Judges Mock FCC's Indecency Policy

A federal appeals court seemed poised Wednesday to toss out a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television, with three judges hearing arguments sometimes mocking the government's position.
By
Associated Press,

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal appeals court seemed poised Wednesday to toss out a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television, with three judges hearing arguments sometimes mocking the government's position.

All three judges on a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan kept a government lawyer on the defensive with dozens of questions suggesting that the current policy violates the First Amendment. The judges then reserved decision.

Story continues after the ad

Attorney Jacob Lewis for the Federal Communications Commission said the policy was designed to protect children.

"What are you protecting children from?" asked Judge Pierre Leval.

Judge Peter Hall questioned how children are able to discern the difference when the FCC allows broadcasters more latitude in news coverage should a profanity or a sexual reference slip out.

Judge Rosemary Pooler said she understood broadcasters' argument that the policy and the threats of fines would have a chilling effect on live coverage of events where someone might let a profanity slip out.

"You know what a good lawyer would say, 'If in doubt, don't run it,"' she said. "And that's the chill."

In 2004, the FCC adopted a policy that profanity referring to sex or excrement is always indecent.

The policy was put in place after a January 2003 NBC broadcast of the Golden Globes awards show, in which U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "f------ brilliant." The FCC said the "F-word" in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can lead to enforcement.

Fox Television Stations, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and other networks challenged the policy in 2006 after the FCC cited the use of profanity during awards programs that were aired in 2002 and 2003.

The FCC found its ban also was violated by a Dec. 9, 2002, broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards in which singer Cher used the phrase "F--- 'em" and a Dec. 10, 2003, Billboard awards show in which reality show star Nicole Richie said, "Have you ever tried to get cow s--- out of a Prada purse? It's not so f------ simple."

The arguments Wednesday occurred after the fight between the broadcast networks and the FCC was returned to the appeals court in November by the Supreme Court, which had decided a narrower point of law, leaving the judges free to decide the policy's constitutionality.

Leval repeatedly questioned what the fuss at the FCC was about, saying sex has been a primary preoccupation of people and of literature forever and that the FCC seemed obsessed with "single utterances and arguably trivial indecent uses."

He questioned whether "Hamlet" could be performed on television. Then he recited from memory a portion of the play after which Hamlet's mother married Hamlet's uncle soon after Hamlet's father's death.

Leval said the FCC's rules seemed so vague that broadcasters had an impossible task.

"I wonder if they can have any idea what they can broadcast?" he said.

Pooler questioned whether the policy could lead to the end of live broadcasts on network television.

"I guess they don't use those words in small towns," she said in a mocking tone.

At one point, Lewis said the FCC "bends over backwards" to give sufficient room to news organizations on radio and television.

Pooler asked: "Does the First Amendment allow us to rely on you bending over backwards?"

Leval asked if those families with the strictest rules regarding profanity were dictating the rules for all families and if that was fair. He said it seemed there was technology that could allow families with a zero tolerance for profanity to keep live television out of their homes.

He also questioned whether those with no tolerance for profanity keep their children from going out the door "because they might hear a nasty."

Edit Article

Comments (10) -

B D posted over 2 years ago
"Leval asked if those families with the strictest rules regarding profanity were dictating the rules for all families and if that was fair. He said it seemed there was technology that could allow families with a zero tolerance for profanity to keep live television out of their homes." I monitor what my child is watching and use the OFF button. It really works!!
BBBoater Nickname posted over 2 years ago
The FCC needs to visit a group of first graders playing on a public playground. The F word and several others are proliferant and I guarntee they did not learn it from TV. It has been this way since my 23 year old son was in first grade. I don't need or want to hear it spewing forth in a constant stream from anywhere. But let's face it, S%#* happens.
KeepTVlocal Nickname posted over 2 years ago
It seems to me that the judges are inserting their own opinions based on their local experience in the NY area. How can they be objective for what is right in the rest of the country? This is what the FCC rules are all about. I understand that holding all to the same standard is contrary to the FCC policy of grievances based on local acceptability, but the difference is the national live broadcast of such language does NOT meet all cultural norms and therefore must be held to the highest standard. To not do this is to demand that those with different beliefs should bow to the lowest setting of acceptable norm or to turn off their TV's, and these seems wrong to me.
Bonefish Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Did you really read what you just wrote?
Robert Smith posted over 2 years ago
When the fecal matter hits the roatery impeller poo poo occurs. I'm sooooo amazed... There are people who can actually influence the FCC but they haven't figured out how to change a channel. We are well on our way to an idiocracy.
doubter Nickname posted over 2 years ago
I am stunned. A panel of judges that, at least for the time being, seem to be exhibiting uncommonly common sense.
BroadcastSales Nickname posted over 2 years ago
I generally don't comment on news like this, but when Judges weigh in on those things they are not legally allowed too, it's crazy. We, as a people, have lost the common sense of what is logically desired by parents who wish to protect their children and themselves. This (profanity in public) is offensive behavior. Period, end of discussion. In many towns you can't smoke in many public areas to protect peoples health. It's the same way with profanity, it's offensive and people wish to protect their public places from offensive behavior. Just because "so and so does it", doesn't mean you should do it. It's manners and politeness and especially respect. Of course you can't protect every single case, but you can ask people to "take it outside" for respect of the people. The movie makers wonder why the R rated movies do not do as well as the G rated movies? Common sense. People are offended by rude behavior. Same with profanity. Would you elect a public person who is offensive in behavior? Of course not. It's a sign of a persons integrity and social understanding. We are losing common sense and respect for our own. Our judges are not there to legislate morality, OR POLICY. They are there to judge the legality of laws, not to make laws or comment on policy or legislate morality. It's not there purview to comment on policy or morality. That is set by the people, not judges.
Bonefish Nickname posted over 2 years ago
That's not what this is about. It is about holding a local broadcaster financially liable for a single utterance that may be blurted out on a network show. In the persuit of stamping out all uses of curse words, regardless of how fleeting they may be, the FCC may actually be opening up the opportunity for any language to be used at any time, live or scripted. That would be a real travesty, but, in my opinion, will likely happen.
T Dog posted over 2 years ago
(to BroadcastSales:) Then according to your logic, maybe we should arrest them for swearing and throw them in jail. But you know what is really offensive? Sex offenders abducting children. Dope dealers on every corner. Gangbangers shooting innocent victims. Oh yeah, let's throw people using profanity in jail with the rest of the criminals. Maybe you need to step out of your little suburban Disney-like hovel and see how the real world works for a change.
seriously Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Really? I'm so pissed off that my F---- tax payer dollars are being wasted like this. What a joke.

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 4:03ä ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for 2月 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad