Supreme Court makes ruling regarding FCC profanity policy

[LSN80]

In 2003, Bono, upon winning the Golden Globe for Best Original Song, declared: "This is really, really fucking brilliant. Really, really great." For this, and similar "fleeting statements"(unplanned, unscripted statements), including ones made by Nicole Ritchie at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, and by Cher at those same awards, the FCC levied fines in the neighborhood of $8 million dollars. A certain nude scene from everyone's favorite Saved By the Bell star Mark Paul Gosselar(Zack Morris) on NYPD Blue also drew a heavy fine.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/supreme-court-strikes-down-fcc-rules-on-profanity-nudity/

Yesterday, after a battle that spanned 4 years back and forth between the US Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC's policy regarding regulating curse words and nudity on TV was unconsistitutional. The reasoning being was that the FCC failed to give prior notice to stations(Fox and ABC specifically) that fleeting curse words(such as Bono's statement) or brief nudity could be found to be "actionably indecent", and that all fines and sanctions levied were to be overturned. A statement released by the Supreme Court said the following:

"Because the FCC failed to give FOX or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commissions' standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague."

This was decided in a unanimous 8-0 vote. The Supreme Court also noted that the FCC was inconsistent in it's application of its "actionably indecent" policy, as other shows and broadcasts that aired around the dates of the ones openalized contained similar subject manner and language, yet were not penalized themselves. However, the Supreme Court did not issue a broad ruling on the overall legality of the FCC's policy as a whole on indecency standards. Rather, they ruled that stations airing award shows that featured fleeting curse words(like Bono's outburst) along with shows displaying brief nudity(NYPD Blue) could not have posibly known that the FCC would level sanctions against them. It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court left the FCC free to amend their current indecency policy. The Supreme Court itself has established a three pronged standard for determining obscene material:

1. •An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

In other words, the average person must look at the program they are viewing to be unwholesome when compared to community standards on the whole. But since this varies widely on the whole, especially amongst demographics and people with children as compared to those without, there's standard #2:

•The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law;

This is fairly clear-cut, but it fails to take into consideration context. There are shows and scenes that without that content, it takes away from the show on the whole. If its a show thats looking at ra certain time period, or place, certain amounts of sexuality were rampant, and to ignore them would be to short-change the overall ability of a show to tell a story. It also helps with the development and continuity of characters. Which leads to standard #3:

•The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In other words, gratuitous or over-the-top sexual material just for the sake of having it, with no real relevance. This is why pornography is on PPV, rather then NBC.

The rules surounding indecent language and sexual content are applicable strictly from 6am to 10pm on both commercial TV and radio. That's why shows such as Justified, Always Sunny in Philadelphia, The League, and a slew of other shows on FX are able to air at 10pm or later, and get away with much more then say, Modern Family on ABC, or Glee and House on Fox. Yes, the networks do make a difference as well, but so do the time slots. Now, with the Supreme Court ruling today, it's a double edged sword. Yes, it perhaps gives TV shows slightly more leeway without having to worry about incurring fines for their networks, but it also opens the door for an even stricter standard to be applied, providing it's Constitutional. In the end, I think nothing will change. Premium channels will be able to get away with more then cable networks, while cable networks will be able to get away with more then network TV, and Award Shows will continue to broadcast on delay to edit out the Bono's and Cher's of the world.

Here's the FCC policy that was determined too vague, for those interested:

“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling today? Is the Supreme Court's three-pronged test a reasonable one?

Do you believe policies and restrictions regarding broadcasting are too strict as is, fine as they are, or not strict enough?

Do you think the language in the FCC's policy is too vague? With the freedom to change it, do you think policies will differ significantly from how they stand today?

Use the questions as a springboard for any responses, but feel free to discuss the topic in any way that you choose.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Do you think the language in the FCC's policy is too vague? With the freedom to change it, do you think policies will differ significantly from how they stand today?

Possibly. Note that they're not altering the FCC policy stated above (“language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.”)

As measured by "contemporary community standards?" What's that? Don't they differ from censor to censor, from person to person? Has anything really been defined when you apply such a vague term? Is the FCC reserving for themselves the rules of what constitutes decency and indecency? If so, what's really being changed?

In 2002, actor Anthony Edwards said the word "shit" on the show "ER" airing on NBC-TV. Then, as now, that was a forbidden word on prime time, non-cable TV. The word was used at almost 11PM, presumably so the kiddie's worlds wouldn't be turned upside side by hearing a word on TV they heard every day at school. The context in the show was such that the word belonged. (A man in his final days of life tried to get out of bed and collapsed to the floor, incapacitated by his disease and helpless to stop his deterioration. As the scene played out, the Pope himself would have yelled "Shit!" in that circumstance).

I read about the battles the show's producers had with censors and how it was hesitatingly allowed it only if NBC would issue disclaimers at the beginning of the show warning us about "strong language."

I mean, jeez, what a lot of garbage over nothing. The show aired, the word was spoken.....and the sun managed to rise in the morning. If all the Puritans in the word had their worlds knocked out of orbit, they presumably recovered with time and therapy. The U.S. truly does regulate the hell out of everything, don't they?

Look, censoring is necessary. People have repeatedly displayed propensities that prove that if there are no restrictions on a given action, they'll take advantage and soon turn everything on TV and radio into a swear-fest. Cher would be thanking people for "this fuckin' award" and only heaven knows what people like Bono would be filling our ears with. Folks have proven that if you give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

Okay, so the Supreme Court wants FCC to lay down the rules to be followed, and to define them so that all will know what they can do......and what to expect if they run afoul of the guidelines.

As for the potty-mouthed performers.......let's be thankful that God, in his infinite wisdom, invented the 5-second delay. For a truly live event, I suppose the network can have a firing squad ready to execute the offender on sight.

As for context, I would love if pro wrestlers were allowed to talk the way people of their coarse nature actually would. Can't you just see Brock Lesnar doing a promo in which he says: "John Cena is a fuckin' cocksucer. I'm gonna reach down his fuckin' throat and pull him inside out."

Or how about Michael Cole uttering the immortal words: "Jesus, Booker, look at what A.J. is doing now. I wouldn't be surprised if Kane gives it to her up the ass after they leave the ring."

Now, that would be reality TV.