FireInATheater.com

The case concerns a Federal Communications Commission policy that allows for fines against broadcasters for so-called "fleeting expletives," one-time uses of the F-word or its close cousins.

Fox Broadcasting Co., along with ABC, CBS and NBC, challenged the new policy after the commission said broadcasts of entertainment awards shows in 2002 and 2003 were indecent because of profanity uttered by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment.

No fines were issued in the incidents, but the FCC could impose fines for future violations of the policy.

The case before the court technically involves only two airings on Fox of the "Billboard Music Awards" in which celebrities' expletives were broadcast over the airwaves. NBC is separately challenging an FCC decision that rapped the network for airing Bono's use of the F-word during a Golden Globes awards show in 2003.

The case, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582, will be argued in the fall.

The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments last Thursday on two cases involving false-light invasion of privacy. One case, involving the news media, will have the court decide whether a businessman’s lawsuit against the Pensacola News Journal should be considered a false light or libel claim, and what timeframe for statute of limitations should apply.

The suit stems from a story the Journal published in 1998 about Joe Anderson Jr., founder of a road paving company, which said he “shot and killed” his wife. Two sentences later, the article stated that she died in a hunting accident.

Anderson, who said the description suggested he murdered his wife, successfully sued the paper under a false light claim and was awarded $18.3 million, but an appeals court reversed the verdict, holding that Anderson had inaccurately filed it as a false light claim in an attempt to skirt a two-year statute of limitations on libel claims. False light suits have a four-year statute of limitations.

Here’s Florida political cartoonist Andy Marlette’s take:

Cartoon by Andy Marlette/AndyMarlette.com

• Authorizing the imposition of censorship to public entertainment events, such as shows and performances;
• Forbidding the involvement of foreigners in media outlets; or those imposing higher sanctions for calumny, defamation and slander when the crime has been committed by or through the press;
• Which allowed the apprehension of printed material inciting to social and political subversion and the closing down of media outlets irrespective of judicial decision;
• Which prevented the proof of veracity in defamation cases against certain authorities, including the President of the Republic;
• Which imposed an indemnification ceiling in civil defamation cases against the press; and
  
• Which imposed a time limit for an offended party to file indemnification lawsuits for declarations printed or broadcast by the media.

According to AP, “a growing number of U.S. cities [are] enacting laws that ban low-slung pants.” That’s right, Baggy Pants Bans. Put on a belt, sir, or come with me to the station.

“Critics say the bans amount to government attacks on youthful fashion that some find offensive. And constitutional scholars say they may not be lawful,” the AP article continued. “Besides possibly violating the First Amendment . . . saggy pants bans raise serious concerns under the 14th Amendment's due process clause guaranteeing life, liberty and property interests.”

A third grader merely armed with a civics textbook could tell you baggy pants bans are unconstitutional. That’s easy. But that’s not all. The laws are stupid, too.  

If showing a bit of underwear is now a punishable offense in some areas, will the Panties Puritans now close the pools, the beaches and the basketball courts? Will they demand the prosecution of a homeless person for wearing badly tailored outfit?

The government simply has no place in the fashion police business.
[AP]

The Pentagon says he is a “terrorist media operative. The Associated Press says he is a news photographer who worked on a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team. He is Bilal Hussein, and he has been held in Iraq since April 2006 and only this week was charged with a crime.

In a statement reported by AFP, AP's president and CEO said:

"While we are hopeful that there could be some resolution to Bilal Hussein's long detention, we have grave concerns that his rights under the law continue to be ignored and even abused," AP President and CEO Tom Curley said in a statement.

"The steps the U.S. military is now taking continue to deny Bilal his right to due process and, in turn, may deny him a chance at a fair trial.

"The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve," the AP statement said.

"At this point, we believe the correct recourse is the immediate release of Bilal."

[AP, AFP, FOI FYI]