an entirely interesting piece - though not a rap 'afficionado' by ANY means, I do recognize what would likely be considered the inflammatory parts as being direct lifts from VERY popular male rap pieces. It does very strongly make me wonder (as was earlier stated) - why are these sentiments OK, supported and played when they are from men, but when a woman tries to make a VERY solid point using these same statements, it's wrong? M |
|
Subject: RE: Songs & the First Amendment From: Bennet Zurofsky Date: 31 Jan 02 - 03:42 PM Looks like a damn good rap to me. My foot is more indecent. Sarah Jones, you go! Now, if we could get someone to annotate all of her references to other rap artists and tunes, we could really analyze the matter. I believe that her most "indecent" lyrics are pretty much quotations from the work of other rap artists that she is critiquing or responding to and that the records of these other rap artisits have been frequently played on many radio stations without censure from the FCC. Charlie Baum, thanks for the posting. -Bennet |
| Share Thread: |