Cheat-Seeking Missles

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Flippin' Let The Friggin' Kid Hear Effing Expletives

Here's a simple enough question: How do such stupid, stupid people get to sit in positions once held by Solomon, the only man in history I know of who actually had the wisdom of Solomon?

The latest stupid, stupid judge is Clinton appointee (natch!) Rosemary Pooler of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, who apparently thinks it's better to have kids hear expletives on TV than to go back (not that far back) to when the FCC kept a tight lid on such foul fair on the air.

Pooler's shallow pool of common sense became evident in arguments in a lawsuit brought be several networks to challenge the FCC's desire to tighten up on profanity. Reports the NYSun:

At issue is whether the danger that foul language poses to children is enough to justify the Federal Communications Commission's policing of network television. At oral arguments in a First Amendment challenge to the FCC's policies yesterday, a lawyer for the commission said the anti-profanity efforts were needed because network broadcasts are easily accessible to children, especially those with television sets in their own rooms.

One judge on the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that heard the case, Rosemary Pooler, sharply rejected that argument, calling it "disingenuous." That rationale was, she suggested, not reason enough "for the FCC to go galloping to the rescue."

Parents who put television sets in their children's room seemed willing to shoulder the risk that their child could hear "fleeting expletives," she said.

"You want to protect those children even when the parents are lax," Judge Pooler told the attorney for the FCC, Eric Miller.

How about parents who put their televisions in the living room and watch as a family? How about raunchy ads for their own shows the networks run during non-raunchy family programming?

How about the kids in their own room? Pooler was a consumer attorney before being appointed to the bench, and she presumably believed then it was fine for government to actively protect children from faulty products -- why not filthy language?

How about thinking about it in terms of corporate responsibility and social decency instead of "riding to the rescue?"

How about thinking about how slippery, steep and long the slope Pooler would push society onto is? If s*** and d*** are OK, why not f*** and c*** and n*****? And if they're all OK, why not nudity? And if nudity is OK, why not explicit sex? And heck, how about televised executions? Why should government interfere at all with any kind of free "speech?"

When you allow something to degrade, how do you stop the degredation? Pooler is not the one to ask, because liberal Democratic secularism has obviously degraded her intelligence past the point of no return.

Illustration: Ron Thompkins
Related Tags: , , , ,