Deborah D. McAdams /
07.13.2010 02:00 PM
Federal Court Boots FCC Indecency Rules
PROFANITYNEW YORK: A federal appeals court threw out the Federal Communication Commission’s indecency rules today. A three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the FCC’s indecency policy “violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.” The court effectively invalidated the FCC’s indecency rules.

The case involves an FCC crackdown on spontaneous cursing by celebrities on TV, reaching back to 2002 when Cher dropped an F-bomb on Fox’s live telecast of the “Billboard Music Awards.”
The FCC under the direction of former Chairman Kevin Martin issued the ruling against fleeting expletives in an indecency dragnet generating $4.5 million in fines.

Under federal law, content is considered indecent if it describes or depicts “sexual or excretory organs or activities… [and] the broadcast must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.”

Martin’s predecessor, Michael Powell, had waved off Bono’s use of an exclamatory F-word on the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because there was no sexual connotation. Though Fox was not fined, it challenged the FCC’s censures as violations of the First Amendment. CBS and ABC were also censured and joined the lawsuit.

The Second Circuit Court sided with Fox, et al, on the premise the FCC hadn’t provided proper notice for the policy change between Powell
s and Martin’s tenures. It did not take up the constitutional question. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the FCC in April 2009, and directed the lower court to rule on the First Amendment challenge. Today’s ruling is the result.

The 32-page ruling, written by Judge Rosemary Pooler, addresses how both media and culture have changed since broadcast indecency rules were established. The rules rest in part on broadcast being the single-most pervasive media in the country, which is no longer the case. The judges cited the availability of the V-chip, allowing parents to block content, and took issue with the FCC for deeming some vulgarities censurable while letting others go.

“The word ‘bullshit’ is indecent because it is ‘vulgar, graphic and explicit,’ while the word ‘dickhead’ was not indecent because it was ‘not sufficiently vulgar, explicit, or graphic.’ This hardly gives broadcasters notice of how the commission will apply the factors in the future,” Pooler wrote.

The court said that the FCC’s application of indecency rules “chilled a vast amount of protected speech dealing with some of the most important and universal themes in art and literature. Sex and the magnetic power of sexual attraction are surely among the most predominant themes in the study of humanity since the Trojan War. The digestive system and excretion are also important areas of human attention. By prohibiting all ‘patently offensive’ references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what ‘patently offensive’ means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive.”

The judges concluded by saying their decision didn’t suggest the FCC couldn’t create a constitutional indecency policy, but rather that the one in place “fails constitutional scrutiny.”

Responding on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters, Dennis Wharton issued the following statement: “NAB supports today’s appellate court decision... We believe that responsible decision-making by network and local station executives, coupled with program-blocking technologies like the V-chip, is far preferable to government regulation of program content.”

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the FCC was “reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents and uphold the First Amendment.”

-- Deborah D. McAdams

(Image by Joe Thorn)


Comments
Post New Comment
If you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)

1.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Fri, 50-16-2010 12:50 PM Report Comment
It seems there are way too many people who want to use the constitution as a support of their liberal agenda. The FCC at one time had established Rules and Regulations to protect from explicit and foul language on Air. In the movies that is one thing, but even there at one time when people really knew what the market was going to be they cut, at the time of making a movie, a wild sound track addition so the language could be edited. I can think of no movie I have seen in recent times or the past that needed all of the loaded language. I may agree in a movie such as Private Ryan the needed some of the language, but it too could have been toned down. I know a 93 year old gentleman who was an officer on the USS Missouri and saw a lot of war and during that time as well as today he never had to use foul language to get is point of feeling across. I guess the bottom line is that every station should be responsible for content and if they let people spew indecent language they should be fined and their license should be looked at as being in jeopardy.
2.
Posted by: Deborah McAdams
Wed, 24-14-2010 09:24 AM Report Comment
While I like the decision, I would have liked to have seen the fines themselves discussed. How does it make sense that affiliate stations are fined when all they are doing is carrying LIVE network programming? The responsibility falls on the network and the O&O.




Thursday 10:05 AM
NAB Requests Expedited Review of Spectrum Auction Lawsuit
“Broadcasters assigned to new channels following the auction could be forced to accept reductions in their coverage area and population served, with no practical remedy.” ~NAB


 
Featured Articles
Research & Standards
Discover TV Technology