Fox Television v. Federal Communications Commission 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 2006

[@newcleanshoes]

Only in america would there be a full court trial because a couple of curse words were spoken on television. Wow.

[@ian9outof10]

"Why don't you tell the parents to get those TVs out of bedrooms" I couldn't agree more. Parents are the people who should control what children watch. This is how my parents ran things, and that's how I'll handle my daughter's TV viewing. It's not the job of regulators to stop children from hearing bad language. Oh, and kids hear it ALL in the playground anyway. So the whole thing is futile.

[@AceSeptre]

So I know this is a serious topic, bet let's be honest here, this is pretty funny to hear these buttoned up lawyers using profanities simply for the sake of describing profanities.

[@tspiderkeeper]

Its very serious and when comes to court its word for word in sayings.The lawyer had to give the event word for word so the judges can decide the correct action.Which we all know there is no one that can stop a person from free speech even on TV.

[@ayei6581]

thanks for upload hope you're still uploading.

[@joshuafultz8230]

Man that quit judge went ham on the young lawyer

[@shinjiirie6785]

I would Split-fire and Requests U.S.green-cards for hers without me.

[@floridaman2000]

How can the First Amendment exist if there are rules and regulations as to what you can and cannot say on television and I understand you can't yell fire in a theater I give that argument but what I'm saying is if the first amendment is so near and dear to everyone but when somebody says something offencive o the First Amendment no longer applies Somebody explain that to me

[@ian9outof10]

@striken4pot What, because I think that children shouldn't be allowed uncontrolled access to television. Or that I think adults should be responsible for moderating what their children watch? In this case, a mistake was made. A channel aired some language in a live TV show. The broadcaster had no control over them and for whatever reason couldn't remove them. It's not like it was premeditated. Censuring them really solves nothing, apart from to placate the dimwits of society.

[@shinjiirie6785]

Same was TV,bed,backyard,shower room and meals room then learn American word?? Because,here is Colony at Asia.

[@Pamelina1111]

That's because there's NOTHING left for Christians to watch! The whole world is offensive & corrupt. Freedom of speech is to express your opinions of your religious beliefs, not to cuss, swear & insult & offend people! There are still good & moral people that don't find it amusing to watch someone's ass or listen to their vulgarity. If this is what people desire the jokes on them, because it's for a lack of self respect & intelligence! Don't be benighted!

[@shinjiirie6785]

If "Fujiwara" nationality the USA does crimes for my cousin is happen them,Maybe.

[@shinjiirie6785]

I just remember Going-out from camp freedom only her.

[@shinjiirie6785]

That's just only case of mixed American girl,39 years old her.

[@fuckyou5211]

@electrictroy2010 I am not talking about news broadcast I do pay for my cable and the only thing the government doesn't censor are the premium channels. I do pay for the news because if i didn't pay for cable i wouldn't have them.

[@latonyadarlene4244]

Tonya Atte

[@davidnims7179]

 ▼ Title VI - Human Services (Ch. 216 - 255A) • Chapter 229: Hospitalization Of Persons With Mental Illness § 229.12 - Hearing Procedure. 1. At the hospitalization hearing, evidence in support of the contentions made in the application shall be presented by the county attorney. During the hearing the applicant and the respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to testify and to present and cross-examine witnesses, and the court may receive the testimony of any other interested person. The respondent has the right to be present at the hearing. If the respondent exercises that right and has been medicated within twelve hours, or such longer period of time as the court may designate, prior to the beginning of the hearing or an adjourned session thereof, the judge shall be informed of that fact and of the probable effects of the medication upon convening of the hearing. 2. All persons not necessary for the conduct of the proceeding shall be excluded, except that the court may admit persons having a legitimate interest in the proceeding and shall permit the advocate from the county where the respondent is located to attend the hearing. Upon motion of the county attorney, the judge may exclude the respondent from the hearing during the testimony of any particular witness if the judge determines that witness’s testimony is likely to cause the respondent severe emotional trauma. 3. a. The respondent’s welfare shall be paramount and the hearing shall be conducted in as informal a manner as may be consistent with orderly procedure, but consistent therewith the issue shall be tried as a civil matter. The hearing may be held by video conference at the discretion of the court. Such discovery as is permitted under the Iowa rules of civil procedure shall be available to the respondent. The court shall receive all relevant and material evidence which may be offered and need not be bound by the rules of evidence. There shall be a presumption in favor of the respondent, and the burden of evidence in support of the contentions made in the application shall be upon the applicant. b. The licensed physician or mental health professional who examined the respondent shall be present at the hearing unless the court for good cause finds that the licensed physician’s or mental health professional’s presence or testimony is not necessary. The applicant, respondent, and the respondent’s attorney may waive the presence or the telephonic appearance of the licensed physician or mental health professional who examined the respondent and agree to submit as evidence the written report of the licensed physician or mental health professional. The respondent’s attorney shall inform the court if the respondent’s attorney reasonably believes that the respondent, due to diminished capacity, cannot make an adequately considered waiver decision. “Good cause” for finding that the testimony of the licensed physician or mental health professional who examined the respondent is not necessary may include but is not limited to such a waiver. If the court determines that the testimony of the licensed physician or mental health professional is necessary, the court may allow the licensed physician or the mental health professional to testify by telephone. c. If upon completion of the hearing the court finds that the contention that the respondent is seriously mentally impaired has not been sustained by clear and convincing evidence, it shall deny the application and terminate the proceeding. 4. If the respondent is not taken into custody under section 229.11, but the court subsequently finds good cause to believe that the respondent is about to depart from the jurisdiction of the court, the court may order such limited detention of the respondent as is authorized by section 229.11 and is necessary to insure that the respondent will not depart from the jurisdiction of the court without the court’s approval until the proceeding relative to the respondent has been concluded. 5. The clerk shall furnish copies of any orders to the respondent and to the applicant if the applicant files a written waiver signed by the respondent. [R60, §1480; C73, §1400; C97, §2265; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §3547; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, §229.4; C77, 79, 81, §229.12] 89 Acts, ch 275, §4; 94 Acts, ch 1027, §2; 2006 Acts, ch 1116, §3; 2006 Acts, ch 1159, §31; 2009 Acts, ch 41, §226; 2012 Acts, ch 1079, §12; 2012 Acts, ch 1120, §100, 130; 2015 Acts, ch 76, §3; 2018 Acts, ch 1056, §10 Referred to in §218.92, 222.7, 225.11, 226.31, 227.10, 227.15, 229.13, 229.14, 229.19, 229.21, 229.22, 229.24, 229.26, 229.38, 331.756(46), 602.8103 Subsection 3, paragraph a amended           

[@striken4pot]

@ian9outof10 U know, ur the kind of person who makes me sick to my stomach.

[@striken4pot]

@ian9outof10 no, a reason that has to do with something other than this case, the fcc, the first amendment, or ur parenting views. But i am not discussing it for the millionth time with the millionth person, forget i said anything...

[@Pamelina1111]

OK

[@ian9outof10]

@striken4pot Brilliant. So you say something as strong as "you make me sick to my stomach" and then can't be bothered to explain why. If you're going to bother commenting, then perhaps you should take your time to explain yourself properly. Or perhaps you're just another pointless Internet troll.

[@ayei6581]

too funny.

[@Pamelina1111]

First, change your name. Second..., science? Who doesn't believe in science? Are you talking about science replacing the existance of God? There are many documentaries of scientist believing & proving the existance of God. God created science. Don't know where you're going with this.