In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with the court’s ruling but agreed with the Texas Attorney General’s office that the maps approved by the Legislature should be implemented for the time being.

“Although Texas’ new plans are being challenged on the grounds that they violate the Federal Constitution and [Section] 2 of the Voting Rights Act, they have not yet been found to violate any law,” Thomas wrote. “Accordingly, Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plans should govern the upcoming elections.

Excellent points, all, but I can’t believe this current court will do anything but, per usual 5-4 decision, uphold the redistricting plan. This of course will bring further suspicion on an unelected governmental branch that has done absolutely everything to “justify” its reputation as activist jurists. How sad it is that we can no longer expect a fair & impartial decision from the D.C. Nine.

What you need to realize that is that the EPA should operate on macro level and admittedly they serve an important role. However when they impose them selves on small business’s that the state DEP and the local conservation commissions already over see, it becomes unbearable . I am in the middle of the state on a high hill, I have to succumb to the tedium of securing and maintaining environmental permits from 4 gov. bodies. The EPA did the same thing to me however they also issued a press release in community that I was trying to sell home in. This before I even had a chance to read the complaint. I had to hire lawyers and engineers just to answer their erroneous complaints. I was blackmailed into paying fines or suing for the same cost or more. They are pro’s I am most small business’s are amateurs in this arena. I asked if I could have a judge or a magistrate here this ludicrous charge and they offered an in house mediator. I could not believe this could happen in America. They belong dealing with the macro issues, and leaving the local issues to the state , that do not involve global harms. Then I cannot help but notice the politics of it all when Haliburten and others are poisoning water etc. and EPA is mandated to leave them alone. hahaha

My initial feeling is that since the government does licenses out the broadcast frequency it can say what will be said on them. The question for me is whether limiting what you can but on the licenses violates freedom of expression. And it probably does not. The court has upheld in other cases that the government has this power so it probably fine. Maybe it is unconstitutionally vague. But I am okay with it for now.

The Justices made their opinions obvious in the case “FCC v. Fox Television Stations et. al.” I understand that we know what the Judges will (most likely) decide. It interests me that this case is even reviewed for is constitutionality, because the idea of a “safe-haven” for children does not deal with the Constitution. The First Amendment clearly states a person’s freedom, so why should they not express it through various mediums. People are allowed to swear in person, so why is it stifled on television shows?

On the other hand, watching TV requires for you to participate in various actions–buy a television, set up an antenna, and tune to a specific channel–so it is the decision of the FCC to regulate what can be done. Just as there are HIPAA laws regulating healthcare disclosure, laws regulating the broadcast-TV spectrum can exist. It is ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX’s choice to participate as a provider. In the end, however, the government owns these airwaves and has the right to regulate what can be said.

It is nice to have a few channels free of nudity or obscene language, and because the government owns these airwaves, it is their right to regulate them. However, I do not believe it is fair for the government to pursue some cases of nudity while it leaves other shows or companies unscathed. The government needs to make their standards more evident, otherwise television companies and the government will become engaged in many lawsuits.

Some of the problems I have with these laws are ethically, I think that was a good law and the sale of those types of video games should be regulated. I don’t know how you could argue that that regulation is constitutional. A lot of the comments in the discussion brought up the differences between buying a video game and switching through channels. I do think this difference in activity allows for the airwaves to be regulated. Although as other have brought up, I can understand how obscenities come from many other sources like the internet and in daily life, I don’t think that makes it appropriate on television. Also maybe regulation of indecency on television could translate into other areas.

It’s difficult to determine where the First Amendment falls in this case, mainly because one cannot tell what’s indecent and what isn’t– violence is apparently decent broadcasting material. Regulating indecency on television falls into a pool of ambiguity and fragile circumstances. The FCC does not regulate network television for indecency from 10pm to 6am and also does not regulate cable televisions stations. What makes incidences like Cher and Nicole Richie’s obscenities anymore shocking if they occurred in the afternoon rather than at 10pm? It’s difficult, perhaps unsolvable, circumstances, raised by cases like this, that deter internet regulation.
Government restriction of the First Amendment is always an important issue. In this scenario I believe the context is too vague for increased regulations.

It may be easier to guess how the Court “will” rather than how it “should.”

Given the likely fate of broadcast media it is tempting to let it “die a natural death” and turn our attention to the flood of obscene material online.

Absent in the debate, as far as I can see, is the fact that people can no longer plug a television into the wall and turn it on. There is an intentionality now in choosing the watch television “over the air” that did not exist in the past. Given the ubiquity of internet hotspots, is the difference shrinking?

I think Justice Scalia is correct in his insistence for some governmental policing of the boundaries. In a sea of pornography, and in light of the many other avenues of electronic speech–for TV itself can hardly be termed democratic in nature!–perhaps it is most worthwhile for the Justices to carve out a symbolic, federally monitored space for corporate speech that excludes the prurient.

There is little utility for this case otherwise.

The scope of the decision should be narrow–broadcast, commercial television, and it should include a reference to obscene violence as well. For as long as we are in the business of protecting children, if only symbolically and in our own eyes, we should include the pornographic representations of violence and brutality that have arisen in the absence of sexual “obscenity.”

But the larger issue of the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence is of great concern for two reasons. First, the Court’s decisions violate the first rule of law, namely predictability/consistency. And, second, a number of the Court’s decision violate the principle of religious neutrality — government may not prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonreligion (or the Court uses standing to refuse to hear EC violations altogether, e.g., Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow and Hein v. FFRF).

Our nation is doomed to inconsistency, or should I say confusion, as long as the Court starts each session with a prayer (“… god save this honor Court”), uses bogus rationales for maintaining Christian domination (e.g. Van Orden v. Perry and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization) and declines cert to bring government behavior back in line with the Constitution (e.g., Newdow v. Roberts).