[CubaLibre]

Let's not get our titties in a twist. I hate the FCC with a burning passion that none of you can comprehend, but they still have the power to regulate language as they have been doing.

The judgment is against a new "fleeting obscenity" rule that was put in place during the Bush administration. Previously, the FCC would give a little leeway to what was said during live broadcasts, because the broadcasters have less control over what gets said. With the new "fleeting" clause, they could fine broadcasters full-price for some stupid shit Nicole Ritchie said on accident.

The grounds for the judgment was that the rule was "too vague" and had no precedent in the FCC's own enforcement, which is a damn fair ruling - the FCC deliberately makes its rules as vague as possible in order to punish as broadly as it likes. It's a horrifying abuse of federal power and I'm glad someone finally called them on it. Too bad it's only for this limited case, though.
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[CubaLibre]

Courts are bureaucracies, too.

I'm not sure about the precedent of the judiciary ruling on the actions of executive agencies, but it's my impression that typically they can. You can sue the government, after all, and it can be forced to make amends by the courts. Generally speaking, when it comes to "checks and balances," the buck stops at the Supreme Court.

More unbiased opinions will have to be found!
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.

[CubaLibre]

Also, the content of that quote is interesting. Leaving aside the fact that the FCC's position is irrational, arbitrary and capricious - even if it weren't, would that change things somehow? He seems to be saying that because it's not arbitrary and capricious, the court can hold no sway. But isn't it the court's decision, whether or not it's arbitrary and capricious? Isn't that the whole point?
_________________
Let's Play, starring me.