Kinda related
FCC / SCOTUS Breyer
I guess Breyer is ignorant of how time zones and Tee Vee work.
Asked why a show was shown one hour earlier in the midwest (because it had bad things on the show). It was shown 10 pm east coast and 9 pm (West of there which to HIM is the Midwest - also a bit geographically-challenged it appears). uh, .... jurist, 10 pm IS 9 pm 'midwest' time. So, it was shown at the same exact moment in the universe. Why does congress proclaim that to be a different time in two different places is my first thought AFTER thinking you're an idiot.
This page has audio link and strangely the text IN THE SOURCE PAGE but not on the web/visible page to me/Safari at least.
http://bit.ly/xPc9UB
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: But this wasn't -- I mean, I -- don't know about this instance.
It's called "Nude Awakening", it's about the sexual awakening of a child.
You ran it, your client, after 10:00 on both coasts and they choose to run it at 9:00 for some unknown reason in the Midwest.
Maybe they thought -- I don't know, whatever.
[Laughter]
Mr. Waxman: --I--
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: But my point is what the FCC terribly told you to do was run it 1 hour later in the Midwest, just as you did on the coast.
Mr. Waxman: --Yes.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: And -- and why is that not -- I'm not saying, taking this point of view, but I'm saying why -- isn't that just time, manner and circumstance that puts you to very little trouble, and allows everybody to see it, and therefore is constitutional?
Mr. Waxman: The -- this is not some sort of obscure, unknown reason.
This show was run across the country in the last hour of prime time which happens to be from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. in the Midwest and Mountain Time zones.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: Because you wanted to make more money from it, I understand that.
And maybe people would have been a little bit inconvenienced, but the inconvenience -- they made a judgment that looking at this show is not like "Private Ryan", it's about sexual awakening; they are showing a part of a nude woman, the viewer is supposed to put himself in the position of the boy who is seeing her, and the whole thing was titillating.
Now they might be wrong; there are two sides to that argument; and so I guess what you are arguing is, if I were to say is that a reasonable view -- I guess I would have to say it.
But you have to say much -- you are telling me I have to say much more than that.
Mr. Waxman: Well, number -- yes.
Number one, it is not a reasonable view, for reasons I will explain.
It was not sexual awakening; this was a portrayal in the context of a story line about the difficulties and embarrassments of blended families.
This was an exploration of one of the things that happens, which is a little boy stumbles in and watches a woman in the quotidian activity of preparing her morning shower.
In any event, the commission for years had been adjudicating complaints about nudity, and I -- I--
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: All right.
Mr. Waxman: --It is simply untrue -- it is simply untrue that this had never occurred before.
NYPD Blue> ["] itself was in its tenth season.
The very first episode which caused a lot of media attention included a nude scene of love making.
It was the subject of any number of complaints.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: You're going off the question.
Mr. Waxman: Okay.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: Which -- you haven't seen where I'm going.
