Punting in the First Amendment's red zone: the Supreme Court's 'indecision' on the FCC's indecency regulations leaves broadcasters still searching for answers.

AuthorRichards, Robert D.
  1. INTRODUCTION

    Just one week before rendering its controversial landmark decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (1)--arguably the most anticipated ruling of the October 2011 Term--the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the longstanding question of whether the First Amendment, given today's multifaceted media landscape, no longer permits the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcast indecency on the nation's airwaves. The Court's narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2) ("Fox IF') let broadcasters off the hook for the specific on-air transgressions that brought the case to the Court's docket-twice (3)--but did little to resolve the larger looming issue of whether such content regulations have become obsolete.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, instead concluded that "[t]he Commission 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." (4) As a result of this lack of notice, "the Commission's standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague, and the Commission's orders must be set aside." (5) The Court specifically declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Commission's indecency regulations, noting that 'because the Court resolves these cases on fair notice grounds under the Due Process Clause, it need not address the First Amendment implications of the Commission's indecency policy." (6)

    The broadcasters argued that the indecency regulations no longer made sense because other forms of technology have undercut the traditional rationale, articulated in the 1978 case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, (7) that "the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans." (8) In their brief to the Court, they asserted that "[b]roadcasting is not uniquely pervasive because Americans today spend more time engaged with cable and satellite television, the internet, video games, and other media than they do with broadcast media. Nor is broadcasting uniquely accessible to children because other media are no less accessible than broadcasting." (9) The latter point was also in reference to the Pacifica Court's concern that radio and television was so easily in reach of minors that exposure to indecent language "could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant." (10)

    Initially, proponents on both sides of the issue claimed victory. Tim Winter, president of the media watchdog group Parents Television Council, stated that "[o]nce again, the Supreme Court has ruled against the networks in their years-long campaign to obliterate broadcast decency standards." (11) Similarly, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released a statement saying that

    [t]oday, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the FCC the green light to continue imposing indecency fines on the networks for fleeting expletives and brief nudity. When a similar case goes before the Supreme Court again for fines imposed for any future violations, we expect the Court to once again decide that fleeting expletives and brief nudity are not protected under the First Amendment. (12)

    Meanwhile, Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, (13) had a different interpretation--one more favorable to broadcasters. To that end, he observed that

    [a]lthough today's decision is a narrow one, the indecency regime is now on life support. Speaking unanimously, the Court made clear that it will not uphold an indecency rule that fails to give broadcasters clear notice of what is allowed and what is prohibited. The FCC's track record in enforcing the indecency rule makes clear that it cannot provide the clarity that the Court and the Constitution demand. (14) In the days immediately following the release of the Court's opinion, a torrent of criticism appeared in the press, (15) signaling that the decision, a decade in the making, (16) clarified very little with respect to what broadcasters could legally air on broadcast radio and television. (17) After examining the decision and the political environment in which it was rendered, the New York Times concluded about the Court's opinion:

    All of which leaves broadcasters with little real grasp of what is allowed and what is not. Similarly, the public has no idea what to expect; the next time Cher appears on a live awards show, should adult viewers cover the ears of their 8-year-olds, or can they depend on the broadcasters to censor indecent content? (18) Robert Lloyd, television critic for the Los Angeles Times, similarly observed that

    the court, deciding the case on grounds of due process rather than free speech, declined to take up the constitutionality of the regulations; rather, it affirmed the FCC's right to keep writing them, and the broadcasters' right to challenge them: We will meet here again, the justices as good as said. (19) First Amendment attorney Paul Smith--who wrote the National Association of Broadcasters' brief--agreed with that sentiment, commenting that "[t]he issue will be raised again as broadcasters will continue to ... grapple with the FCC's vague and inconsistent enforcement regime." (20)

    Thus, more than a decade after Cher crudely uttered her thoughts about her critics on live television, neither broadcasters nor the viewing public is any closer to understanding what language today is permissible in the broadcast media. The Supreme Court has invited the FCC to "modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest and applicable legal requirements." (21) But the Court also recognized that the issue will not end there, for the opinion "leaves the courts free to review the current policy or any modified policy in light of its content and application." (22)

    This article provides an in-depth analysis of the legal hurdles the Federal Communications Commission will face in attempting to construct any modified policy governing broadcast indecency. Part I describes the history of broadcast indecency regulations and how the current policy fell short in attempting to sanction broadcasters for fleeting expletives on live television. (23) Part II examines the judicial path of Fox I and H and demonstrates how the Supreme Court's decision-making in both cases failed to provide any guidance to either broadcasters or the Commission. (24) Part III discusses the insurmountable First Amendment considerations that will plague the FCC's attempt to reconstruct broadcast indecency regulations, including the current exceptions that swallow the rationale for the regulations, and the dramatically changed media landscape that

  2. FROM MAE WEST AND GEORGE CARLIN TO CHER, BONO AND NICOLE RICHIE: A BRIEF CHRONICLE OF BROADCAST INDECENCY

    Much has happened since the Federal Communications Commission reprimanded Mae West for a sex-laden, on-air colloquy about Adam and Eve, while promoting one of her motion pictures on NBC Radio in the late 1930s. (27) Elvis Presley, not long after, came under fire for his swiveling hips (28)--tame by today's television standards--and the Rolling Stones changed a song title in an effort to appease television executives and cultural standards at the time. (29) Moreover, WDKD in Kingstree, South Carolina, in the late 1950s, received unwanted FCC attention for double entendres aired on the Charlie Walker Show, ultimately galvanizing a license revocation action. (30) These incidents illustrate the early stages of Commission enforcement for broadcast content and provide a contextual path for the timeline of broadcast indecency regulation and governmental oversight outlined in this section. (31)

    1. The 1960s: Pacifica Foundation Makes Waves and the Governmental Protection of Speech

      Whereas most broadcast media historians and media law scholars would immediately recall the indelible connection between the George Carlin "seven dirty words" case (32) and licensee Pacifica Foundation; troubled waters between Pacifica and the FCC began long before that. (33) Specifically, in 1964, the Commission responded to complaints about numerous broadcasts, all emanating from Pacifica-owned radio stations. (34) The complainants noted problems with broadcasts, labeling them as "offensive [and] 'filthy," (35) that involved poetry readings by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Edward Albee's play The Zoo Story, a passage from Edward Pomerantz's novel, The Kid, a program entitled, Live and Let Live during "which eight homosexuals discussed their attitudes and problems," and a poetry reading by author Robert Creeley dubbed, "Ballad of the Despairing Husband." (36) Much to the lament of twenty-first century media law scholars, in light of current FCC policy and approach to broadcast content, the Commission fully supported Pacifica Foundation and advocated for the strongest First Amendment and free speech protection by observing that

      [w]e recognize that as shown by the complaints here, such provocative programming as here involved may offend some listeners. But this does not mean that those offended have the right, through the Commission's licensing power, to rule such programming off the airwaves. Were this the case, only the wholly inoffensive, the bland, could gain access to the radio, microphone, or TV camera. No such drastic curtailment can be countenanced under the Constitution, the Communications Act, or the Commission's policy, which has consistently sought to insure "the maintenance of radio and television as a medium of freedom of speech and freedom of expression for the people of the Nation as a whole." (37) Similarly, in the years that followed, the Commission again received complaints about broadcast content on Pacifica-owned radio stations. (38) Listeners characterized the programming as "disgusting and totally without redeeming qualities," and "full of filth and four-letter words." (39) Despite such stern criticism, consistent with its approach years...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT