The dome of the Capitol is reflected in a puddle in Washington February 17, 2012.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy

Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse.  Read more at Counterparties  

Court strikes down FCC indecency policy

NEW YORK | Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:02pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission's indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague and could create a chilling effect beyond "fleeting expletives" heard on broadcasts, an appeals court ruled on Tuesday in a major win for broadcasting companies.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, arose after Bono, frontman for the rock band U2, used what the FCC calls "the F-word expletive" during the live broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards.

News Corp's Fox Television, CBS Corp's CBS Broadcasting and others challenged an FCC ruling in 2004 that on-air expletives that were not bleeped out were indecent and their use could be penalized.

The FCC regulates radio, television, wire, satellite and cable communications. In a statement, chairman Julius Genachowski said: "We're reviewing the court's decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment."

The U.S. Supreme Court had weighed in on the case in 2009, ruling that the FCC had the authority to regulate profanity on the nation's air waves. The high court declined, however, to decide whether the FCC's policy violated First Amendment guarantees of free speech and returned the case to the Second Circuit for a decision on that aspect of the policy.

"We now hold that the FCC's 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 panel of appeals court judges said in a written ruling on Tuesday.

Broadcasters and some free-speech advocacy groups welcomed the ruling.

But the Parents TV Council, an advocacy group founded by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell, criticized the decision, saying broadcast decency law was clear in requiring that indecent material could be broadcast only at times when children are not likely to be in the audience.

"A three-judge panel in New York once again has authorized the broadcast networks' unbridled use of the 'F-word' at any time of the day, even in front of children," PTC president Tim Winter said in a statement. "For parents and families around the country, this ruling is nothing less than a slap in their face."

The matter will in all likelihood return to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will continue to be watched closely, said David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

"This is a significant First Amendment ruling, one that has ramifications throughout the industry and in First Amendment jurisprudence," Hudson said.

The judges wrote that after complaints were filed with the FCC over Bono's statement at the Golden Globe awards, the FCC declared for the first time that a single, nonliteral use of an expletive could be "actionably indecent."

The FCC had found that "the 'F-Word' is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language" and therefore "inherently has a sexual connotation."

The National Association of Broadcasters said broadcasters will continue to offer programing "that is reflective of the diverse communities we serve" and supported the 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," the NAB said.

A Fox spokesman said the broadcaster was extremely pleased with the decision.

"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.

The case is Fox Television v FCC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, No. 06-1760, 06-2750 and 06-5358.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel, Grant McCool, Paul Thomasch, Diane Bartz, Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by Robert MacMillan, Steve Orlofsky, Gary Hill)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Mumbels24 wrote:
I don’t care much for Bono himself, but this is an awesome success for the First Amendment. May our courts continue their noble battle against the oppressive and authoritarian US government!

Jul 13, 2010 2:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
drewbie wrote:
psst…Mumbles…the courts are 1/3 of the government.

Jul 13, 2010 2:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tamooj wrote:
Not a big Bono fan either, but this was the right ruling. There shouldn’t be over-the-top obscenity in open broadcasts, but the current rules are too vague. This is not a big deal – just write some better, consistent rules that don’t stomp on the 1st Amendment and then the process will have worked as it should. Why this made it all the way to the Supreme Court is unimaginable. Are the FCC a bunch of mindless drones that can’t see when guidelines need to at least be clear and consistent? Doesn’t every parent know this? Jeeeesh.
(In their defense, I’m sure there are some valid arguments on both side, but I’m surprised they aren’t being more open about their position on this. Add poor PR skills to the bad parenting comment, I guess.

Jul 13, 2010 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.