regulation

Subscribe to regulation via RSS

As 2007 wound to an end, advertising issues figured prominently on the agenda of Washington agencies, including both the FCC and the FTC.  While the FCC is looking at specific regulatory requirements governing broadcast advertising, the FTC is investigating the privacy issues raised by advertising conducted by on-line companies.  In November, the FTC held a two day set of workshops and panels where interested parties discussed issues of behavioral advertising – advertising that can be targeted to individuals based on their history of Internet use, and whether or not regulation of these practices was necessary.  The wide-ranging discussion is summarized on our firm’s Privacy and Security Blog, here.  After gathering this testimony, we will see if the FTC decides to proceed to propose any regulations dealing with this sort of personalized, on-line advertising.

At the FCC, there are two separate proceedings dealing with advertising issues for broadcasters.  The first came about as part of the FCC’s diversity initiatives adopted at its December meeting.  There, the Commission determined that broadcasters will need to certify in their renewal applications that they have not discriminated in their advertising practices.  While this proposal was adopted at the Commission’s December 18 meeting, the full text of the decision has yet to be released, so we do not know the specifics of this new requirement.Continue Reading Advertising Issues on Washington’s Agenda for 2008

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.Continue Reading One Sign That Broadcasters Are About to Become Political Footballs – Obama Suggests Shorter Broadcast License Terms and Less Consolidation

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.Continue Reading Second Circuit Throws Out FCC Indecency Fines

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…

Three of the FCC Commissioners have responded to the Congressional inquiry about the Commission’s rules regarding junk food advertising about which we wrote here.  This inquiry was initiated by Congressman Ed Markey, Chairman of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. The Congressman’s letter had urged the FCC to move quickly to implement rules limiting the advertising of unhealthy food aired during broadcasting directed to children.  The Commissioners’ responses uniformly indicate the potential for regulation, depending in part on the outcome of the activities of the industry Task Force formed at the initiation of, and with the participation by, the FCC and Congress. See our reports on the formation of the Task Force, here.  The Commissioners all note that should the Task Force fail to conclude that the industry has achieved satisfactory results through self-regulation, FCC proceedings might be required to insure that children are not unduly exposed to junk food advertisements. 

Two commissioners, Chairman Martin and Commissioner Tate, responded jointly, and indicated that the FCC could explore regulation of unhealthy food, perhaps looking at guidelines adopted in other countries as a model for US regulation.  These Commissioners’ statement even address the issue of regulating children’s programming on cable television networks, where they claim that there is much exposure to ads for junk food.  These statements make clear that this is not just an issue for the broadcast industry.Continue Reading Commission Responds to Congressional Inquiry on Children’s Junk Food Ads

Last week, House Commerce and Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell reportedly stated that he favored the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and couldn’t see why broadcasters would be opposed.  We’ve suggested reasons, here and here.  But the reports are that Congressman Dingell may try to move legislation to accomplish the return of the Doctrine later this year.…

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.Continue Reading Radio Shock Jocks in the News – Calls for Regulation to Follow?

On Thursday, the FCC issued its Report on violent programming on television, finding that such programming has a negative impact on the well being of children, and suggesting that Congressional action to restrict and regulate such programming would be appropriate.  A summary of the findings of the Commission can be found in our firm’s bulletin on the Report, here.  As we point out in our bulletin, the Commission did not adopt this report with a united voice, as both Commissioner Adelstein and McDowell expressed concerns about the thoroughness of the report, the practicality and constitutionality of drawing lines between permitted and prohibited violence in programming, and even whether the government is the proper forum for restricting access to such programming or whether this isn’t fundamentally an issue of family and parental control. 

The Report suggests that legislative action to restrict violent programming  or to channel it to certain time periods might be appropriate as parents are often not home when children watch television, and technological controls, like the V-Chip, are ineffective as parents don’t know that they exist or, if they are aware of the existence of the controls, they don’t know how to activate them.  The Commission also suggests that the ratings given to programs are not always accurate.  An interesting alternate take can be found in an article in Slate, here, citing a study not mentioned by the FCC finding that parents, even when carefully educated about the V-Chip and its uses, do not use it.  This seems to indicate that parents are not as concerned about the issue as is the FCC, and suggests that the real motivation is not restricting what is presented to children, but instead what is available to adults.

Continue Reading Violence on Television – FCC Issues Report Suggesting That Congressional Action Is Appropriate

As we’ve discussed before, here, the FCC has been reviewing their power to regulate violent programming on broadcast stations.  Despite the apparent constitutional and practical issues involved in such restrictions (e.g. are Roadrunner cartoons covered?), published reports indicate that a majority of the FCC Commissioners will issue a report asking Congress to give the FCC authority…