Monday, November 11, 2024

Take a peek behind the curtain and test drive the NEW StateNews.com today!

Swearing, guns get attention

Lindsey Poisson

Fun stuff is happening in the nation’s highest court.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard its first Second Amendment case in about 70 years. The nine justices will decide whether a Washington, D.C., handgun ban currently in effect is constitutional. Or, simply put, whether ordinary citizens have the right to keep a handgun in their home.

Early this week, the Supreme Court also agreed to weigh in on the fight between the Federal Communications Commission and several broadcast networks about the use of expletives. This refers to the candid, one-time uses of the “F-word,” “S-word” and other curse words uttered during broadcast shows. The case likely will appear before the Supreme Court in the fall.

These two cases just so happen to represent major areas of contention for many Americans: gun control and censorship. And though the synchronicity of their renewed relevance might be coincidental, the issues often appear hand-in-hand.

Innocently enough, the right to bear arms is being contested. Limiting the use or private citizens’ ownership of guns isn’t something that seems personally inapplicable. I don’t own a gun and I don’t really care to.

But should I have the option? That’s what’s at stake.

Popular belief has it that the nation’s founding fathers intended to allow us to become gun-toting patriots if we want. Anyone who has been through a high school civics class knows this as constitutional fact. However, an argument raised on Tuesday contends the Second Amendment only refers to policing groups, not individual citizens.

The amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s like declaring Pluto isn’t a planet. But there comes a time when a society should re-evaluate what it does and why. Perhaps it’s time to evaluate the merits of keeping a law we’ve followed as gospel for so long.

I’m not a fan of guns, but I’m a fan of people having rights. Here in Michigan, and elsewhere, hunting and guns are a cultural norm and big business — that’s just a reality that’s not going to change anytime soon. And with certain precautions set into motion, gun ownership can be made safe. But there are so many other arguments surrounding the Second Amendment – it’s our right to protect ourselves, lax gun control makes firearms easier to obtain, even that gun control isn’t the only issue surrounding the problems America has with guns.

There’s that saying, “Guns don’t kill people: People kill people,” which is a perfect segue into the other pending Supreme Court case involving broadcaster swearing.

Since the 2004 Super Bowl halftime “peep” show involving Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, TV content and its effects have been under very close scrutiny. Live broadcasts more often have time delays where anything offensive can be bleeped. This is on top of standard practices of censoring content, such as low-grade weekend movies broadcast on local channels dubbed and edited for explicit content.

The point is to have all questionable content away from the eyes and ears of the public — especially impressionable children who might pick up a gun and reenact a shoot-out they saw on TV. The FCC, however, doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Internet or satellite and cable TV.

One-time blurts of swear words, as celebrities have done during award shows in the last few years, is the latest type of indecency the FCC has decided to fine. The agency was quoted in an Associated Press article as saying the “F-word” “inherently has a sexual connotation.” Of course, broadcasting networks claim free speech is being infringed. Sure, right now only “F- and S-words” are considered indecent. I’m not even permitted to write them out in this column. But the fear is tomorrow, it could be other supposedly “indecent” words and phrases as defined by the FCC — maybe “crap” or “balls.”

Random “F-bombs” and booby flashing might not be meaningful free speech, but agencies shouldn’t create over-broad policies meant to ban anything considered inappropriate. Essentially, networks shouldn’t be responsible for proper parenting.

Life isn’t family friendly. No amount of legislation and agency policies will make it so. One case won’t determine the other, but their decisions could change how Americans look at both.

Lindsey Poisson is the State News opinion writer. Reach her at poisson4@msu.edu.

Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.

Discussion

Share and discuss “Swearing, guns get attention ” on social media.