World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)

Article Id: WHEBN0020107118
Reproduction Date:

Title: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Fox Television Stations, Censorship of broadcasting in the United States, Fox Broadcasting Company, Censorship in the United States
Collection: 2009 in American Television, 2009 in United States Case Law, 20Th Century Fox Litigation, Censorship of Broadcasting in the United States, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Communications Commission Litigation, Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Network Affiliates, Fox Television Stations, Media Case Law, Obscenity Law, United States Communications Regulation Case Law, United States Supreme Court Cases, United States Supreme Court Cases of the Roberts Court
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
Argued November 4, 2008
Decided April 28, 2009
Full case name Federal Communications Commission, Petitioner v. Fox Television Stations, Respondent
Docket nos. 07-582
Citations 556 U.S. 502 (more)
129 S. Ct. 1800; 173 L. Ed. 2d 738; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3297
Subsequent history FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012)
Holding
The Federal Communications Commission had not acted arbitrarily when it changed a long-standing policy and implemented a new ban on even "fleeting expletives" from the airwaves. The Court explicitly declined to decide whether the new rule is constitutional, and sent that issue back to the lower courts for their review.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito
Concurrence Thomas
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Stevens
Dissent Ginsburg
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) is case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that ban "fleeting expletives" on television broadcasts, finding they were not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Constitutional issue, however, was not resolved and was remanded back to the Second Circuit and re-appealed to the Supreme Court for a decision in June 2012.

Contents

  • Background 1
  • Supreme Court decision 2
  • First Amendment question 3
  • Subsequent history 4
  • See also 5
  • References 6
  • External links 7

Background

The case entered the Supreme Court's docket in October 2007 and specifically concerns obscene language broadcast on the Fox television network from two Billboard Music Awards shows from 2002 and 2003.[1] In the 2002 show, presenter Cher said "fuck 'em" regarding people who she believed criticized her; in the 2003 show, presenter Nicole Richie stated regarding her television show: “Why do they even call it The Simple Life? Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.” [2]

In 2004, the FCC prohibited "single uses of vulgar words" under any circumstances, including previous instances where it gave leeway for "fleeting" expletives that networks unknowingly allowed to enter the airwaves.[3] However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in the case Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission (06-1760) that the FCC cannot punish broadcast stations for such incidents.[4]

On the week of March 17, 2008, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear this case.[5] The Supreme Court heard arguments from the case on November 4, 2008, which was also Election Day. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia expressed support for the FCC.[6]

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on April 28, 2009 that the Federal Communications Commission had not acted arbitrarily when it changed a long-standing policy and implemented a new ban on even "fleeting expletives" from the airwaves. The Court explicitly declined to decide whether the new rule is constitutional, and sent that issue back to the lower courts for their review. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, wrote: "The FCC’s new policy and its order finding the broadcasts at issue actionably indecent were neither arbitrary nor capricious."[7] In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens claimed that this decision was hypocritical given the presence of television commercials for products treating impotence or constipation.[8]

First Amendment question

In its decision, "the court did not definitively settle the First Amendment implications of allowing a federal agency to censor broadcasts,"[9] and left that issue for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. However, Justice Clarence Thomas's separate opinion openly stated his willingness to overturn Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation and Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, the two cases on which all FCC authority rest, even as he joined the majority on procedural grounds.

Subsequent history

Upon remand, the Second Circuit addressed the actual Constitutionality of the fleeting expletive rules, striking it down in July 2010.[10] The FCC re-appealed the case. On June 21, 2012, the Court decided the re-appeal narrowly, striking down the fines as unconstitutionally vague, but upholding the authority of the FCC to act in the interests of the general public when licensing broadcast spectrums to enforce decency standards, so long as they are not vague, without violating the First Amendment.

See also

References

  1. ^ Biskupic, Joan (October 25, 2007). "Fight over TV indecency is on high court's doorstep". USA Today. Retrieved January 22, 2009. 
  2. ^ Pinker, Steven (November 2008). "Freedom's Curse". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 22, 2009. 
  3. ^ Romero, Francis (October 6, 2008). "The Supreme Court's 2008 Docket". Time. Retrieved January 22, 2009. 
  4. ^ Labaton, Stephen (June 5, 2007). "Court Rebuffs F.C.C. on Fines for Indecency". The New York Times. Retrieved January 29, 2009. 
  5. ^ Ahrens, Frank (March 25, 2008). "Fox Refuses To Pay FCC Indecency Fine". The Washington Post. p. D1. Retrieved January 22, 2009. 
  6. ^ "Supreme Court Divided On TV Profanity". Associated Press. November 4, 2008. Retrieved January 22, 2009. 
  7. ^ Eggerton, John (April 28, 2009). "Supreme Court Backs Government Regulation of Fleeting Expletives". Broadcasting & Cable. Retrieved April 28, 2009. 
  8. ^ Serjeant, Jill (April 28, 2009). "Critics say U.S. TV obscenity ruling out of touch". Reuters. Retrieved April 28, 2009. 
  9. ^ Suderman, Peter (April 5, 2010) The FCC Doesn't Need to Be, Reason
  10. ^ Second Circuit opinion against FCC on constitutional grounds

External links

  • Opinion of the Supreme Court
  • Fox et al. v. Federal Communications Commission oral argument on archive.org - 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Associated Press article about the case
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.