By “Pintface” Pete Bogs/BogsBlog
A federal appeals court has struck down an FCC rule that imposes large fines on media outlets that broadcast profanity. Calling the rule “vague,” the court said such material “should be completely protected under the First Amendment.” Shit yeah!
This is an issue that puts staunch Constitutional consternatives at odds with themselves. They often claim “activist judges” keep law-abiding Americans from having firearms (to which, they believe, the Second Amendment gives them unfettered access) and otherwise “legislate from the bench.”
Yet, they overwhelmingly support court-based prohibitions on speech they find offensive. This, even though the First Amendment does not specifically prohibit “obscenity” and is written so broadly as to allow myriad things people may find objectionable:
"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."
How could a court that laid out standards for what constitutes unprotected speech ("obscenity") – which ultimately led to the FCC rule which has now been quashed – be considered anything but activist? Or for that matter, a court which ruled corporations have the same rights as individuals under the First Amendment? Consternatives, where’s your outrage?
Consternatives certainly are not alone in their opposition to broadcast profanity; many people, including most parents, probably support such restrictions. Nor are they alone in believing broad gun rights are supported by the Constitution. But this “activist court” nonsense is all them.
Activist judges are a consternative construct – a label, like “liberal,” that these hypocrites can pull out when convenient and use to their political advantage among the weak-minded. Fucking assholes!