"Fleeting expletives" are the tip of the iceberg: fallout from exposing the arbitrary and capricious nature of indecency regulat

(2.) [section] 1464 provides that "[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." 18 U.S.C. [section] 1464 (2000). See also 47 U.S.C. [section] 312(a)(6) (2000) (authorizing the revocation of station license or building permit for violation of [section] 1464); 47 U.S.C. [section] 503(b)(1)(D) (2000) (authorizing the "imposition of forfeiture[s]" for violating [section] 1464).

(3.) Complaints Regarding Various TV Brdcsts. Between Feb. 2, 2002 and Mar. 8, 2005, Order, 21 F.C.C.R. 13299, para. 15 (2006) [hereinafter Order on Remand].

(4.) GEOFFREY HUGHES, AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SWEARING: THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF OATHS, PROFANITY, FOUL LANGUAGE, AND ETHNIC SLURS IN THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD (2006).

(5.) Id. at 300, 302.

(6.) Id. at 310-11.

(7.) Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1647 (2008).

(8.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 7.

(9.) Fox v. FCC, 489 F.3d at 447.

(10.) CBS Corp. v. FCC, No. 06-3575, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16692, at *3-4, *32-34 (3d Cir. July 21, 2008).

(11.) 5 U.S.C. [section] 706(2)(A) (2006) ("The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law....").

(12.) See, e.g., Pacifica Found. Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 F.C.C.R. 2698, para. 13 (1987) ("If a complaint focuses solely on the use of expletives, we believe that under the legal standards set forth in Pacifica, deliberate and repetitive use in a patently offensive manner is a requisite to a finding of indecency.").

(13.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at paras. 21-23. See also Complaints Against Various Brdcst. Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the "Golden Globe Awards" Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 F.C.C.R. 4975, para. 12 (2004) [hereinafter Golden Globes Order].

(14.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 20.

(15.) Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 447 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1647 (2008).

(16.) Id. at 471 (Leval, J., dissenting).

(17.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 15.

(18.) Fox v. FCC, 489 F.3d at 454.

(19.) Indus. Guidance on the Comm.'s Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S.C. [section] 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Brdcst. Indecency, Policy Statement, 16 F.C.C.R. 7999, para. 4 (2001) [hereinafter Industry Guidance].

(20.) See, e.g Complaints Regarding Various TV Brdcsts. Between Feb. 2, 2002 and Mar. 8, 2005, Notice of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 F.C.C.R. 2664, para. 74 (2006) [hereinafter Omnibus Order] (citing Citizen's Complaint Against Pacifica Found., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 56 F.C.C.2d 94 (1975), for the proposition that any use of the "F-Word" and "S-Word" falls within the first prong of the FCC's indecency definition), vacated in part, 21 F.C.C. 13,299 (Nov. 06, 2006).

(21.) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 128 S.Ct. 1647 (2008) (No. 07-582), 2007 WL 3231567.

(22.) Id. at 30.

(23.) See id. at 29 (noting that the court of appeals' decision "effectively nullifies the prohibition on indecent language found in Section 1464").

(24.) See Brief for the Petitioners at 3-4, FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., No. 07-582 (June 2, 2008), 2008 WL 2308909.

(25.) See id. at 17-18 ("The criticisms by the court of appeals ... have less to do with the Commission's revised policy on isolated expletives than they do with the enterprise of broadcast-indecency enforcement in general.").

(26.) See id. at 21 (referencing Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983)).

(27.) See id. at 21-22.

(28.) See Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 42-43.

(29.) Industry Guidance, supra note 19, at para. 7.

(30.) Id.

(31.) Id. at para. 8.

(32.) See id. at para. 9.

(33.) Id. at para. 10.

(34.) Id. at para. 8 (quoting WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., Memorandum and Order, 15 F.C.C.R. 1838, para. 10 (2000)).

(35.) Infinity Brdcst. Corp. of Pa., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 F.C.C.R. 930, para. 24 (1987) [hereinafter Infinity Broadcasting] (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 107 (1974)).

(36.) Industry Guidance, supra note 19, at para. 8, n.15 (quoting Infinity Broadcasting, supra note 35, at para. 24).

(37.) Hamling, 418 U.S. at 107.

(38.) Joint Comments of Fox TV Stations, Inc., CBS Brdcst., Inc., NBC Universal, Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. at 10-11, Remand of Section III.B of the Comm'n's Omnibus Order, FCC DA 06-1739 (rel. Sept. 21, 2006).

(39.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 28.

(40.) Id.; see also Infinity Radio License, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 F.C.C.R. 5022, para. 12 (2004).

(41.) 5 U.S.C. [section] 706(2)(A) (2000).

(42.) CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & CHARLES H. KOCH, JR., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE [section] 8335 (2006).

(43.) Id.

(44.) See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 21, at 10; see also Brief for the Petitioners, supra note 24, at 20 (describing the FCC's policy change as reasonable explained so that it survives the arbitrary and capricious standard).

(45.) 5 U.S.C. [section] 706 (2006).

(46.) See WRIGHT & KOCH, supra note 42, [section] 8335 (citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)).

(47.) See ALFRED C. AMAN, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCESS: CASES AND MATERIALS 803 (2d ed. 2006).

(48.) 401 U.S. 402 (1971), abrogated by 430 U.S. 99 (1977).

(49.) AMAN, supra note 47, at 804 (quoting Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416).

(50.) Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 46 (1983).

(51.) See id. at 34-36.

(52.) See id. at 37.

(53.) See id. at 38.

(54.) See id. at 38-39.

(55.) Id. at 42-43, 46.

(56.) Id. at 56.

(57.) Id. at 43.

(58.) Id. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

(59.) See id. at 42-43.

(60.) Id. at 43 (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974)).

(61.) 462 U.S. 87 (1983).

(62.) Id. at 97-98 (requiring "only that the agency take a 'hard look' at the environmental consequences before taking a major action ... The role of the courts is simply to ensure that the agency has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious.").

(63.) Id. at 103.

(64.) See Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 455, 458 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1647 (2008).

(65.) See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, supra note 21, at 19; see also Brief for the Petitioners, supra note 24, at 20 (arguing that the FCC should survive arbitrary and capricious review because the FCC gave a reasonable explanation for its policy change).

(66.) See, e.g., Julie Hilden, The Fight Over "Fleeting Expletives": How A Grant of Supreme Court Review May Lead to Expanded FCC Power and Reduced First Amendment Rights for Broadcasters, FINDLAW, Mar. 31, 2008, http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/hilden/20080331.html (stating that the reviewing court has to hold that the FCC failed to articulate a reasoned basis for the policy in order to find it arbitrary and capricious under the APA-"[n]ot 'reasonable'--simply 'reasoned'").

(67.) See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947)).

(68.) See id. at 46-57.

(69.) See id. at 56.

(70.) See id.

(71.) See id. at 43.

(72.) See Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97-98 (1983).

(73.) Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 455 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1647 (2008).

(74.) Id. at 457.

(75.) The Supreme Court, in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (197l), found that those in a Los Angeles courthouse who did not care to be bombarded with the "Fuck the Draft" message on Cohen's jacket should simply avert their eyes.

(76.) See FCC v. Pacifica Found., Inc., 438 U.S. 726, 748-49 (1978).

(77.) See Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 25.

(78.) See id. at para. 23.

(79.) Id. at paras. 23, 58.

(80.) Id. at para. 25.

(81.) Id. at para. 23 (emphasis added).

(82.) See id. at para. 15; Industry Guidance, supra note 19, at para. 9 (noting that full context is critical to an indecency determination).

(83.) See Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F.3d 444, 458 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 1647 (2008).

(84.) Id. at 452.

(85.) See Omnibus Order, supra note 20, at para. 137; Order on Remand, supra note 3.

(86.) Omnibus Order, supra note 20, at para. 139, para. 141.

(87.) Fox v. FCC, 489 F.3d at 453.

(88.) Order on Remand, supra note 3, at paras. 72-73.

(89.) See Fox v. FCC, 489 F.3d at 458.

(90.) See id. at 459 (citing Order on Remand, supra note 3, at para. 23).

(91.) Fox v. FCC, 489 F.3d at 460 n.10.

(92.) Id. at 459.

(93.) See id.

(94.) Complaints Against Various Brdcst. Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the "Golden Globe Awards" Program, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 F.C.C.R. 19859, para. 2 (2003) [hereinafter Golden Globes Bureau Decision], rev'd by Golden Globes Order, supra note 13.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates