Ffc V. Fox Tv Research Paper

1006 Words5 Pages
FCC v. Fox TV (10-1293) (OT, 2011) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio and television. In 2004, they changed their policy on what they consider indecent between the hours of 10 a.m and 6 p.m, due to the possibility of children watching or listening. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (Fox) believed that prior notice was necessary for broadcasts in question. The case of FCC v. Fox TV (10-1293) was argued January 10, 2012 - June 21, 2012 (October Term, 2011) (Opinion 1). This argument was about the FCC’s indecency standard being overly vague and unconstitutional. In 1973, the Pacifica Foundation broadcasted George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue. In 1978, the case FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation (Pacifica) (Respondent 26)…show more content…
As well as the FCC giving permission to broadcast indecency after 10 p.m. and their indecency enforcement policy (Petitioner 10). The FCC felt that the S-Word and F-Word were indecent during prime-time airing due to the millions of children watching, which could desensitize the severity of the words used. The First Amendment does not specify when expletive words can be used, leaving room for broadcasting to use these indecent words all day. The use of these indecent words would be implanted into the impressionable minds of children, and those words would be part of their normal vocabulary.The indecency-enforcement regime was created to protect unsupervised children. Some broadcasts do have social value, but it is up to parental discretion to decide what that children should watch (Petitioner 22). Regulation of broadcast indecency does not violate the first amendment. The FCC’s indecency-enforcement policy was designed to protect children from vulgar and offensive material. So, instead of removing all indecent material off television and radio there are hours between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. where indecent material is censored (Petitioner 8). Cable television was becoming more prevalent, but broadcast television was easier to access. Because of the different mediums to watch television, or listen to radio (the internet, cable television) adults have more option to watch a variety of shows that…show more content…
The court should overrule Pacifica because broadcasting is not uniquely pervasive, and broadcasting is not uniquely accessible to children (Respondent 1). Mediums such as Playboy are protected under the First Amendment, but broadcast television is not treated the same. The FCC based their standards on an old and outdated ruling, Pacifica. Under Pacifica, the FCC’s expanded indecency regime is unconstitutional due to the FCC’s interest not being substantial, and the FCC’s current enforcement policy not being narrowly tailored (Respondent 2). Broadcasting has been around long enough to not be considered pervasive. The pervasiveness of broadcast was set on an idea that it was interfering with the privacy of someone’s home, and accessibility of children.The FCC’s regulations based on Pacifica is just a fail-safe. The “pervasiveness” should not be determined by the FCC. Their power to determine what content is viable for television is discriminatory because they are allowed to base presumptions of a network, show or writer into their decision of what to air (Respondent 14). The FCC’s indecency policy is based on the reliance of “collective experience and knowledge, developed through the constant interaction with lawmakers, courts, broadcasters, public interest groups, and ordinary citizens.” (Respondent 9) This information used to determine indecency is qualitative and subjective,

    More about Ffc V. Fox Tv Research Paper

      Open Document