'The West Wing' charged with profanity [View All]

[GAspnes]

An oldie, but a goodie. Randy Sharp complained to the FCC in March of 2003 that "The West Wing" episode "The Two Cathedrals" (one of the best-written episodes ever) violated FCC regulations against profanity because Bartlett called God a "feckless thug". I'm impressed that Mr. Sharp knows enough Latin to understand "“cruciatus in crucem, eas in crucem,”" which literally mean “"send your torments to the cross” and “may you go to the cross."

I suppose in the next four years, this kind of idiocy would be listened to more seriously. Gack.


http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-50A1.html

2. Sharp's complaint arises from the station's
broadcast of the ``Two Cathedrals'' episode of the NBC-
network program ``The West Wing.'' According to Raycom, in
that episode, the show's character President Bartlet, while
alone in a church, reflects aloud on his ``personal
struggles and growth'' during an impassioned lament to God.2
Raycom represents that both the show and episode in question
have garnered numerous dramatic awards and nominations, in
addition to critical and philosophical attention on the
subject of communicating with God.3 Raycom contends that
the speech about which Sharp complains is not profane, but
was merely intended as a character's expression of
frustration with a deity who is seemingly indifferent to
instances of human suffering. For the reasons set forth
below, we find no merit to Sharp's complaint, and conclude
that the staff's April 18, 2002, letter ruling properly
found that the licensee did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1464 by
airing the remarks in question.

3. First, Sharp argues that licensee violated the
statute by broadcasting the portion of ``The West Wing''
program wherein character President Bartlet ``scream at
God,'' and made irreverent references toward the
deity¾``ou're a sonofabitch, you know that?,'' and ``have
I displeased you, you feckless thug?'' Sharp cites FCC v.
Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S.
47, 52 (1919) as precedents that support a finding that the
language at issue is legally profane. However, the cases
Sharp relies on are inapposite.4 The courts have held that
material, such as the phrase ``god damn it'' uttered in
anger, while offensive to some, is not legally profane for
purposes of section 1464.