News

By Peter J. Smith

NEW YORK, July 14, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A U.S. Appeals Court has reversed a policy by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that held broadcasters liable for failing to bleep out “fleeting expletives,” saying the ban was  “unconstitutionally vague” and creates a “chilling effect” on free speech.

A three judge panel for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in favor of broadcasters against the FCC, which had instated the policy in 2006 as part of a crackdown on obscenity on the airwaves. The policy was in part motivated by singer Janet Jackson's infamous “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, as well as the trend of other performers to shout obscene expletives at live awards shows during prime time television.

“We now hold that the FCC's policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here,” the court said in its ruling.

It continued, “By prohibiting all 'patently offensive' references to sex, sexual organs, and excretion without giving adequate guidance as to what 'patently offensive' means, the FCC effectively chills speech, because broadcasters have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive. To place any discussion of these vast topics at the broadcaster's peril has the effect of promoting wide self-censorship of valuable material which should be completely protected under the First Amendment.”

The court also noted that in 2006 Congress increased the maximum fine for obscene speech not edited out on the airwaves from $32,500 to $325,000 – “meaning that the fine for a single expletive uttered during a broadcast could easily run into the tens of millions of dollars.”

Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in Washington, D.C., criticized the decision, saying the appeals court's ruling “seems foolish on its face.”

“How is the American public to understand that federal judges don't know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” added Trueman, who represented the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family in filing a “friend of the court” brief in this case; Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission. 

“Rock singer Bono has no more right to shout, “f***ing brilliant” in the homes of unsuspecting American families than we would have in his,” Trueman said. Bono made the comments at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, which were aired live.  Trueman said Bono made himself “an uninvited guest of those families that believed honorees … would respect the norms of civilized discourse on broadcast television.”

He warned that if the US Supreme Court upheld the ruling, “Broadcasters will have a green light to pump indecent language and perhaps much more into the homes of families at will.”

Concerned Women for America's (CWA) CEO, Penny Nance said it was not surprising that broadcasters filed the case in New York, “because they knew this was a liberal court unlikely to uphold the decency standards.”

 ”This ruling undermines decency standards which have been around for decades and allows broadcasters to barrage our families in their homes with programming that is profane at whatever time, regardless if there are children in the broadcast audience,” Nance said.

In a statement FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “We're reviewing the court's decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the 1st Amendment.”

FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, told the L.A. Times the ruling was “an anti-family decision.”

He said, “I hope that this decision is appealed – and ultimately reversed.”

Read the decision