Supreme Court addresses censorship, hears FCC indecency case
In 1975, the Supreme Court said broadcast companies could be fined for airing expletives and sexual content during prime time (8 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time) when children are more likely to be watching television.
January 10, 2012 at 06:58 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In 1975, the Supreme Court said broadcast companies could be fined for airing expletives and sexual content during prime time (8 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time) when children are more likely to be watching television. But it's not 1975 anymore, and when the Bush administration noticed many broadcasters pushing the envelope with what they aired during that crucial evening time slot (thank Bono and his Golden Globe F-bomb for that), it stepped in—passing a regulation that allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hand down even stiffer fines for use of vulgar language.
For the second time in three years, the Supreme Court is taking the issue up again. Today it will hear a case the FCC brought against Fox after the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, when singer Cher accepted her award on air saying, “I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. So f- – - 'em.”
The commission fined Fox, claiming indecency, and the broadcaster fought the charge in court, saying the punishment was an unconstitutional violation of speech. In 2009, the high court ruled 5 to 4 to uphold the penalty but didn't address the censorship issue. Now it plans to tackle censorship.
But according to previous discussions among the justices over the issue, context matters. Previously, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the FCC did not fine the networks for airing expletives in “Saving Private Ryan,” but it did fine PBS for airing expletives in a documentary about jazz.
“One of the problems,” said Ginsburg, “is that, seeing [the rule] in operation, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for some of the decisions that the commission has made.”
Justice John Roberts, however, pointed out that using foul language at an awards ceremony is completely gratuitous. However, in the case of “Saving Private Ryan,” it isn't.
Many media law experts hope the high court will decide that the FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague. Learn more about this case, which the Supreme Court is expected to rule on by summer, on NPR.
In 1975, the Supreme Court said broadcast companies could be fined for airing expletives and sexual content during prime time (8 p.m. to 11 p.m. Eastern Time) when children are more likely to be watching television. But it's not 1975 anymore, and when the Bush administration noticed many broadcasters pushing the envelope with what they aired during that crucial evening time slot (thank Bono and his Golden Globe F-bomb for that), it stepped in—passing a regulation that allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hand down even stiffer fines for use of vulgar language.
For the second time in three years, the Supreme Court is taking the issue up again. Today it will hear a case the FCC brought against Fox after the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, when singer Cher accepted her award on air saying, “I've also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. So f- – - 'em.”
The commission fined Fox, claiming indecency, and the broadcaster fought the charge in court, saying the punishment was an unconstitutional violation of speech. In 2009, the high court ruled 5 to 4 to uphold the penalty but didn't address the censorship issue. Now it plans to tackle censorship.
But according to previous discussions among the justices over the issue, context matters. Previously, Justice
“One of the problems,” said Ginsburg, “is that, seeing [the rule] in operation, there seems to be no rhyme or reason for some of the decisions that the commission has made.”
Justice John Roberts, however, pointed out that using foul language at an awards ceremony is completely gratuitous. However, in the case of “Saving Private Ryan,” it isn't.
Many media law experts hope the high court will decide that the FCC's indecency policy is unconstitutionally vague. Learn more about this case, which the Supreme Court is expected to rule on by summer, on NPR.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
Trending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250