indecency complaints

Subscribe to indecency complaints

The FCC’s indecency policy has been in limbo since last year’s Supreme Court decision determining that the Commission’s fines on broadcasters for fleeting expletives had not been adequately explained before being imposed. On Monday, the FCC took a step to clarifying that policy by asking for public comments on what it should do now. Should it formally adopt the policy that bans even fleeting expletives, and explain that policy to broadcasters to meet the issues that the Supreme Court raised? Or should it go back to the policy that had been in place before – the decision in the Pacifica case (known more popularly as the "seven dirty words" case, about which we wrote here) – where there had to be repetitive or deliberate use of expletives before the FCC would act. Comments will be due 30 days after this notice is published in the Federal Register, and replies 30 days after that.

The Commission stated that the public could comment on other aspects of its indecency enforcement as well, without specifying any specific areas of inquiry. One issue that would seem to be foremost in the FCC’s inquiry, but one which was not mentioned at all, is the constitutionality of the policy and its enforcement. This was an issue that was twice teed up to the Supreme Court, and both times that Court managed to avoid the issue by deciding cases before it on procedural "due process" grounds – essentially that the FCC had not given sufficient warning before adopting fines or that the FCC otherwise had not followed its own procedures when it changed its policies to a stricter enforcement standard. As the Court never finally resolved the constitutionality issue, it may well be back before the Court again – especially were the FCC to decide to pursue the stricter standard applied by the last Commission.Continue Reading FCC Seeks Comments on Its Indecency Policy – How Should the Commission Enforce Its Policies After Last Year’s Supreme Court Ruling?

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari (i.e. declined review) in two important FCC-related cases pending before it.  First, following the Court’s recent decision in the Fox indecency case, which we described here, the Court not surprisingly refused to review the Third Circuit’s decision vacating the $550,000 FCC fine for the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" in the 2004 Super Bowl shown on CBS. 

In the Fox case, the Supreme Court found that the FCC had not provided advance notice that it would prosecute cases of "fleeting" indecency.  That decision essentially predetermined that the Supreme Court would deny review of the Super Bowl incident.  While denying cert., however, Chief Justice Roberts issued an unusual separate opinion, noting that fleeting indecent images may have a more lasting impression than indecent words.  Nevertheless, he noted that going forward, braodcasters are on notice that fleeting indecent words and images are both now subject to FCC sanctions.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Declines Review of Janet Jackson “Wardrobe Malfunction” and Multiple Ownership Rules

As you know by now, last week the U.S. Supreme Court found the FCC’s enforcement of its indecency policy unconstitutional in FCC v. Fox.  As Bob Corn-Revere and Ronnie London described in our Advisory , this case concerned the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards shows televised by Fox as well as a 2003 episode of NYPD Blue televised by ABC.  While the Supreme Court did NOT address the First Amendment issue of whether the FCC can constitutionally prohibit fleeting expletives and momentary nudity, it did find that the FCC’s enforcement of those policies with regard to these particular shows violated due process, because the networks had no advance notice of them.

As we noted more than a year ago, there are approximately 300 TV station renewal applications from the last renewal cycle still pending due to indecency complaints filed against them.  It is unclear how many of them relate to these particular shows, but to the extent any renewal applications have been held up due to complaints against these shows only, it should only be a matter of time before those renewal applications are granted.Continue Reading What does the Supreme Court Indecency Decision Mean for the Long Pending License Renewal Applications?

The FCC today released a Public Notice announcing new provisions in its license renewal Form 303S – the form that radio and television stations will be using to file license renewal applications, starting with license renewals for radio stations in DC, Virginia and West Virginia in June.  The Notice addressed several changes in the license renewal form – including the addition of certifications concerning whether a station was off the air at any point during the license term for a period of more than 30 days, whether principals of the licensee have interests in daily newspapers in the same area, and whether the station is in compliance with the RF radiation rules.  Two other issues of note were raised in the Public Notice – one dealing with stations that have not received a license renewal from the last license cycle, and one dealing with the newly required certification that stations must make – that their advertising contracts contain a nondiscrimination provision to assure that advertisers are not purchasing advertising on the station for a discriminatory purpose. 

We’ve written about the advertising anti-discrimination certification before, suggesting language that stations include in their contracts.  What is new in today’s notice is that the FCC has clarified that the certification only covers the period from today’s notice until the filing of the license renewal application.  So stations that do not have such certifications can still get them into their contracts now to avoid certification issues later.  In our previous articles on this subject, we’ve noted that this is a confusing requirement, and that even its supporters have urged the FCC to clarify it. Today’s Notice only says that stations must avoid advertising purchases made on the basis of "no urban, no Spanish" dictates, but does not go any further in interpreting the requirements of this policy. Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Requirement for Antidiscrimination Clause in Advertising Contracts – And Sets Out Other License Renewal Changes