The chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court represent a special place for Americans. And with that lofty status comes a fair amount of stuffiness.
The court deals with serious legal matters, and while from time to time, a sliver of levity makes its way into hearings, for the most part, the chamber takes on a signature that mirrors the seriousness of the issue at hand.
A court marshal sits to the right side of the bench and calls the court to order, and maintains “decorum” in the courtroom.
The public in attendance gets a “no-no” shopping list before entering that attests to that decorum: no cameras, radios, pagers, tape players, cell phones, tape recorders, other electronic equipment, hats, overcoats, magazines, books, briefcases, luggage, sunglasses, identification tags (other than military), display buttons or inappropriate clothing.
For its part, the court has resisted efforts to allow more access to its proceedings via videotaping, although in recent years it began allowing the release of audio recordings of oral arguments.
But every once in a while, a case brings with it challenges to maintaining decorum.
Federal Communication Commission v. Fox Television Stations was one of those cases. It’s been more than a year (Nov. 4, 2008) since the court heard the case, and it just released the audio tape.
The roots for the case got planted with 2002 and 2003 broadcasts by Fox Television Stations of the Billboard Music Awards. During those broadcasts, one musician used an explicative in his acceptance speech, and a presenter used two expletives. The FCC issued “notices of liability” to Fox for broadcasting the profane language. Fox challenged the FCC directive.
Tony Mauro, a friend and colleague, works as First Amendment Center legal correspondent. Prior to oral arguments, he wrote a story about the case and noted that Carter Phillips, who argued the case for Fox, in his brief, “used the word ‘f_ _ k’ 30 times, and ‘s_ _t’ 23 times. The government brief uses them only three times, when it quotes from the actual broadcasts at issue, but it uses asterisks or euphemisms in all other mentions of the words. Those differences will be mirrored at oral argument, during which Phillips says he will use the real words unless otherwise instructed.”
News agencies reporting on the court of appeals hearing on the Fox case said the judges and lawyers used the real words throughout the hearing or as one reporter put it, they, “swore like drunken sailors.”
During the Supreme Court oral arguments, justices asked questions about the 5-second delay technology used by broadcasters to safeguard against the airing of salty language or inappropriate images.
It seems the Supreme Court used a yearlong delay on releasing the audiotape of the FCC v. Fox hearing — apparently to keep the decorum of the high court in place as long as possible.
Resources:
- http://www.oyez.org/media/oyezoyezoyez
- http://www.oyez.org/media/scotus_video1
- http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news/...
- http://www.slate.com/id/2203758/
(Article contains salty language) - http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090105/...
Post new comment