Broadcast Law Blog

Today's morning newscasts were filled with the stories of the passing of George Carlin - a comedian and satirist who effectively wrote the indecency regulations that most broadcasters abide by - without the FCC ever having had to adopt the regulations that he attributed to them.  In the broadcast world, Mr. Carlin was probably best known for his routine about the Seven Words that You Can Never Say on TV.  When that routine was aired by a New York radio station, and heard by a parent who claimed that he had a child in his car when the routine came over his radio in the middle of the day, the resulting FCC action against the station resulted in appeals that ended in the Supreme Court which, in its Pacifica case, upheld the right of the FCC to adopt indecency rules for the broadcast media to channel speech that is indecent, though not legally obscene, into hours when children are not likely to be listening.  But what this case and the FCC ruling did not hold are perhaps more misunderstood than what the case did hold.

First, the case was about "indecency" not "obscenity."  Many of this morning's newscasts referred to the Pacifica decision as being an Obscenity decision.  Obscenity is speech that can be banned no matter what the time and place, as it is speech that is deemed to have no socially redeeming value.  Indecency, on the other hand, is a far more limited concept.  Indecent speech is speech that is constitutionally protected - it has some social significance such as the social commentary clearly conveyed by the Carlin routine.  It cannot be constitutionally banned.  But the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's decision in the Pacifica case that, because of the intrusive nature of the broadcast media, it can be limited to hours where children are not likely to be in the audience.  Hence, the FCC has a "safe harbor" that allows indecent programming between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM, when "obscene" programming is never allowed on the air.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

A recent Washington Post article highlights a bill that was recently introduced in Congress suggesting that the FCC bring back their rules for audio descriptions of video programming - rules which were thrown out by the Courts several years ago as being beyond the scope of the Commission's authority without explicit Congressional authorization.  But not only does this bill propose to give that missing Congressional approval to the FCC to re-introduce video description requirements for broadcast television, but it would authorize the FCC to introduce these rules, and closed-captioning requirements, on all video screens, including MP3 players, wireless devices and other video devices getting their programming through the Internet or other digital technologies.  With this bill, and various other proposals that have surfaced in recent months, it seems more and more likely that, as the Internet becomes even more important in the provision of broadcast-like programming in the future, the FCC may be called on by Congress to impose broadcast-like restrictions on that programming.

The full text of the recent bill, introduced by Congressman Markey, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, can be found here.  A summary of the bill is also available on Congressman Markey's website.  The bill deals first with the accessibility of telephones and other communications devices, before setting out the provisions dealing with the captioning and video description requirements for broadcast and Internet video devices.  The bill first asks the FCC to study and report to Congress on the issues with captioning and video description on video devices, and then asks the FCC to adopt rules governing these matters, making video programming placed on the Internet that was either broadcast on a television stations or which is "comparable" to broadcast programming to be subject to these rules.  The idea is to make all TV-like programming subject to the rules, no matter what device it is viewed on.  Presumably, if adopted, the law would allow the FCC to make exemptions for certain types of programming (just as it currently allows exemptions from the current closed captioning requirements for small entities that have insufficient resources to caption a program).  The bill also requires that the FCC make sure that program guides and emergency information are available to those with hearing or visual difficulties, and that the navigation devices on video receivers can  be worked by those with disabilities.  So the FCC would have much to do to comply with this law, if adopted, and all within an 18 month period.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , Indecency , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing this week on the Future of the Internet, dealing principally with the issue of net neutrality - whether Internet Service Providers treat all content carried through their facilities equally.  This issue principally involves questions of whether ISPs can charge big bandwidth users for their content to be transmitted through the ISPs facilities, or to be transmitted at preferred speeds.  The testimony of Chairman Martin at the hearing raised several issues - issues both about what he said and what some reports perceived him to say.  Some reports had him saying that the FCC did not need to regulate indecency on the Internet - though I never heard that question asked. But he did say that he did not have trouble with ISPs blocking illegal content such as child pornography and illegal file-sharing, which raises the question of whether some might look to ISPs to become copyright police - blocking access to material that does not have copyright clearances.  And, with the hearing being held on the same day as a media company purchased a company that can identify copyrighted material by reviewing that content when transmitted on the Internet - is that possibility coming closer to being a reality?

In recent weeks, there have been several trade press reports about government regulation of indecency on the Internet.  I've seen at least two trade press reports on Chairman Martin's testimony before the Commerce Committee, claiming that he said that no government regulation of indecency on the Internet was necessary.  I did not hear any reference to indecency regulation in his testimony (a written version of his statement is available here, and you can watch the entire testimony, here).  Instead, that testimony was about whether Congress needed to pass laws to allow the Commission to enforce its net neutrality principles.  Nonetheless, the press seems to believe that Internet indecency is an issue which might be targeted by regulation.  A recent study finding that the majority of Americans think that FCC regulation of indecency should be extended to the Internet has also been cited in several reports.  However, despite the seeming interest in regulation of the Internet, there are serious constitutional concerns about any such regulation.  In fact, as we wrote here, numerous attempts to regulate indecency on the Internet have been overturned by the Courts on constitutional grounds, as the government could make no showing that the regulations were the least restrictive means for restricting access to adult content.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency , Intellectual Property , On Line Media | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the FCC of the "fleeting expletives" case, where the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the FCC actions fining stations for isolated incidents where a profanity was uttered on the air in a live program.  The cases stem from the Golden Globes and Billboard Music Awards, where over-exuberant winners let slip one of those words that you are not supposed to say on TV.  The Court of Appeals found that the FCC had not justified its departure from prior Commission decisions where such conduct was not sanctioned.  The Court also suggested that the Commission's decisions did not give broadcasters enough guidance as to when the use of such words was permissible, and when it was prohibited.  We have written previously about this case a number of times, including here and here.  Should the Court determine that the FCC was justified in acting as it did, this may leave the FCC open to taking new actions in the indecency area - such as the suggestion that one Commissioner recently made that indecency enforcement in connection with video delivered to mobile phones should be explored.

 A couple of words about some of the commentary written about this case.  First, while many stories have stated that this is the first indecency case to reach the Supreme Court in 30 years since the famous Seven Dirty Words  ( or the Pacifica) case, in fact there have been several other more recent cases that have dealt with the indecency issue - though not in the broadcast context.  Cable and Internet indecency rules have been adopted by the FCC or by Congress, and usually overturned as not constituting the least restrictive manner of preventing children from being exposed to "indecent" speech - speech which is constitutionally protected (as opposed to obscenity which has no protection as it has no socially redeeming significance) - but from which children can be sheltered.  However, in the cable and Internet cases, the regulations have been overturned because there were other less restrictive means of limiting children's access to the content, e.g. through filters or restrictions on access to specific channels or websites.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

This week, after a long period when we saw little in the way of indecency enforcement by the FCC, the Commission issued two orders compelling payment of fines for television programs broadcast in 2003.  The Commission issued a Notice of Apparent Liability (an order proposing a fine) only a few weeks ago asking ABC affiliates to respond to a potential indecency violation in connection with an NYPD Blue episode run in February 2003 (see our description of the proposed fines here and here).  Only a week after the submission of arguments against the proposed fine made by the cited affiliates in a 75 page response to the Notice of Apparent Liability, the FCC issued its order rejecting the arguments against the fines - an unheard of speed in issuing a decision.  Each station involved was fined $27,500.  Then, later in the week, the FCC issued an Order which fined a number of Fox affiliates $7000 each for perceived indecency violations in an episode of the Married By America reality television program, also broadcast in 2003 - following up on a Notice of Apparent Liability issued over two years ago by the FCC.  In one case, an incredibly quick action resulting in a large fine against many stations - in another a smaller fine against far fewer stations.  Why the differences?

The reason for fines coming now was that, in both cases, the 5 year statute of limitations was coming to an end and, if the Commission did not quickly act, it would be precluded from doing so.  In both cases, the Commission determined that it would fine only stations against which complaints were filed.  In the case of Married by America, the Commission had sent a notice of Apparent Liability to 169 stations, but ended up fining only 13 against which actual complaints had been filed.  In contrast, the Commission fined 45 stations for the NYPD Blue episode, even though the "complaints" were in many cases filed months after the program aired on the stations, and even though many of the "complaints" did not even allege that the local viewer had actually seen the program for which the fine was issued.  Instead, many of the complaints were apparently initiated by an on-line campaign urging that the people write the FCC to complain about the program - even if they hadn't necessarily seen it.  In its decision, the Commission concluded that the fines were appropriate - even without specific allegations that the program was watched by the people who complained.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

We recently wrote about the Notice of Apparent Liability for violation of the FCC's indecency rules that was issued last week by the Federal Communications Commission, proposing to fine 52 ABC network affiliates $27,500 each.  This $1.4 million fine was suggested by the FCC for alleged violations which occurred almost 5 years ago in a broadcast of the now canceled television program NYPD Blue.  For those interested in more details of the case, and about the cause of the trouble for these affiliates, our firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, has issued an Advisory to Clients, here providing more background.  Clearly, this notice is not the end of the story - watch for more developments in this case in the coming months, as ABC and the affected stations file their responses to the fines proposed by the FCC.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

This evening, at about the close of business on a Friday evening, the FCC issued a decision on an number of indecency complaints involving a five-year old episode of "NYPD Blue."  The Commission fined approximately fifty or so ABC affiliates in the Central and Mountain time zones $27,500 each for airing indecent material.  Specifically, the Commission found that a scene in the episode aired on February 25, 2003 containing adult female nudity to be indecent.  The Commission rejected ABC's seemingly common sense argument that a woman's buttocks are not "sexual organs" within the definition of the indecency rules.  Instead, the FCC has now determined that showing the backside of a naked woman is a violation of the indecency rules if it airs before 10 PM, as it did in the Central and Mountain time zone.  A copy of the FCC's decision can be found here.  If there is a silver lining it is that the FCC imposed the statutory maximum that existed at the time the programming was aired -- $27,500 -- rather the new, stepped up fines.  Further, the Commission fined only those stations about which it received an actual complaint, and not simply all stations in those time zones that aired the episode. 

The stations have until February 11th to either pay the fine or appeal the forfeiture.  This is an accelerated timeframe for responding or paying the fine, as usually Commission gives stations 30 days to respond to a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.  It is unclear what the impetus was for the FCC to finally issue a decision on the "NYPD Blue" complaints nearly five years after the episode originally aired and with several challenges on earlier Commission indecency rulings currently pending before the courts.  No word yet on whether ABC and the affected affiliates will appeal the decision, but it seems likely that this indecency decision will join the others already in the pipeline for judicial review.  And in the meantime, broadcasters have been put on notice that a woman's posterior is now officially indecent material.  No word yet on whether showing a man's rear end is equally problematic, but if there's a station willing to air it and a viewer willing to complain, the FCC will undoubtedly tackle that critical issue if and when it arises.   

Posted By Brendan Holland In Digital Television , Indecency , Low Power Television/Class A TV , Television | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

At last Thursday's Public Hearing on multiple ownership in Chicago, about which we wrote here, a statement was read by a spokesman for Presidential candidate Barack Obama.  According to press reports, the statement expressed the candidate's positions favoring shorter license renewal terms for broadcasters so that they would be subject to more public scrutiny, as well as criticizing the FCC for allowing broadcast consolidation.  These thoughts essentially echo the comments of FCC Commissioner Copps, especially on the subject of license renewal terms, whose views we wrote about here.  While many press reports have asked if this statement by Senator Obama foreshadows the broadcast ownership debate becoming part of the presidential campaign issues, we worry that it may signal a far broader attack on broadcasters during the upcoming political year.  The statement by Senator Obama is but one of a host of indications that broadcasters may face a rash of legislative issues that are now on the political drawing boards.

Broadcasters make easy targets for politicians as everyone is an expert on radio and television - after all, virtually everyone watches TV or listens to the radio and thus fancies themselves knowledgeable of what is good and bad for the public.  But those in Congress (and on the FCC) have the ability to do something about it.  And, with an election year upon us, they have the added incentive to act, given that any action is bound to generate at least some publicity and, for some, this may be their last opportunity to enact legislation that they feel important.  We've already written about the renewed emphasis, just last week, on passing legislation to overturn the Second Circuit's decision throwing out the FCC's fines on "fleeting expletives" and making the unanticipated use of one of those "dirty words" subject again to FCC indecency fines.  Clearly, no Congressman wants to be seen as being in favor of indecency (look at the rise in the indecency fines to $325,000 per occurrence which was voted through Congress just before the last election), and First Amendment issues are much more nuanced and difficult to explain to the voter, so watch this legislation.

Posted By David Oxenford In Advertising Issues , Children's Programming and Advertising , Indecency , Multiple Ownership Rules , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

This week, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives to make a single use of an expletive on a broadcast station subject to sanctions from the FCC.  This parallels legislation that was introduced in the Senate this summer, about which we wrote, here.  The point of this legislation is to overturn the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that the FCC could not levy indecency fines on stations for airing a single isolated "fleeting expletive". As we wrote when the Senate Bill was introduced, the Second Circuit decision overturning the FCC's fines was technically based, not on constitutional issues, but instead on the fact that the FCC had not rationally defended the distinctions that it made as to when to impose fines for the use of an expletive, and when to allow the use of the expletives without sanction (as in the airing of Saving Private Ryan).  The Court also faulted the Commission for not providing guidelines as to what was indecent and what was that were clear enough to alert a broadcaster as to what was permitted and what was not.  When a decision is based on an administrative failure to rationally justify its decision, Congress can pass a law providing that justification.  Here, that would give the FCC permission to fine a broadcaster for the use of a single expletive.  If the decision was constitutionally based, finding that the regulation of the use of fleeting expletives was unconstitutional, then the ability of Congress to pass a law permitting FCC action that the Court found was unconstitutional is severely limited.

However, while not basing the decision on constitutional grounds, the Second Circuit decision did go out of its way to question the constitutionality of the FCC's indecency enforcement, but deciding that it did not need to decide the issue of constitutionality as it had already thrown out the FCC fines.  While the Second Circuit passed on that issue, another court may well reach the constitutional question in the near future.  On September 11, the Third Circuit, the same Court which invalidated many of the FCC's 2003 liberalized multiple ownership rules, heard arguments on the FCC's $550,000 fine imposed on the CBS owned-and-operated television stations for the Janet Jackson breast-baring Super Bowl incident.   CBS, represented by an attorney from our firm, argued that the FCC's indecency rules are unconstitutional.  The Court seemed engaged in the issue, according to press reports, asking many questions.  As the briefs have been filed and the arguments made, the Court decision could come at any time.  Sometimes these decisions can be released quickly, though at other times the final decision can take many months to be written.  Broadcasters will have to wait for this further clarification.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Last month, we wrote about the US Court of Appeals throwing out the FCC’s decision to issue fines to broadcasters for the use of an occasional “fleeting expletive,” i.e. one of those impolite words that once in a while will slip onto a broadcast station’s airwaves, most usually in a live and unscripted program. The Court looked at the FCC’s decisions in this area and determined that they were inconsistent and did not provide the guidance that a broadcaster needs to determine what is and what is not permitted on the airwaves. Thus, the fines were thrown out as the Court found the FCC's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious.  In an attempt to reinstate the FCC’s authority to regulate in this area, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, the author of the legislation which raised potential broadcast fines to $325,000 per violation of the indecency policy, last month suggested that he would introduce legislation that would overturn the Court action.  That proposal was preempted by Senate Commerce Committee, which earlier this month approved a bill introduced by Senator Rockefeller which would, very simply, state that the FCC had the jurisdiction to fine stations for a single word or phrase that they broadcast.  While the bill was approved by the Committee, the full Senate and the House of Representatives would need to approve the legislation before it could become law.

The proposal to give the authority back to the FCC to fine a station for an isolated utterance  is possible in theory, as the Court decision was based on the lack of consistency, clarity and guidance that the FCC provided to broadcasters about its standards, and not based on constitutional grounds.  However, reading the Court decision, one can see that the Court went out of its way to question the constitutional basis of the FCC regulation in this area. See our summary of the decision, here and here. A piece of Congressional legislation can reverse a Court ruling which was based on statutory interpretation, but it cannot reverse a decision that is based on a finding that a government action is unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment - which is obviously very rare -  is necessary for that.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As we reported earlier, even though it has been almost a year since President Bush signed legislation raising the fines for broadcast indecency to $325,000 per occurrence, the FCC only recently adopted rules to officially implement the increased fines.  The rule to implement the statutory mandate was published in the Federal Register today, setting July 20th as the effective date for the new higher fines.   A copy of the Federal Register publice notice is available here (just below the list of millet and soybeans).  Once the increased fines become effective, the Commission's stick for discouraging speech that it might deem to be indecent will be a whole lot bigger.  It will be interesting to see if the Commission elects to impose a substantial forfeiture using the larger fines while various aspects of its indecency regime remain under review. 

Posted By Brendan Holland In FCC Fines , Indecency , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

We wrote yesterday about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling throwing out two FCC indecency fines.  Further details on the legal reasoning in that decision are given in our firm's advisory published today. The decision also provoked heated reactions from two of the FCC Commissioners.  Commissioner Copps issued a statement warning broadcasters not to engage in gratuitous sex and violence on television.  Chairman Martin's statement was even more aggressive - using the "F-word" and the "S-word" freely - without resorting to the euphemisms that we employ here to avoid triggering spam blockers - for the shock value to emphasize how he believed that a liberal court overlooked the what he thought was a common-sense FCC decision with which most people would agree.

 It seems unlikely that there were many broadcasters waiting for this decision to give them the green light to run out and start gratuitously airing sex and violence.  Look at basic cable.  Years ago, court rulings held that indecency rules did not apply to cable television.  Yet, as I'm writing this, the Daily Show on Comedy Central is airing, and all the explicatives that are of such concern to the Commission are edited out of the program - and this is for a program that is not only on cable, but also is airing at 11 PM, in the safe harbor where indecent programming can air even on broadcast television.  And who has seen a rush of indecent programming on broadcast television in those safe harbor hours?  The Court decision only reached the common sense decision that the passing use of an explicative should not jeopardize an FCC license.  No matter what the Commissioners statements may say, the ruling was not one that opens the door to filth flooding the airwaves, but instead it was only one that demanded that the FCC apply logic and consistency in line with constitutional requirements when making its rulings. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Just as the FCC issued its order to implement the statutory increase in the amount of indecency fines, raising them to $325,000 per violation (see our comment, here), its enforcement of its indecency policy may be dead in its tracks.  A three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision released today, rejected the FCC's actions against a number of television networks for broadcast indecency.  The FCC actions were in the context of "fleeting utterances," i.e. the use of specific words that the FCC determined were indecent whenever they were used.  The Court rejected the FCC decision as being arbitrary and capricious, as the FCC decisions overturned without sufficient rational explanation years of FCC precedent that had had held that the isolated use of these words was not actionable.  The FCC actions were sent back to the FCC for further consideration to see if the Commission could craft a decision that provided a rational explanation for this departure from precedent.

However, this may prove to be impossible.  While the Court's decision was based on the FCC's failure to provide a rational basis for its departure from precedent, the Court also said that it was difficult to imagine how the FCC could constitutionally justify its actions.  The Court pointed to the inconsistent decisions of the FCC - fining stations for the use of the "F-word" and the "S-word" in isolated utterances during awards shows, and when used in the context of a program like PBS'  The Blues, but finding that the same words were not actionable when used in Saving Private Ryan or when used by a Survivor contestant interviewed on CBS' morning show.  In the Survivor case, the Court indicated particular confusion, as the Commission went out of its way to say that there was no blanket exclusion of news programming from the application of its indecency rules, but then it proceeded to find the softest of news - the Survivor cast-away interview - as being of sufficient importance to merit exclusion from any fine.  The Court felt that these decisions were so conflicting that a licensee would not be able to decide whether a use was permissible or not - and that such confusion, leaving so much arbitrary discretion in the hands of government decision-makers as to where to draw lines between the permissible and impermissible, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny.  It would have a chilling effect on free speech - and could be enforced in an arbitrary manner that could favor one point of view over another.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

It's been almost a year since President Bush signed legislation raising the fines for broadcast indecency to $325,000 per occurrence.  Even though the legislation was effective on June 15, 2006, the higher fines have not yet gone into effect as the FCC had never adopted rules to officially implement them - until today.  Today, the FCC issued an order adopting a rule to implement the statutory mandate - and the new higher fines will go into effect 30 days after this order is published in the Federal Register, which will presumably be quite soon.

There was no explanation for the Commission's delay in adopting the new rule.  As the change was mandated by statute, the adoption of the new rule did not require public notice and comment.  All the Commission needed to do was to put out the Order that was released today.  Perhaps the Commission was concerned about the pending Court cases to resolve whether their enforcement of the rules is constitutional (see our comment here).  In fact, in opposing the expedited consideration of one of the appeals of a Commission indecency fine, the Commission specifically made the point that there was no need to for prompt consideration as the chilling effect of the Commission policies was limited as the new fines had not yet gone in to effect.  But, for whatever reason, the Commission has finally decided to act, and the new fines will soon be effective.  Now we just need to watch for the Court decisions to see if the enforcement of those fines will be permitted.

Posted By David Oxenford In FCC Fines , Indecency , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The front page of the Sunday New York Times featured a story titled "Shock Radio Shrugs at Imus's Fall And Roughs Up the Usual Victims."  The story reports on radio station talk programming and how the Times' reporters found numerous instances of what they refer to as "coarse, sexually explicit banter" and "meanness."  The Times reports that these programs could lead the announcers and the stations owners into dangerous territory - either from FCC fines or through advertiser cancellations.  The Times also correctly indicates that the FCC usually does not initiate actions against such programs based on its own monitoring, but instead based on listener complaints - almost an open invitation for such complaints to be filed based on the paper's report.  With reports such as this hitting the popular press, after being brought to the forefront of public attention by the Imus affair, and earlier this year by the Sacramento contest gone wrong for the the Wii (here), can calls for regulation be far behind?

The Times own report asks the question as to whether the FCC or Congress will step up regulation in light of the Imus affair.  Interestingly, it avoids the questions raised by its own reports as to where lines would be drawn in any regulations.  For instance, in the story, the Times identified some programming that might cause concern under FCC indecency guidelines depending on the context in which the cited material was used, the report also cites several instances which assuredly do not fit within any FCC prohibitions.  In fact, some of the samples cited by the article do not seem much more "coarse" than what you might find on some Sunday morning or cable television news-talk programming.  For instance, the Times cites, seemingly as an example of "crude remarks," statements made on the Mancow syndicated radio talk programming, where Mancow allegedly asserted that radical Muslims "would not stop until they had flattened American religion like a steamroller" and then went on to say that he didn't want his children to be killed or "brainwashed" into Islamic beliefs.  While I'm sure that the Mancow language was not the same as that which might be used on a political talk program - aren't similar expressions about the goals of radical Islam often aired on such news talk programs - often by members of the political establishment?  Would the Times want to regulate the discussion of ideas based on how or where they were expressed?  In any content regulation, lines are hard to draw.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a decision released last week, permanently enjoined on First Amendment grounds enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA").  That Act sought to require website operators to restrict access to portions of their websites where there is material that would be "harmful to minors."  The decision is the latest development in litigation that is nearly a decade long over COPA - a law that has never taken effect but rather has been preliminarily enjoined virtually since its enactment - which has been part of legal challenges to Congress' efforts to regulate online sexually oriented content.  This litigation has already twice been to the Supreme Court.  The most recent opinion makes it likely the issue will go to the Supreme Court a third time (following an intermediate appeal to the Third Circuit).  If the law ever were to survive review, a broad range of websites, including not only those involving sexually oriented adult content, but also potentially many other sites including those covering news events or sex education, would have to change how they do business online.

At the center of the challenged law is COPA's "harmful to minors" standard, the application of which to Internet speech was struck down by the Court.  COPA makes it a crime for commercial websites to make material that is "harmful to minors" publicly available, and it exposes alleged violators to up to $50,000 in fines and six months' imprisonment.  As a practical matter, COPA would require website operators that offer content that might fall within the "harmful to minors" standard, which is an adapted version of the legal test for whether material is unlawfully obscene, to restrict access by requiring use of a credit card or similar account mechanism, a digital certificate that verifies the age of website visitors, or some other technologically reasonable measure that can restrict website access based on age.  Parties challenging and/or opposed to the law say the harmful-to-minors standard is vague and sweeps too broadly, and that statute is an overly restrictive approach to dealing with minors' potential access to online sexually oriented content, especially given the less restrictive alternative of filtering software that can block such access.  The Court found COPA was invalid on several legal grounds.  These include that it is not narrowly tailored and the government failed to satisfy the legal requirement of showing the content-based restriction is the least restrictive means of serving its asserted interest in protecting minors, and that COPA is vague and overbroad.

Posted By ronald london In Children's Programming and Advertising , Indecency , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In recent weeks, the FCC has been vigorously defending its indecency rules in Court.  First, oral arguments on the FCC's actions against Fox and NBC for "fleeting utterances," one-time unscripted airing of profanities during television coverage of live award programs, were held the week before Christmas - with a decision possible in the upcoming months.  At the same time, briefs are being filed in the case involving Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl clothing malfunctions.  But, with more and more video moving on-line, where the FCC's indecency rules don't reach, who is the FCC really protecting?

A recent article in the New York Times (subscription required for full archived content) reported on NBC's Saturday Night Live posting on the Internet an unedited copy of a partially censored animated feature that aired on its program.  If viewers can access complete, unedited content of a television program online, and that online content can be promoted on the air, unless there is some great expansion of the FCC's power in regulating on-line activity, it seems that the FCC's indecency crackdown doesn't accomplish much.  But, with the pending court actions, it may well be that the FCC's ability to regulate indecency shrinks before it increases.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency , Internet Video , On Line Media | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

While you may not be able to say the "F-word" on broadcast TV, you can on cable TV.  And apparently they will - as the Court of Appeals has agreed to televise the oral arguments on the appeals of the FCC fines levied against Fox for broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards and NBC for its airing of the Golden Globes.  Both of these fines arose because the broadcasts featured one of those words that you're not supposed to say on TV.  The Court granted permission for C-Span to broadcast next week's oral arguments in these cases.

However, broadcast TV seems, so far, unwilling to take the risk.  According to a Broadcasting and Cable report, no broadcast network has asked C-Span for the rights to rebroadcast their coverage.  Perhaps, until these decisions are released, the broadcasters fear that a Court of Appeals oral argument will somehow be mistaken by the FCC for something that "describes or depicts sexual or excretory functions."  As one who has participated in Court of Appeals arguments, that mistake would seem highly unlikely, but the FCC's policy seems to fine first and ask questions later.  So, with the concern of FCC action restraining the broadcast networks, the 15% of the country without access to cable or satellite television in their homes will be safe from exposure to this potentially profane court argument. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

On Monday night's episode of NBC's Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, that program's viewers were treated to a subplot about an FCC investigation into indecency on the fictional television network featured in the program. And these viewers were treated to a portrayal of the FCC as an all powerful agency, able to not only issue fines, but also pull "transponder licenses" and stop Asian casino acquisitions by the network's parent company simply because of the inadvertent use of the "F word" in a live newscast.  Chairman Martin probably wishes that he has as much power as the fictional FCC had on the program.

Perhaps a communications lawyer shouldn't get concerned about the dramatic license taken by a TV show.  But the program provided such a distorted view of the FCC process that it could even encourage those interested in making trouble for broadcast licensees to file more complaints with the FCC, thinking that the FCC is so powerful.  In fact, the FCC's power, and its precedent, are nothing like those portrayed on the show. 

Obviously, the FCC's powers don't extend to casino acquisitions outside the United States (or for that matter in the United States).  Nor will the FCC pull a satellite transponder license for a broadcast indecency matter - the FCC has never pulled any license for indecency violations, and has thus far shown no inclination to do so (and even had the FCC had been so inclined, it would take years of litigation).  Even the proposed fine level - $350,000 for each of the network's affiliates - while recently authorized by Congress, has never been levied by the FCC. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In our posting of July 17, we asked whether President Bush's comments to Tony Blair at the G-8 summit, which had occurred earlier that day, could get broadcasters who aired the unedited version into trouble under the Commission's indecency policies.  Well, it looks like the President may have indeed found a unique way to raise government revenue.  Press reports yesterday reported that  complaints were filed with the FCC asking that fines be imposed on stations that aired the President's comments without bleeping the "S-word."  Specifically, at least one complaint named a Maine television station airing the unedited comments, while another complaint was registered by the FCC about NPR's coverage of the event.

While unedited coverage of a news event had, in the past, in more tempered times, been found by the FCC to be permissible if the station felt that it was necessary to convey the context of the story (for instance, in the case of coverage of a mobster using some colorful language about the prosecution's case as he emerged from a courthouse).  But these days, with the recent FCC crackdown on even fleeting uses of expletives, stations are unsure of the law, and frightened of FCC actions.  And, with recently legislated higher indecency fines, which we reported on on June 16, the fears take on even more urgency for broadcasters.

For instance, CBS plans to air a documentary on 9-11, which includes footage of the reactions of emergency personnel at the site of the collapsing World Trade Center.  The reactions to the tragic events include some use of FCC-prohibited expletives.  This documentary has already aired twice on CBS without any adverse action.  Yet now, certain groups have reportedly suggested that complaints should be filed at the FCC about the upcoming airing of the program.  And now, reports state that at least one broadcaster has announced that they will delay the program until after 10 PM - in the FCC's "safe-harbor" where adult content will not be subject to FCC penalties as the potential for children in the audience is less.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

An article in Saturday's NY Times once again highlights the broadcaster's dilemma in deciding what can and cannot be said on over-the-air without triggering the wrath of the FCC for broadcast indecency.  The article also highlights the self-censorship that broadcasters are engaged in to avoid even the potential of the $325,000 fines that Congress has recently authorized the FCC to impose in cases where a violation of the Commission's standards are found.

The Times article talks about the issues now facing PBS in connection with a new documentary being produced by award-winning film maker Ken Burns.  Mr. Burns' new multi-part documentary is about World War II, and he has interviewed veterans about their experiences in the war.  As might be expected, some of those interviews contain words that the FCC has determined to be actionably indecent whenever they are used on broadcast television.  Thus, according to the article, new PBS guidelines would call not only for deletion of the words but, perhaps based on concerns about recent FCC interpretations that have fined stations based on implications of indecent actions even where the actions may not have been shown, pixilation of the mouths of the veterans so that the TV audience cannot lip-read to determine what words were being used.

To some, this legal advice may seem extreme, but with the FCC guidelines and precedent as confusing as it is, and the stakes so high with the new level of potential fines, perhaps this very conservative advice is all that can be given.  Some may look at the proposed documentary as essentially identical to the airing of Saving Private Ryan, where the FCC held that the use of these otherwise prohibited words was permissible given the serious nature of the programming and the need to portray the soldiers in a realistic setting.  So you would think that a documentary on exactly the same subject, dealing with the topics depicted in the movie, would be entitled to the same treatment.  One would think - but then we have the case of PBS' airing of The Blues, a serious documentary about blues singers which used some of the prohibited words to convey the realism of  of the blues musicians being portrayed.  The significant difference, and the reason for broadcasters' concerns is that, unlike Private Ryan, The Blues drew a fine from the FCC for the use of the words.  Our memo of April 2006 discusses some of these issues.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Today, many broadcast stations covered the comments that President Bush made to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the G-8 Summit.  While discussing the Middle East before a microphone that the President did not realize was live, he used the "S Word" in discussing the problems in that part of the world.  As the FCC recently declared the "S Word" to be one of those words that will subject a broadcast station to a fine except in very rare circumstances where the context and importance of the broadcast demands its use (like Saving Private Ryan, but not a PBS documentary on the blues), will the President have presented the FCC with the first case where it can impose the new $325,000 fines for indecency that he himself signed into law less than a month ago?  Perhaps it's a one-man government revenue enhancement plan!  Stay tuned for what might be a very interesting case.

Posted By David Oxenford In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Broadcasters beware, yesterday President Bush signed the bill and made it official.  The statutory maximum fine for broadcasting material that the FCC deems to be obscene, indecent, or profane is now $325,000 per incident.  With fines that large, a small slip can become expensive in a hurry.  (For more details on the increased fines see our earlier blog.) 

A further set of indecency decisions, this time potentially addressing a number of pending radio indecency complaints, has been expected to be released by the Commission for some time now.  It will be interesting to see how aggressive the Commission is in fining broadcasters now that it has the ability to levy fines up to ten-times greater than before. 

Posted By Brendan Holland In Indecency | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Yesterday, Congress passed the long-anticipated Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which if signed into law by President Bush, will increase by a factor of ten the maximum fine available to the FCC for punishing broadcasters for airing material it deems to be indecent.  Under the Act, the maximum fine for broadcasting obscene, indecent, and profane material would now be $325,000, up from the present maximum of $32,500. The increase comes over two years after the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show focused Congress’ and the public’s attention on broadcast television.

Posted By Brendan Holland In Indecency | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry