Supreme Court to hear FCC broadcast indecency case

By staff - Mar 17, 2008 - comment

The U.S. Supreme Court announced March 17 it will review a lower court’s ruling that had stymied the federal government’s attempt to restrict indecent language on television and radio broadcasts.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with the support of the Department of Justice, urged the high court to accept the case after a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected an FCC ruling that the uses of obscenities in live TV programs in 2002 and 2003 were indecent.

The justices will hear oral arguments in the case, FCC v. Fox, during their next term, which begins in October.

The case focuses on whether the “fleeting” use of indecent language violates federal standards. The FCC had determined that live Fox Channel prime-time broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards programs transgressed decency standards by use of the F-word and/or S-word.

Those decisions followed an FCC ruling that a single use of the F-word on the 2003 Golden Globes Awards on NBC was indecent. That marked a change in policy for the panel, which previously had relied on a requirement that the use of an expletive must be more than “fleeting.” In the Golden Globes case, the FCC ruled that the solitary use of the F-word can offend decency standards.

The Second Circuit majority, however, ruled in June 2007 that the FCC’s revised policy was “a significant departure” from its previous rulings; the court returned the case to the federal commission to give it an opportunity to explain its reasoning further.

The Parents Television Council (PTC) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to review the Second Circuit ruling.

“Such harsh, unedited profanity is unacceptable for broadcast over the publicly owned airwaves when children are likely to be watching,” PTC President Tim Winter said in a written release. “[T]he Second Circuit Court of Appeals had, in essence, stolen the airwaves from the public and handed ownership over to the broadcast industry.

“Broadcasters are only given a license to use the airwaves in the public interest and convenience; therefore the American people have a reasonable and time-honored expectation that the airwaves will be used in a manner that is beneficial to them,” Winter said. “If broadcasters feel they absolutely must do so, they can legally air indecent material after 10:00 p.m.”

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the PTC and other pro-family organizations are promoting a bill seeking to remedy the Second Circuit’s decision. The Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act, S. 1780, would require the FCC to “maintain a policy that a single word or image may constitute indecent programming.” The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has forwarded the legislation to the full Senate but no further action has been taken.

“Profanity by its very nature is ‘fleeting,’ and thus that is no defense for its use except during the time established by the Supreme Court,” Winter said.

The legislative and executive branches of the federal government have worked in recent years to stiffen penalties against broadcast indecency. President Bush signed into law in 2006 a measure overwhelmingly approved by Congress that increased the maximum fine for each decency violation by 10 times to $325,000.

Pro-family organizations have long criticized the sexual content, plus obscene and profane language, on prime-time television. The 2004 Super Bowl halftime show pushed the issue into the national spotlight and motivated Congress to take action. Janet Jackson’s exposure on national TV capped a controversial show and brought a deluge of criticism from many Americans, including legislators and the FCC.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Children, Pop Culture, Citizenship, National

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com