The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
    • Editorials
    • Commentary
    • Columns
    • Water Cooler
    • Letters
    • Cartoons
    • Books
  • Sports
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Communities
  • Rebate Shopping
    • Stores
    • Coupons
    • Daily Double
    • Promotion
    • How It Works
  • Photos
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Politics

    Kucinich drops opposition to health bill

  • Politics

    Obama dismisses procedural tactics

  • Editorials

    EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow

  • Commentary

    HILLYER: No butterfly caused Katrina

  • Politics

    CBO feels crush of health care requests

  • Politics

    Illinois GOP borrows Brown's strategy in bid for Obama seat

  • National

    Feds defend $450K for art, design shows

Home » News » Business

Sunday, November 2, 2008

High court to revisit broadcast profanity

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Click-2-Listen

More Business Stories

  • Obama signs bill to spur job growth
  • First-time jobless claims drop slightly
  • Bernanke lobbies to keep control of banking oversight
  • SEC probing firms' actions ahead of '08 crisis

By Kara Rowland

Lawyers for the government and the four big networks face off before the Supreme Court Tuesday over regulation of profanity on the public airwaves, marking the first time in 30 years the nation's high court has considered broadcast indecency rules.

At issue is whether the isolated broadcast of a curse word can be considered indecent and punishable by hefty fines. A lower court rejected the policy last summer as an "arbitrary and capricious" departure from long-standing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) precedent.

The stakes in the debate over "fleeting expletives" are high, both sides say. In one corner, networks warn of a chilling effect that risks the very existence of live broadcast television; meanwhile, the FCC says throwing out its policy would give broadcasters free rein to air curse words at any time of day.

The last time the Supreme Court considered broadcast indecency was in 1978's FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, a case that stemmed from a New York radio station's afternoon broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue.

In a 5-4 decision, the court justified government censorship at hours when children are likely to be watching, based partially on the "first blow" theory that indecent material on the airwaves enters a person's home uninvited and without warning.

Specifically, the Supreme Court said indecency is "intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience."

In the wake of Pacifica, the FCC limited its enforcement to material that mirrored Mr. Carlin's monologue, involving the repeated use of swear words "for shock value." In 1987, the agency noted that material could be indecent even if it did not contain profanity so long as it was functionally equivalent to verbal "shock treatment."

A 2001 policy statement articulated a two-pronged indecency test taken largely from Pacifica: 1) The material must fall within the subject matter scope, describing or depicting sexual or excretory organs or activities; and 2) It must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

Three decades after Pacifica, FCC v. Fox Television Stations Inc. involves several instances in which the FCC concluded that "fleeting" uses of curse words were indecent, [Note] the first of which stems from a [/NOTE] most notably the January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards on NBC. Accepting the award for best original song, singer Bono said, "This is really, really [expletive] brilliant."

In response, the FCC concluded that the particular expletive, though it was not being used to describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities, is indecent because it "inherently has a sexual connotation." Noting that this represented a change in policy, the commission didn't issue a fine.

12Next »

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow
  2. EDITORIAL: Obama nominee's sympathy for sexual sadists
  3. CBO feels crush of health care requests
  4. WOLF: Obama family health care fracas
  5. Tehran aiding al Qaeda links, Petraeus says
More Top Stories »
  1. KOFFMAN: A prescription for life or death?
  2. EDITORIAL: Obama's medical horror stories
  3. Medical pot lights up D.C. debate
  4. Iran's link to China includes nukes, missiles
  5. FITTON: Secret mortgage politics

Most Commented

  1. E-mails suggested Fort Hood suspect subpar for Army
  2. EDITORIAL: Obama surrenders gulf oil to Moscow
  3. Tehran aiding al Qaeda links, Petraeus says
  4. Kucinich will vote for health care reform
  5. White House urged to end Israel row on settlements
More Top Stories »
  1. CBO feels crush of health care requests
  2. Napolitano shifts policy on border fence
  3. Temporary foreign workers threaten immigration deal
  4. 'Self-executing rule' decried as a 'trick'
  5. Poll: Fewer people worry about warming

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin

Question of the day

With Tiger Woods back at golf, some are predicting a record TV audience for the Masters tournament. Does Woods' return make you more inclined to tune in?

Blogs & Columns

  • Water Cooler

    Off the beaten path online: Republicans 'pissed' they weren't given CBO numbers...

  • Belief Blog

    Sayonara to the president's faith-based council

  • Technology

    Ordering iPad is painless, except for the wallet hit

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.