- Journal Archives
- Volume 19
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
On Tuesday, January 10, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the Federal Communication Commision (FCC) and its regulations preventing networks from airing indecent programming or profane language. The Supreme Court seemed to side with the FCC but will not issue a final opinion until July.
This is actually the second time the Supreme Court has heard this case, FCC v. Fox (although on separate issues), and this case has a long and involved history. It began back in 2002 when singer Cher, who was presenting at the Billboard Music Awards, rsponded to her critics by saying “f**k’em” on air. Then in 2003, also on the Billboard Music Awards, Nicole Richie stated: “Why do they even call it The Simple Life? Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple.” In response to these events, the FCC fined Fox for airing the profane language even though they were mere “fleeting expletives.” The first time FCC v. Fox came to the Supreme Court, a 5-4 decision ruled that the FCC’s policies and fines were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, it remanded for the Second Circuit to decide the First Amendment issue.
This issue is what the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday: is the FCC’s policy that prohibits indecent material and profane speech between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. unconstitutional? On remand the Second Circuit decided the FCC’s regulations are unconstitutional because they are impermissibly vague. This violates the First Amendment because these regulations can have a chilling effect on free speech when television networks have no notice as to what exactly would fall under these regulations.
The rationale behind the FCC’s policy is to protect children from indecent and profane language on television and, as Justice Scalia said during oral arguments on Tuesday, “the government is entitled to insist upon a certain modicrum of decency.” But how does this policy actually protect children when they can just as easily get on the Internet where there is no censorship at all?
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith recently stated his thoughts on the issue–that puns and inferences are okay, but if the FCC does not regulate networks, then creativity and fun would disappear because everything would be expletives. On the other side of the debate, the popular television show South Park cleverly expressed its disagreement with the FCC’s policy by airing an episode where the main characters watch the first time “s***” was said uncensored on television. Afterwards, a plague engulfs the town and the townspeople go crazy saying s*** constantly. The tally at the bottom of the screen informs the viewer that the episode exclaims the word a total of 162 times. Clever way for South Park to say – what evils can really come from saying curse words on television?
No matter what the Supreme Court decides, the debate is likely to continue as supporters on both sides feel very strongly about the issue. However, until they issue a final opinion on the constitutionality of the FCC’s rules, the networks will just have to listen to the s*** the FCC says.
Recent Blog Posts
- EPA Issues 2017 Renewable Fuel Targets Amid RINs Market’s Uncertain Future
- Cell Phone Firmware Avoids Anti-virus Scans, Sends Private Data to China
- The Consumer Review Fairness Act: Protecting Consumers Who Post Negative Reviews On The Internet
- Google Fiber Nashville Litigation
- Brexit and the Future of UK Sports
- The U.S. is Losing the Economic Drone War
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution