FCC Appeals Super Bowl Indecency Decision to Supremes

[alp227]

Source: Broadcasting & Cable

The FCC Tuesday filed an appeal to the Supreme Court asking it to review the Second Circuit decision throwing out the FCC's $550,000 fine against CBS for the Janet Jackson Super Bowl halftime show reveal as arbitrary and capricious.

But the FCC also asked the court to hold the petition in abeyance until it had ruled on the commission's challenge of another indecency decision, the Second Circuit's ruling that its indecency finding against Fox (referred to as the Fox II case) for profanity on an awards show was also out of bounds.

The court is expected to weigh in on that challenge within the next couple of months. "The court's decision in Fox II may shed light on the proper resolution of this case," said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the petition --the SG's office handles Supreme Court arguments for the FCC. "This petition therefore should be held for Fox II and then disposed of as appropriate in light of the court's decision."

The FCC argues in its petition that the Third Circuit erred in finding its fleeting images indecency policy was an "arbitrary and capricious" departure from precedent. By misconstruing that policy, said the FCC, the court "contravened settled principles governing the deference due to an administrative agency's reasonable understanding of its own decisions."


Read more: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/483292-FCC_Appeals_Super_Bowl_Indecency_Decision_to_Supremes.php

[cindyperry2010]

1. God it was just a boob

get over it

[leftyohiolib]

4. just like 5 of the sc judges

[intaglio]

5. It was worse than that

It was a really tacky nipple ornament.

Still, no need to punish anyone for it.

[caseymoz]

2. Hard to say which way this could go.

I'll give the Roberts' Court credit: they are solid about free speech. They allowed horribly violent video games. However, Scalia has opined that sexual obscenity was the one exception. I don't know how he reasons this out, but it seems that many on the left would say that, too.

If they rule a half-mil fine stands for a single boob (meaning Janet Jackson has a million dollar rack?) then they'd be setting the violation threshold pretty low.

[24601]

6. It's been almost 40 years, but my recollection (from constitutional Law 301) is that while the

Last edited Wed Apr 18, 2012, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

1st Amendment doesn't protect obscenity, pornography not rising to the level of obscenity is covered. Those definitions however aren't the only valid regulations when it's a public broadcast.

My prediction is that the FCC reached too far - and that even if it has some powers to regulate the broadcast, the FCC fine is disproportionate to the "offense."

[Edited to clarify - Con Law 301 wasn't law school but during undergrad]

[Smilo]

3. Is this all they have to do?

Stop wasting money.

We see more than what Janet had to offer in various programs and ads all the time.

[shcrane71]

7. The FCC has time to pursue this, but not the hate-speech over US airwaves via

Limbaugh and AM radio hosts?

Regulatory capture.

[alp227]

9. Hate speech arguably has more 1st amendment protection than nudity.

And there are various laws in the books that make public nudity a crime. Not hate speech though.

[shcrane71]

11. And not equal time for various viewpoints... oh wait, the FCC *is* supposed

ensure that the use of the US airwaves is distributed fairly. Well, we know that they're not doing that. I guess that should be enough for us.

I can readily fathom the day when almost all Americans have no faith in regulatory agencies because they don't do their jobs. If a police force looks the other way instead of enforcing laws, the public soon becomes distrustful of the police. Same thing is happening with the FCC.

[hifiguy]

8. How much money and attorney time has been

pissed away on this most frivolous of cases? Can't someone in the DOJ say enough is enough. Or is that simply not within the power of the POTUS to tell the AG?

[former9thward]

10. Either Holder or Obama could shut down this case.

Nothing forces them to appeal the appellate court decision.

[alp227]

12. Good luck when campaign ads depict the wardrobe malfunction

Last edited Thu Apr 19, 2012, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

with Mr. president's head over Justin Timberlake's, if obama threw out the appeal.

[former9thward]

13. The appeal doesn't matter anyway.

The appeal was a technical formality. The SC is hearing another indecency case, Fox II, which will decide the Jackson case.