Issue. Public nudity within 500 feet of a school or church is an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of expression. Should Abercrombie and Fitch be allowed to shoot a music video parody that exposes nudity within 500 meters of a school or a church?
Analysis. The United States of America’s constitution allows freedom of expression in that every citizen has the right to express him or herself. The law passed by the City of New York prohibiting anyone from public exposure within 500 meters of a school or a church is unconstitutional because; the constitution gives every citizen the right to choose and decide how to express him or herself in public. According to laws set by the City of New York, any person may expose themselves when entertaining or breastfeeding thus; it is necessary to note that the shooting of a music video, which in this case is a parody, is a form of entertainment. This being the case, the models in the music video should have the constitutional right to express themselves through exposure (Jepsen, 2010).
On the other hand, the law passed by the City of New York prohibits female from exposing their breasts below the areola; but, in the music video, parody Abercrombie and Fitch uses male models only exposing their chests, which is not prohibited according to the law passed by the City of New York prohibiting exposure (Goel, 2008). Thus, the male models had the right to express themselves through entertainment considering that they did not participate in exposure according to the laws passed by the City of New York.
Condition. The female models in the music video parody did not expose their breasts beyond their areola as stipulated by the laws of New York; thus this would not be considered as exposure (Berger, 2009). The law that was passed prohibiting exposure within 500 meters of a school or church may not apply to the shooting of this music video parody considering that the models will not be exposed according to the stipulations of the laws thus have the right to express themselves (Abercrombie & Fitch, 2010).
Issue. Did WNYW-TV violate Federal Communications Commission indecency rules by showing a video where a model has an erection?
Rule. The Federal Communications Commission states it clearly that video editors should always make sure that the parts containing any form of nudity are edited out (FCC, 2012a). Thus, WNYW-TV violated the indecency rules set by the Federal Communications Commission.
Analysis. Whether Newscorp is in Violation of FCC’s Indecency Rules
WNYW-TV was in violation of FCC’s indecency rules after showing a music video parody in public that shows a model popping from the flowers with an erection. According to the FCC’s rules, the editors of music video parodies to be shown in public must ensure that they edit out the parts that contain any form of nudity (Federal Communications Commission, 2012). Therefore, considering this, the editors and producers of the Abercrombie and Fitch video should have edited out the part that showed an erection, which was clearly visible through the outline of his jeans. WNYW-TV being a broadcast station of Newscorp is a famous news company is watched by viewers all over the United States of America and Canada, meaning that the indecent music video parody was watched by viewers, some below 21 years.
Condition. According to the FCC’s indecency rules, music video parodies that contain any form of nudity must not be exposed to minors below the age of 21 years (Federal Communications Commission, 2012). Thus, the exposure of a music video parody that showed a male model with a clear erection is in violation of FCC’s indecency rules.
Issue. Did the video released by Abercrombie and Fitch violate the standards set by the United States Supreme Court? Is the law prohibiting the advertising and selling of videos containing nudity in establishments that most of the clientele are below 21 years constitutional?
Rule. The video released by Abercrombie and Fitch violated the standard set by the Supreme Court and the law that prohibits advertisement and selling videos with nudity to minors (USSC 2012a).
Analysis. The decision by Abercrombie and Fitch to realise the video containing nudity in terms of nude dancing male models is against the codes of ethics set by the United States Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, then right standard of videos are the videos that do not necessarily expose nudity in that the models in the videos must be any way nude in the music videos (United States Supreme Court, 2012b). Contrary to this, the Abercrombie and Fitch video, contains male models who are dancing around for the entire video where none of them has any clothing.
On the other hand, it is a crime to advertise or sale a music video that contains any nudity to minors below 21 years (United States Supreme Court, 2012a). According to the statistics collected, most of the clients that visit the Abercrombie and Fitch stores are aged between 18 and 22 years, which will mean that minors between the age of 21 years are most likely to gain access to the music video.
Condition. The constitution states that, no music video, which may contain nudity of any form, should be advertise or sold in any establishment where most of clientele is below the age of 21 years. Thus, Abercrombie and Fitch stores are in violation of the constitution when they advertise and sell the Abercrombie and Fitch video, which contain nudity, considering that most of the clients that visit the stores are below the age requirement set by the constitution.
Issue. Does the Principal have the authority to deny the swim team the freedom to shoot a music video parody based on the video of the United States swim team?
Rule. It is unconstitutional for the principal to deny the students the freedom to express themselves in the music video parody.
Analysis. The school Principal Shum does not have the legal authority of denying the swimming team a chance to express themselves when wearing Speedos and racing gears, through the video. It is the constitutional right of the children to express themselves the way they see fit. In addition, the music video parody will be based on another music video parody where the actors are dressed in the same outfits that the children are being refused to wear in their music video parody. The principal should take into careful consideration that the video to be released by the students is based on a similar video thus the students should be allowed to dress accordingly (United States Olympic Swim Team, 2010). On the other hand, the music video will be sold to raise funds for the swim program thus the students should be allowed to wear their sports kit that they use in swimming so as to be able to attract more clients (Freedom Forum, 2011).
Condition. The principal should also take into consideration that the constitution does not prohibit males who appear in music videos from being topless, which is was the students in the swim team intend to do. In addition, females appearing in the videos should not show their breasts beyond the areola, a factor considered when selecting kits for students in the swimming team. Therefore, the principal should allow students to go ahead and shoot the music video parody without any interference.
Abercrombie and Fitch. (2010). Call Me Maybe Carly Rae Jepsen Abercrombie. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NRWM3FgqA
Berger, F. (2009). Freedom of Expression in New York. New York, NY: Sage.
Federal Communications Commission. (2012a). Rules and Regulations. Retrieved from www.fcc.gov
Federal Communications Commission. (2012b). Violations and Complaints. Retrieved from www.fcc.gov/complaints
Freedom Forum. (2011). Freedom of Expression Limitations. Retrieved from http://www.freedomforum.org
Goel, S. (2008). Freedom of Expression: Secular Theocracy versus Liberal Democracy. New York, NY: Sage.
Jepsen, C. (2010). Call Me Maybe. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic
United States Olympic Swim Team. (2010). Call Me Maybe Parody Swim. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIA7mpm1wU
United States Supreme Court. (2012a). Standards Set by the Court. Retrieved from www.supremecourt.gov
United States Supreme Court. (2012b). The Supreme Court Database. Retrieved from www.scdb.wustl.edu