Supreme Court rules against FCC profanity, nudity policy -
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 2 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2012, 12:51 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 866
Arrow Supreme Court rules against FCC profanity, nudity policy

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the FCC's policy regulating curse words and nudity on broadcast television.

In an 8-0 decision, the high court threw out fines and sanctions imposed by the Federal Communications Commission. The case involved some uncensored curse words and brief nudity on various networks, including Fox.

"Because the FCC failed to give FOX or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commissions' standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague," the Supreme Court said in its opinion.

The court said the FCC is "free to modify its current indecency policy" in light of the ruling.

The justices, though, declined to issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC indecency policy. Instead, the court concluded only that broadcasters could not have known in advance that obscenities uttered during awards show programs and a brief display of nudity on an episode of ABC's NYPD Blue could give rise to sanctions. ABC and 45 affiliates were hit with proposed fines totaling nearly $1.24 million.

It was the second time the court has confronted, but not ruled conclusively on, the FCC's policy on isolated expletives. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court that "it is unnecessary for the court to address the constitutionality of the current policy."

The case arose from a change in the FCC's long-standing policy on curse words. For many years, the agency did not take action against broadcasters for one-time uses of curse words. But, following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its policy after it concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense in the context of keeping the air waves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.

But Kennedy said the commission did not adequately explain that under the new policy "a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent."

The stepped-up indecency enforcement, including issuing record fines for violations, also was spurred in part by widespread public outrage following Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

That incident, and the FCC's proposed fine of $550,000, are not part of the current case. The government has an appeal pending of a lower court ruling that threw out the fine in that case.

The material at issue in Thursday's decision includes the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of the show "NYPD Blue."

In December 2002, singer Cher used the phrase "F--- `em" during the Billboard Music Awards show on the Fox television network. A month later, U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "f------ brilliant" during NBC's broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show. In the December 2003 Billboard awards show on Fox, reality show star Nicole Richie said, "Have you ever tried to get cow s--- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f------simple."

But the challenge went beyond just the penalties for the use of fleeting expletives. The broadcasters wanted the court to free them from all regulation of content around the clock. The court's 1978 Pacifica decision upheld the FCC's reprimand of a New York radio station for airing a George Carlin monologue containing a 12-minute string of expletives in the middle of the afternoon.

The broadcasters argued that the revolution in technology that has brought the Internet, satellite television and cable makes even the old rules obsolete. The regulations only apply to broadcast channels.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a brief opinion that she would have overturned the Pacifica ruling, which she called wrong even when it was decided. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the case because she was involved in an earlier version while sitting as an appeals court judge in New York.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:
fifty-fifty is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 2 (permalink) Old Jun 22nd, 2012, 01:50 PM
country flag pov
Senior Member
pov's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 31,721
Re: Supreme Court rules against FCC profanity, nudity policy

They may call it a “fleeting obscenity” case, but the journey of the lawsuit finally decided on by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, challenging FCC indecency charges, was anything but fleeting. The case stemmed from a flash of nudity on a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue, for which ABC was fined, and two obscenities on Fox awards shows in 2002 and 2003. The age-old cases were litigated back and forth, up and down the court hierarchy, by the networks and the FCC for nearly a decade, leading to yesterday’s decision, which settled—very little.

The narrow ruling left all sides with something to celebrate, largely because it left so much undecided. The court ruled specifically against the FCC’s specific actions in these cases, on the grounds that the FCC had not provided specific enough advance notice as to what did and did not constitute indecency. (One much-cited example: the same F-bomb that got Fox in trouble was allowed in an airing of Saving Private Ryan.) So: good news for the networks!

But also: good news for TV-decency crusaders! Because the court decided that there was no need for it to take on the broader issue of whether it was the FCC’s constitutional prerogative at all to regulate obscene speech on the airwaves. (Reminder: “airwaves” here means specifically broadcast networks, not cable, because the public owns the air, not cable lines.) That means the FCC is still free to issue further regulations and police decency—at least, until another case comes up that compels the Court to rule directly on whether FCC indecency regulation is constitutional or not. Indeed, it means, as the L.A. Times reported, that the agency will now have to go back and review over a million complaints it’s received in the interim and left hanging while awaiting judicial clarification.

The Parents Television Council—the advocacy group that generated many, many of those mass-mailed complaints—cheered the ruling yesterday for affirming, or at least not striking down, the FCC’s regulatory powers. For those of us who are more libertarian on the issue of TV speech, there was a little something to cheer too: the ruling was small, but addressed a big problem of decency regulation, which is the chilling effect created when networks simply do not know what type of content will be punished and what won’t.

But mostly, it means more court and social battles to come, including a case still wending its way through the system after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl nipple exposure of 2004. Justice herself may often be represented in a state of frontal exposure, but her process is not fleeting in the least.

"These lifeforms feel such passionate hatreds over matters of custom, God concepts, even - strangely enough - economic systems." - Capt. J Piccard USS Enterprise

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
pov is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome