WASHINGTON - A Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy penalizing accidentally aired expletives has been struck down by a federal court, calling the FCC's proposal "arbitrary and capricious." The ruling was part of a Fox Television-led challenge against the FCC, wherein broadcasters requested that the court ultimately invalidate the FCC conclusion.
According to the Associated Press, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not outlaw the policy outright, but rather returned the case to the FCC to let the agency try to provide a reasoned analysis for the policy.
David Fiske, an FCC spokesman, told the Associated Press that the commission was reviewing the decision and "we'll respond as soon as we finish that review."
The decision stemmed from an FCC ruling that four different profanity-laden Fox shows were indecent.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Rosemary Pooler, the appeals court said, "With that backdrop in mind, we question whether the FCC's indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny. For instance, we are sympathetic to the Networks' contention that the FCC's indecency test is undefined, indiscernible, inconsistent, and consequently, unconstitutionally vague."
"It appears that under the FCC's current indecency regime, any and all uses of an expletive is presumptively indecent and profane with the broadcaster then having to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commission, under an unidentified burden of proof, that the expletives were 'integral' to the work.
"In the licensing context, the Supreme Court has cautioned against speech regulations that give too much discretion to government officials," the court said.
The appeals court also mentioned the importance of parental responsibility in deciding that their children are watching.
"The proliferation of satellite and cable television channels — not to mention internet-based video outlets — has begun to erode the 'uniqueness' of broadcast media, while at the same time, blocking technologies such as the V-chip have empowered viewers to make their own choices about what they do, and do not, want to see on television," the appeals court wrote.
Legal
- By
