[Peace-discuss] For Fox' sake...

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Supreme Court upholds regulation of 'indecent' language on TV

In a 5-4 decision, the court rules the FCC has the authority to crack down on 
the 'foul-mouthed glitteratae [sic] from Hollywood.' The ruling allows huge 
fines on broadcasters for airing a single expletive.

By David G. Savage
April 29, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- As more Americans receive TV and radio programming 
uncensored via cable, satellite and the Internet, the Supreme Court said Tuesday 
that traditional broadcasters can be required to offer families a "safe haven" 
from foul language.

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the government’s crackdown on "fleeting 
expletives" and said broadcasters could face heavy fines for airing the F-word 
or the S-word [sic] even once during prime time.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the strict ban on profanity on TV and radio was 
justified because of the "coarsening of public entertainment in other media, 
such as cable." He also spoke of the "foul-mouthed glitteratae [I HOPE HE'S NOT 
AS ILLITERATE AS THAT WORD IMPLIES] from Hollywood" whose use of four-letter 
words on live TV shows triggered the crackdown.

The ruling is a major setback for the broadcast industry. However, the court did 
not rule on whether the strict policy against broadcast "indecency" violated the 
1st Amendment's protection for free speech. Instead, the justices sent the case 
back to a federal appeals court in New York to consider that issue.

"This means another year or two of uncertainty," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a 
media lawyer in Washington who had urged the court to throw out the "fleeting 
expletives" rule.

For now, the ruling means broadcasters -- large or small -- could be fined as 
much as $325,000 for sending out a single expletive over the public airwaves, 
even if it was unintended.

The Federal Communications Commission, led by Bush administration appointees, 
announced the crackdown in 2004 in response to a wave of public complaints.

Among the incidents that caused a stir was a December 2002 appearance by Cher, 
who upon receiving an "Artist Achievement Award" from Billboard Music, said of 
her critics: "So, f... 'em. I still have a job, and they don't." The live 
broadcast on Fox TV was seen and heard by about 2.5 million minors, Scalia said.

On NBC's 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards, Bono exulted that his award 
was "really, really f...ing brilliant." Nicole Richie managed to use both the 
F-word and the S-word in a two-sentence exchange on another Fox program.

Federal law has long prohibited the broadcast of "any indecent" language, and 
the FCC decided it would deem any use of the F-word or the S-word to be indecent.

Congress in 2006 voted to increase by 10 times the fines for indecent 
broadcasts. Not long afterward, the FCC imposed a $550,000 fine on CBS TV for 
its broadcast of the Super Bowl half-time show in which Janet Jackson's breast 
was briefly exposed.

Fox TV and the other major broadcasters sued to block the FCC from enforcing its 
strict policy. They argued that the change was not justified and was 
unconstitutional.

(The Supreme Court had ruled once before on broadcast indecency. In 1978, the 
justices upheld a fine against a California radio station for airing George 
Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" monologue in mid-afternoon. But it was unclear 
whether the use of a single expletive could be deemed indecent.)

The U.S. appeals court in New York ruled that the FCC's tougher policy was 
unjustified and unwarranted. But the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and 
upheld the policy in FCC vs. Fox TV.

Scalia said the FCC "could reasonably conclude that the pervasiveness of foul 
language and the coarsening of public entertainment in other media . . . could 
justify more stringent regulation of broadcast programs." He added that 
"technological advances have made it easier to bleep out offending words."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence 
Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Scalia. But the relatively narrow ruling 
may have papered over a deeper split among the court's conservatives over the 
constitutionality of regulating broadcasters.

For his part, Scalia said he did not see a problem. "Any chilled references to 
excretory or sexual material surely lie at the periphery of 1st Amendment 
concern," he commented. But Thomas added a concurring opinion that voiced 
concern about the "deep intrusion in the 1st Amendment rights of broadcasters."

The court's four dissenters on Tuesday said the FCC had not justified its 
zero-tolerance policy for expletives. Justice John Paul Stevens also questioned 
the notion that the expletives in question refer to sex or excrement. "As any 
golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be 
absurd to [say] that the resultant four-letter word . . . describes sex or 
excrement and is therefore indecent," he wrote. He also found it "ironic" that 
the FCC patrols the airwaves for these words while TV viewers are constantly 
asked "whether they too are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble 
going to the bathroom."

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps, a Democrat, lauded Tuesday's ruling as "a big 
win for families." Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), who chairs the panel 
that oversees the FCC, also applauded the decision. "We must be doing more," he 
said, "not less, to give the FCC and parents all across America the resources 
they need to protect their children from indecent programming."

david.savage at latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-expletives29-2009apr29,0,4762417.story