Update: FCC Appeals Court Ruling over Indecency Regulations

[JamesG]

Court Rules FCC Indecency Policy "Unconstitutionally Vague"
Jul 13, 2010
by Joyce Eng


A federal appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy Tuesday, calling it "unconstitutionally vague" and a violation of the First Amendment.

The ruling is a big victory for broadcast networks, which challenged the policy in 2006 after the FCC said unscripted expletives said on live broadcasts violated indecency rules and were subject to fines.

The three-judge panel of the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the policy could create a "chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here."






"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 court wrote.

"To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment."






The court added that the FCC might be able to create a new, constitutional policy.

"We're reviewing the court's decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement.






The FCC implemented tougher guidelines after Cher, Nicole Richie and Bono uttered expletives that were not bleeped during live award shows on Fox and NBC between 2002 and 2003.

"While we will continue to strive to eliminate expletives from live broadcasts, the inherent challenges broadcasters face with live television, coupled with the human element required for monitoring, must allow for the unfortunate isolated instances where inappropriate language slips through," Fox said in a statement Tuesday to Reuters.

http://www.tvguide.com/News/FCC-Inde...e-1020527.aspx

[James]

Why do the networks have the audacity to contest these fines instead of just pay them and move on (preferably taking the Parents Television Council more seriously)? I mean, they're miniscule as a percentage of their assets. Sheesh...

[joan davis fan]

My husband is in Denver, Colorado on business. He was telling me that he had already heard the "F" word used on THREE local radio stations since the ruling and in one day ( today of course ). 103.5 The Fox, HOT 107.1 and KBPI 106.7.

Time to move on !!!

[JamesG]

I'm wondering if network tv is going to right away take advantage of this new freedom and start "pushing the envelope" further...

[jimpickens]

Welcome to the new age in broadcast standards where anything goes.

[factsoflife]

Let's be fair here, the FCC has been arbitarily fining stations for very stupid things ever since Janet Jackson superbowl. if you don't like something you don't have to watch it but don't tell me i don't have the right to here whatever i want to here.

[jimpickens]

I agree it's about time that someone stood up to the FCC and all the bs they pull.

[James]

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!

[clj2]

Originally Posted by James

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!

Agree.

We should be able to watch the Superbowl without a Janet Jackson incident.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by clj2

Agree.

We should be able to watch the Superbowl without a Janet Jackson incident.

Yea I agree. Sometimes they do go overboard and they need to make better guidelines so the networks know what to follow. Hopefully they will and things will go back to normal. I don't want to turn onto a network and hear a bunch of foul language. When I turn into an HBO or Showtime show, that is my choice. I do watch some of those shows. That's what separates them from the pack.

[george ho]

Originally Posted by James

Why do the networks have the audacity to contest these fines instead of just pay them and move on (preferably taking the Parents Television Council more seriously)? I mean, they're miniscule as a percentage of their assets. Sheesh...

No offense, but I have to agree with the judge's favor of networks. FCC wasted taxpayers' money on pointless policies that may end up dead in the water, unless it is a breathable fish or a sea living thing.

If you do not like whatever you hear or see, talk about whatever, including infinite amount of reasons without thinking to type perfect construction.

[jimpickens]

There's a reason why remote controls were invented.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by jimpickens

There's a reason why remote controls were invented.

They're no good if it's on every channel. lol

[factsoflife]

Originally Posted by James

FYI the FCC is here to protect us from hearing obscene language and embarrassing families with young children! They are what you call a "necessary evil"!

But i don't have young children so why should some family with children be able to dictate what i can and cannot hear or see on tv or radio? And these fines often affect shows airing at 9, 10 or 11pm, and i'm sorry but if a kid is so young they'd be embarrassed to hear a curse word on a 9pm show then they should not be watching that late.

The FCC's job is to make regulations about broadcasting not to act as a censorship machine against our free speech. This is America and we do still have the First Admendtment right to speak freely and freely broadcast.

[TV_on_the_Porch]

Hear, hear! factsoflife for the win!