FCC fires back at networks — Commission defends citations
Fox’s live broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards shows contained “indecent and profane” language, and FCC regulators were justified in citing them for indecency violations, attorneys for the agency argued in court papers filed Wednesday afternoon.
They also charged Fox and two other nets involved in the legal challenge — CBS and NBC — with trying to “change the subject” in their court papers filed two weeks ago.
On one of the broadcasts, Cher said “fuck ’em” to critics who’ve claimed for years that her career was over. On the other, Nicole Richie said, “Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It’s not so fucking simple.”
The nets argued that, by citing the broadcasts for indecency violations, the FCC was overstepping its authority and also departing, without explanation, from a previously restrained approach to policing the airwaves — one that didn’t penalize for “fleeting” expletives in a live setting.
FCC lawyers claimed that the agency had explained clearly its new approach, which it said was based on “contemporary community standards” that would find virtually any use of the above expletives to be indecent and profane.
In its brief, Fox failed to offer “any justification — such as artistic necessity — for the use of the F-word and the S-word by Nicole Richie and Cher,” the FCC papers continued. “Indeed, Fox has little to say about these broadcasts. Instead, both Fox and the intervenors seek to divert this court’s attention to unrelated issues raised by other FCC orders, many of which are not yet final. The court should reject Fox’s effort to change the subject.”
Agency attorneys took broad swipes in several directions, such as Fox’s claim that the FCC’s indecency standard is vague. “Fox cannot raise a vagueness challenge here, since its broadcasts lie far from any zone of uncertainty that might exist at the margins of the indecency standard’s application.
“Nor is Fox correct when it argues that the V-chip is a constitutionally required less-restrictive means of shielding children from broadcast indecency,” papers continued. “Regulations of broadcasting are subject only to intermediate scrutiny, which has no least-restrictive-means requirement. Moreover, the commission amassed extensive evidence that the V-chip is ineffective.”
Fox did not have an immediate response to the court filing.
Last March, the FCC issued an omnibus order of indecency rulings citing four broadcasts for violations — CBS’ “The Early Show” and ABC’s “NYPD Blue” as well as Fox’s broadcasts of the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. Each involved what the FCC deemed to be actionable language, but the agency issued no fine in any of the cases, saying the rulings were meant primarily to give future guidance to broadcasters on indecency standards.
Besides, the agency said, all four incidents occurred prior to a 2004 ruling the FCC issued saying that virtually any utterance of profanity or indecent language would be deemed a violation.
All three nets announced legal challenges of the omnibus order; even though it was not cited for any violations in the March order, NBC joined under intervenor status. Late last summer, as the cases were to begin with filing of briefs, the FCC asked the federal appeals court to delay the proceedings and remand the omnibus order for reconsideration. The court agreed.
On Nov. 6, the commission announced that upon review of its omnibus order, it was reversing the indecency findings against CBS and ABC but letting stand the two against Fox. ABC withdrew from the court challenge, but CBS remained as a petitioner because its attorneys believe the FCC’s decision to drop the finding against “The Early Show” did not resolve any issues raised in the case.
The case is skedded for oral arguments on Dec. 20.
Source: Variety
Written by: William Triplette
I no longer see what the fuss is about with regards to what the FCC deem as indecent language on TV. First of all, children are learning the language not so much from TV, but from their peers at school, and even their parents. Curbing it on TV isn’t going to stop them from learning it, because there are other sources they will hear it. Will the FCC crack down on the use of such language in the home or at school? If indecent language is used, all a person has to do is turn off the TV. Or those shows should be broadcasted at a time when children are considered to be in bed, such as 9:00 PM and later. Plus, a live program cannot often be policed so easily. Someone may rehearse what they are going to say earlier, but may adlib something once the show goes live for addeded effect.
Indecent language is prevelent in our society. It can be heard in every day conversation, in the Board Room, at Schools, and in the home. The FCC is fighting a loosing battle when it comes to preventing “delicate ears” from hearing such language. Warnings are already flashed across TV Screens about the use of Adult Language in television programs. TV Programs reflect only what is often said in the real world. I don’t think the FCC is being realistic. The parents and the schools are the ones who should be teaching children not to use such language, not the FCC.
I wish real life would emulate fiction. Studio 60 had a sub-plot about something similar, though it was Army guy screaming that when an RPG flew over his head during an interview.
The FCC and organizations like the FCC seem to think that profanity and violence in TV, movies, and video games causes indecent behavior in the general public. Although I think that there is some truth to that, I don’t think that multimedia entertainment is the only cause.
It’s the environment that people live in that influences their behavior. I’ve grown up in a fairly safe environment, and I also watch shows that could be considered indecent, according to the FCC, and I also play what could be considered violent video games, and watch violent and profane movies. But I don’t use profanity and I don’t have violent behavior.
They just don’t want to blame the people that surround the ones that exibit indecent behavior (parents, fellow students, co-workers). To them, it MUST be the TV show they’re watching or the violent video game or movie. It’s just not that simple.
As much as I despise censorship, I think that the FCC has a point with these broadcasts.
These were live broadcasts. There should have, at a minimum, been a delay on these shows to edit such language out of the broadcast. There was no chance for a warning, and no way for a view to know that they would be hearing this.
These were not scripted decisions to allow on the air, but they do have the technology to add a slight delay to prevent something from getting on the air that they don’t want… What would happen if they were at a live show and there was a terrorist attack, or some psychotic fan who pulls a gun?
I’m not a prude by any stretch, but if I use the ‘S-word’ or the ‘F-word’ on my podcast, I make sure to put an explicit tag on it, and in the case of the Snakes on a Plane episode we actually put a warning in front of it.
I think it’s short-sighted to say that the FCC shouldn’t be trying to prevent certain things from being on the air, but I do think that the standards of decency need revised.
My wife and I can’t watch more than half of the television shows we’d like to watch with our son awake because of the amount of violence on the television. And this is from broadcast television.
Regarding the Studio 60 episode… My wife and I watched that one too… and when they were talking about it my comment was, “What kind of f*ckwit television producer would broadcast LIVE from a warzone?!?” That just didn’t make sense… especially during primetime.
Tony, But that’s what I am talking about. You are using the very same language in the home the FCC is trying to censor in TV. Is your son asleep in bed or is he like some kids trying to sneak a peek late at night what Mom and Dad are watching. Your son could be hearing you without you even being aware. Don’t you think it would be wise to censor yourself. If you want to speak such language when you are among other adults where you know children are not present, that is different. You are among adults, but when you are at home and the potential chance that your child might hear you, I would be careful of my language.
About a two months ago, I was walking home with my daughter from daycare, and when we got into our neighborhood, there were some children at one of our playgrounds. They weren’t even teenagers yet. They were in that Pre-Teen stage And one of them used the S-word and F-word as we were walking by. I immediately said something, that they should not use such language around children who were younger than them. They got irate with me, but I stuck to my guns, after all, I am a parent. And it takes a village to raise a child to be a good person and citizen. You might not think so, but it does. Parents are the worst offenders because the child is there, long before they are in school. If you don’t start it when you have that child, even at two or three years old, they will pick up on it, and copy your behavior.
As for what my child watches and does not, it is completely controlled by my wife. He does not have the ability to get up and peek at what we are watching and his room has a white noise generator to help him ease into sleep.
I do swear as does my wife. And I do so around my child. It has changed considerably in the past few years and we now have a laundry list of words that are unacceptable to use in our household. It’s humbling when you refer to the person who nearly kills you with their automobile as a ‘Stupid Ass’ and your child informs you that “We don’t say stupid”
As far as my podcast goes, that is always done either outside of the house or after my son is in bed. (Honestly, do you know how attractive a microphone is to a 4 year-old? I can’t record with him awake and don’t want to waste the time that I could be spending with him) I have an expectation to know what I’m going to be exposing my child to when it comes to broadcast television. I know what kind of content I get on Disney Channel, I know what kind of content I get on Cinemax after hours, and I know what kind of content I get on MTV. I can’t predict from one hour to the next what kind of content will be on Broadcast television. I am thrilled that they have a rating system for scripted/pre-produced television. My problem is the idiocy that the networks have broadcasting ANYTHING live. Technology is such that a short delay can be added into a live broadcast and used to remove content that was not planned for and not within the ratings of the show they are presenting.
I know I can’t prevent everything from affecting my child, but I sure while like the ability to control when and how he is exposed to it so that I can discuss it with him.
You say that it takes a village to raise a child. No, I would disagree with that. It takes a village to show a child what society is like, but until the village comes over and picks up the toys and bathes him, and pays for his lodging and books and activities, and rocks him to sleep after a nightmare, then I reject that notion. There are two people raising my child, and there are others who are exposing him to the outside world.
And… if it did ‘take a village’, then why shouldn’t we expect the networks that broadcast to the public to be a productive and thoughtful part of said village?
Also… kudos to you for standing up to your right not to be assaulted by ‘noise pollution’ from those kids. You did what you should in informing them of what is proper in the outside world.