S.Ct. approves "fleeting expletive" doctrine, expansion of FCC powers

5-4 decision - guess which four "strict constructionist", "small government' conservatives come down squarely against the first amendment, and squarely in favor of expanding federal regulatory authority in the realm of content-based censorship.

Thank god we don't have "judicial activists" up there...then we might actually be protected from FCC censors who are subject to the whim of whoever is in office.

Now I believe the new FCC under obama will abandond this silliness, and of course the next time the Repubs are in command is likely a long time from now, given their current ineptitude, but still....

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-582.pdf

 

Yeah, when you frame it misleadingly you can make that argument.

Let's frame it the way it actually happened in reality:

by deferring to a regulatory agency which unilaterally created an expanded set of enforcement powers for itself, and which did this without presenting any evidence to support its findings - where such expansion directly impinges on the first amendment.....

1. probably wrongly deciding the case under the law of the APA

2. they are certainly not being "strict constructionists" and certainly not being "conservative" in the sloganeering "less government intrustion" sense that many here seem to endorse.

As far as judicial activism - it's stupid term, since according to you it's now "judicial activism" to protect speech from random gov't fines.

Of course, as i've shown before, here's what "judicial activism" actually means - "decisions that conservatives like."

That's why it's meaningless as a legal term or concept....very useful as a political slogan or codeword though..