Stennis Institute of Government

All the publicity has gone to the major party politics and the election of President-elect Obama.  But social politics — mostly ignored by journalists and tv talking heads — were busy topics in state elections on November 4.  For example:

South Dakota rejected a measure which would have banned most abortions in the state; Colorado voted down a measure which would have defined life as “beginning at conception”.  California’s measure requiring parental notification when performing abortions on minors (Proposition 4) was narrowly defeated.

Gay marriage was on the ballot in California and Arizona. California voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage (Proposition 8); Arizona defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman (Proposition 102).  Arkansas voters determined unmarried cohabiting couples (including same sex couples) as unable to serve as adoptive or foster parents.

Embryonic stem-cell research was approved in Michigan.

Washington joined Oregon in legalizing physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

Marijuana, anyone?  Massachusetts voted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.  Michigan approved medical marijuana for people with debilitating illness. (California, on the other hand, rejected a proposal similar to the Massachusetts decriminalization action.)

Again, our national quilt is a patchwork — particularly on social politics.

Yesterday was not only election day in the U.S.  It was the day that the U. S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether to ban the “f” word and the “s” word in live television broadcasts in prime time.

Prior to 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) only sanctioned the use of indecent language in a broadcast if it was repetitive and intentional.  In 2004, however, the FCC began cracking down on even the occasional use of foul language between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., when more children watch T.V.  This policy change caused a shift in the delicate balance between the broadcasters right to free speech and the parents’ desire to protect their children from indecency in radio and T.V. programming.

When the FCC policy change was challenged (by Fox and NBC, among others) the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of New York ruled that the policy was “arbitrary and capricious”, thus affording victory to the networks.

Where will the Supreme Court draw the line on “bad words”?  Who knows, but the election of Obama and the new Dems in Congress will certainly impact the Court — although undoubtedly not so soon as to impact this particular decision.