DOCSLIB.ORG

Janet Jackson, the FCC and Indecency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Janet Jackson, the FCC and Indecency It was the Breast of Times, It was the Worst of Fines: Janet Jackson, The FCC and Indecency Interviewer: Emily Broeckaert Interviewee: Robert Ratcliffe Instructor: Alex Haight Date of Submission: February 13, 2013 Table of Contents Interviewee Release Form.................................................................................................P.2 Statement of Purpose.........................................................................................................P.3 Biography..........................................................................................................................P.4 Historical Contextualization..............................................................................................P.6 Interview Transcription.....................................................................................................P.22 Interview Analysis.............................................................................................................P.45 Appendix 1........................................................................................................................P.51 Appendix 2........................................................................................................................P.52 Works Consulted...............................................................................................................P.56 Broeckaert 3 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to explore the history of obscenity and indecency laws in the United States from the 1800’s to the present to better understand the reaction from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to the Janet Jackson Superbowl Halftime Show Incident in 2004. This media event prompted numerous complaints to the FCC against CBS for allowing indecent material to air on a national broadcast in prime time. An interview with the FCC’s Deputy Chief of the Media Bureau, Robert Ratcliffe provides an insiders perspective on the events following the broadcast and what contributed to the FCC’s eventual loss in court. Broeckaert 4 Biography Robert H. Ratcliffe was born in Jackson, Mississippi in1945. He attended the Landon School and Trinity College before joining the Army. In the Army he served as a U.S. Army, Medical Service Corps in the administrative support for the Medical Corps, a Company Commander, US Army Hospital in Bremerhaven, Germany, and finally as the Command Medical Historian for the US Army in Long Binh, Vietnam. He left active duty as a Captain after three years of service. When he got out of the Army he attended the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts/Harvard University (A.M.) and later Boston University School of Law (J.D.). After completing Law School, Robert worked as a Law Clerk at Herrick, Smith, Donald, Farley and Ketchum Law Firm in Boston. He then joined the FCC where he worked in various positions including as the Division Chief in the original Cable Television Bureau, until it merged with the Broadcast Bureau to form the Mass Media Bureau around 1981. Later on he worked as the Broeckaert 5 Deputy Bureau Chief of the Mass Media Bureau, the Media Advisor in Chairman Sikes’ Office and various positions including Deputy Bureau Chief of the Media Bureau (successor to the Mass Media Bureau), Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, Acting Chief of the Media Bureau during the digital television transition; and, currently, Deputy Chief, Media Bureau. While Working in for the FCC Robert was involved in many notorious FCC events, notably the $2.5 million dollar fines issued to Howard Stern, and as head of the Media Bureau and worked with the Enforcement Bureau during the case FCC v. CBS, better known as the Janet Jackson Halftime Show Incident. After all of his years of service in the FCC he received the FCC Lifetime Achievement Award in 2012. Robert has had an interest in communications since he was a teenager. He became amateur radio operator at 16. He married in 1971 and has two sons. He has lived in various locations in his life including Seattle, WA; San Antonio, TX; Arlington, VA; Ankara, Turkey; Hyattsville, MD; Charlottesville, VA; Bethesda, MD; Bremerhaven, Germany; Long Binh, Vietnam; Watertown (Boston), MA; and Adelphi, MD. He currently lives in Bethesda Maryland. Broeckaert 6 Historical Contextualization: From Obscenity to Indecency: A History From the 1800’s to 2012 Phyllis Schlafly wrote on February 11, 2004, about the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime show, and that the event proved why, “The radical Muslims who criticize our culture as degraded and demoralizing now have new proof for their charges.” (Schlafly 2.) Within nine-sixteenths of a second during Super Bowl XXXVIII, an incident occurred and was broadcasted on television, and created a national uproar. The Janet Jackson Superbowl Incident became one of the biggest events in television history. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had not dealt with an event as controversial since George Carlin uttered his “Seven Dirty Words You Can Never Say On Television” in 1972. Again the question was raised of what role the FCC should play in regulating indecency. Even before the FCC1 was established, what was considered obscene material caused debates in America, dating back to when the United States banned the erotic novel Fanny Hill2 in 1821. The legality of the FCC’s regulation of the entertainment industry had been challenged before, but not to the extent of the Super Bowl incident. To understand the court battles of FCC v. CBS3 one must first examine the early stages of Americas reaction to obscenity in literature, moving then to the evolution of radio with George Carlin and indecency, as well as gain a firsthand perspective from someone who was a part of FCC v. CBS and how indecent material should be regulated in todays world. Broeckaert 7 Defined as material that deals with sexuality in a way that government officials want to censor it as it offends the morals of that time, obscenity has existed since the Roman Empire established the Office of Censor in 443 BC. As a young country America experienced the issue 1 The Federal Communications Commission was established on June 19, 1934 2 Novel by John Cleland first published in England in 1748, also goes by the other title of The Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure 3 FCC v. CBS was the name of the court case about the Janet Jackson Super Bowl Incident of obscenity in the 1800s, only a few years after the Bills of Rights was enacted4 with the First Amendment, granting the Freedom of the Press and Speech. The earliest obscenity trial in the United States was the case Commonwealth v. Sharpless in 1815. The case was about an obscene painting of a man and a woman. During the trial it was admitted that, “The court, by referring to other laws not specifically related to this case, had noted that the law did not allow lascivious, lewd, or obscene publications--the types of publications that are widely distributed today.” (Edwards, 1.) Sharpless tried to defend himself by stating that the painting was located in his home and not a public place. He was ultimately found guilty, but appealed as there was no statute in Pennsylvania against obscenity at the time. The judgement was affirmed, since the prosecution of obscenity was not barred. This is an example of moral legislation being based off of Biblical standards during the time. Obscene paintings or other images were not often found offensive, but the development of obscenity in literature soon received attention. The first well known conflict in America with obscene literature was the banned erotic novel Fanny Hill in 18215. The novel was about the life of a prostitute in London, and the writing had no restraints when describing sexual scenes. This was the first obscenity case involving a book in the United States. The novel existed years before, but in censored versions. Not until 1821, when Peter Broeckaert 8 Holmes published the novel in its original script, did people begin to react negatively. Chief Justice Isaac Parker declared that the publisher was a “‘scandalous and evil disposed person’ who had contrived to ‘debauch and corrupt’ the citizens of the commonwealth” (Karolidies, 285). Though obscenity was usually portrayed in images and sometimes in news, the United States never had to deal with obscene literature, making it the first court case about it. As 4 Bill of Rights was enacted on December 15, 1791 5 Though many books also were banned at this time and following, Fanny Hill was original banned novel for obscenity rather than religious or political issues in other novels. literature was one of the only few forms of entertainment back in the 1800s to the early 1900s, anything obscene could cause just as much controversy as obscene radio or television. The government did not only attempt to get rid of obscenity in literature. The Federal Comstock Law6 was passed which made mail containing obscene letters, pictures, or contraceptive devices illegal. The penalties for breaking this law were severe, as preventing obscenity became a more popular crusade in America and anyone who tried mailing anything obscene, “Shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.” (Thomas, 1.) The law led to many arrests as the Comstock’s main crusade was to stop the availability of contraceptives as they were viewed as lewd, immoral, and promoting promiscuity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brief of Petitioner for FCC V. Fox Television Stations, 07-582
    No. 07-582 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners, v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. _________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________________ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS ___________________ Craig L. Parshall Joseph C. Chautin III Counsel of Record Elise M. Stubbe General Counsel Mark A. Balkin National Religious Co-Counsel Broadcasters Hardy, Carey, Chautin 9510 Technology Dr. & Balkin, LLP Manassas, VA 20110 1080 West Causeway 703-331-4517 Approach Mandeville, LA 70471 985-629-0777 QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Amicus adopts the question presented as presented by Petitioner. The question presented for review is as follows: Whether the court of appeals erred in striking down the Federal Communications Commission’s determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language,” 18 U.S.C. § 1464, see 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999, when the expletives are not repeated. i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................v INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................x STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................xii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................xii ARGUMENT ..............................................................1 I. THE FCC’S REASONS FOR ADJUSTING ITS INDECENCY POLICY WERE RATIONAL AND REASONABLE .....................1 A. The Court of Appeals Failed to Give the Required Deference and Latitude to the FCC ..................................................1 B. The FCC Gave Sufficient and Adequate Reasoning Why its Prior Indecency Policy Regarding Fleeting Expletives was Unworkable and Required Adjustment .................................3 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Et Al., Petitioners, V
    No. 10-1293 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Petitioners, v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., et al., Respondents. _________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________ BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS CENTER FOR CREATIVE VOICES IN MEDIA AND THE FUTURE OF MUSIC COALITION _________ *Andrew Jay Schwartzman Chrystiane B. Pereira Media Access Project 1625 K Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 232-4300 [email protected] November 3, 2011 * Counsel of Record i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals properly determined that the Federal Communications Commission‘s (FCC) context-based indecency policy is unconsti- tutionally vague and accordingly unenforceable. ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Center for Creative Voices in Media and Future of Music Coalition (jointly ―Cen- ter‖) respectfully submit this corporate disclosure statement. The Center of Creative Voices in Media does not have a parent company and no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of stock therein. The Future of Music Coalition does not have a parent company and no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of stock therein. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED........................................... i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv STATEMENT .............................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 6 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 8 I. Nothing in Pacifica Authorizes the FCC‘s New Indecency Policy ...................... 9 A. Pacifica Was A Narrow Ruling Proceeding From the Expecta- tion That The Commission Would Tread Cautiously ..................... 10 B. The FCC‘s Impermissibly Va- gue New Policy Has Had A Chilling Effect ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting
    631 RICHARD & WEINERT 2/28/2013 3:57 PM PUNTING IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT‘S RED ZONE: THE SUPREME COURT‘S ―INDECISION‖ ON THE FCC‘S INDECENCY REGULATIONS LEAVES BROADCASTERS STILL SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS Robert D. Richards* & David J. Weinert** I. INTRODUCTION Just one week before rendering its controversial landmark decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act1— arguably the most anticipated ruling of the October 2011 Term—the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped the longstanding question of whether the First Amendment, given today‘s multifaceted media landscape, no longer permits the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcast indecency on the nation‘s airwaves. The Court‘s narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.2 (―Fox II‖) let broadcasters off the hook for the specific on-air transgressions that brought the case to the Court‘s docket— twice3—but did little to resolve the larger looming issue of whether such content regulations have become obsolete. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, instead concluded that ―[t]he Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent.‖4 As a result of this lack of notice, ―the Commission‘s standards as applied * John & Ann Curley Professor of First Amendment Studies and Founding Director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at The Pennsylvania State University. Member of the Pennsylvania Bar. ** Lecturer, Communication Arts & Sciences and Ph.D. candidate, Mass Communications, The Pennsylvania State University. 1 See Nat‘l Fed‘n of Indep.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School Donald P
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications BROADCASTING, THE FCC, AND PROGRAMMING REGULATION: A NEW DIRECTION IN INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT A Dissertation in Mass Communications by David J. Weinert Ó 2018 David J. Weinert Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2018 The dissertation of David J. Weinert was reviewed and approved* by the following: Robert D. Richards John and Ann Curley Distinguished Professor of First Amendment Studies Dissertation Advisor and Chair of Committee Robert M. Frieden Pioneer Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law Matthew S. Jackson Head, Department of Telecommunications and Associate Professor Thomas M. Place Professor of Law, The Dickinson School of Law at Penn State Matthew P. McAllister Chair of Graduate Programs and Professor *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ABSTRACT The U.S. Supreme Court, in June 2012, left broadcasters in a “holding pattern” by dodging the longstanding question of whether the Federal Communications Commission’s broadcast indecency policy can survive constitutional scrutiny today given the vastly changed media landscape. The high court’s narrow ruling in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. exonerated broadcasters for the specific on-air improprieties that brought the case to its attention, but did little to resolve the larger and more salient issue of whether such content regulations have become archaic. As a result, the Commission continues to police the broadcast airwaves, recently sanctioning a Roanoke, Virginia television station $325,000 for alleged broadcast indecency. This dissertation yields an in-depth analysis and synthesis of the legal obstacles the FCC will encounter in attempting to establish any revamped policy governing broadcast indecency.
    [Show full text]
  • The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television
    Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Issue 5 2015 The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television Ellen Alexandra Eichner Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Alexandra Eichner, The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television, 92 WASH. U. L. REV. 1353 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss5/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SEVEN DIRTY WORDS YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY ON TELEVISION I. INTRODUCTION Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.1 For any American who has turned on his or her television since 1978 and tuned into one of the traditional broadcast networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox—these seven words have been conspicuously absent from broadcasting. Confusingly, with a flip of the remote over to a premium cable television station, these seven words may all occur in quick succession on one television show.2 When one of them does happen to make it to air on a broadcast network, it often becomes the source of an astronomical fine from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and years of litigation between the network and the federal government.3 A recent case resulted in a huge victory for broadcasters.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 65 Admin
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2013 "Smut and Nothing But": The CF C, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, "Smut and Nothing But": The FCC, Indecency, and Regulatory Transformations in the Shadows, 65 Admin. L. Rev. 509 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES "SMUT AND NOTHING BUT"*: THE FCC, INDECENCY, AND REGULATORY TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE SHADOWS LILI LEVI" TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .......................................... 511 I. The FCC's Indecency Regime ................................519 A. History of Indecency Regulation .............. ...... 520 B. The Indecency Policy in the Courts ................... 530 II. Beyond Fleeting Expletives-The Full Range of Changes to the FCC's Indecency Policy ................ ................... 536 A. Changes Regarding Remedies............. ................. 537 1. Fines..................... ...............
    [Show full text]
  • But[T]... the Federal Communications Commission Will Not Let
    WLR45-2_QUALE_EIC2_SAC_12_16_08_CQ_FINAL_REVIEW 12/18/2008 11:35:12 AM HEAR AN [EXPLETIVE], THERE AN [EXPLETIVE], BUT[T] . THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WILL NOT LET YOU SAY AN [EXPLETIVE] COURTNEY LIVINGSTON QUALE∗ I. AN OVERVIEW Broadcast television and broadcast radio2 are integral parts of American society. So integral, in fact, that often these mediums are taken for granted. To many Americans, broadcast television and broadcast radio are one of the few free things left in life. Anyone who owns a ten dollar radio or a fifty dollar television can watch their favorite new episode of Grey’s Anatomy, Sixty Minutes, or Lost and listen to their favorite songs or commentary on KNRK, Z100, or NPR. Because broadcast television and broadcast radio are typically taken for granted, hardly anyone questions the conditions that a regulatory governmental agency places upon the organizations that ∗ J.D. Willamette University College of Law, May 2008; B.S. University of Miami, May 2005. I would like to thank those who not only have helped me with this article, but also those who have helped me reach this point in my life—a point at which my thoughts are of a publishable quality. I thank you all most kindly. From the University of Miami I want to thank Professors S.L. Harrison and Robert Stahr Hosmon, who initially cultivated any writing talent I may have. Also from Miami, I would like to thank Professors Cynthia Cordes and Danny Paskin, who have unabashedly encouraged me over years. From Willamette University College of Law I want to thank Professor Ed Harri and Rachael Rogers, again for helping me learn how to write, think, and analyze.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Remand of Section III.B of the Commission’s ) DA 06-1739 March 15, 2006 Omnibus Order Resolving ) Numerous Broadcast Television Indecency ) Complaints ) JOINT COMMENTS OF FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS BROADCASTING INC., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. AND NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. Ellen S. Agress Carter G. Phillips Maureen O’Connell R. Clark Wadlow FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. James P. Young 1211 Avenue of the Americas Jennifer Tatel New York, NY 10036 David S. Petron (212) 252-7204 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Fox Television Stations, Inc. Susanna Lowy Robert Corn-Revere Anne Lucey Ronald G. London CBS BROADCASTING, INC. Amber L. Husbands 51 West 52nd Street DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP New York, NY 10019 1500 K Street, N.W., Suite 450 (212) 975-3406 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 508-6600 Counsel for CBS Broadcasting Inc. Susan Weiner Miguel A. Estrada F. William LeBeau Andrew S. Tulumello NBC UNIVERSAL, INC. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. New York, NY 10112 Washington, DC 20036-5306 (202) 995-8500 Counsel for NBC Universal, Inc. and NBC Telemundo License Co. September 21, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. THE COMMISSION’S NEW INDECENCY ENFORCEMENT REGIME VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. ...........................................5 II. THE CURRENT INDECENCY REGIME, AS IT RELATES TO POTENTIALLY OFFENSIVE WORDS, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ............................6 A. The Current Indecency Regime Is Unconstitutionally Vague And Impermissibly Chills Protected Speech.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement
    Duquesne Law Review Volume 48 Number 3 Article 7 2010 The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, is Not Arbitrary and Capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Brittany A. Roof Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brittany A. Roof, The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, is Not Arbitrary and Capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 48 Duq. L. Rev. 699 (2010). Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol48/iss3/7 This Recent Decision is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Duquesne Law Review by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. The Federal Communication Commission's New Enforcement Policy, Which Penalizes Broadcasters for Airing Even a "Fleeting Expletive" in Violation of the Statutory Indecency Ban, Is Not Arbitrary and Capricious Under the Administrative Procedure Act: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE-Ju~iCIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS-SCOPE OF JuDiciAL REVIEW-The Supreme Court of the United States held that an independent government agency, such as the FCC, must only show good reason for changing its prior policy to be in compliance with the Adminis- trative Procedure Act. The agency is not required to articulate why the new policy is, in fact, a better choice than its prior policy.
    [Show full text]
  • When Does 'F--- Not Mean 'F---: FCC V. Fox Television Stations and A
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 64 Issue 1 Article 2 12-2011 When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a Call for Protecting Emotive Speech W. Wat Hopkins Virginia Tech Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Litigation Commons Recommended Citation Hopkins, W. Wat (2011) "When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a Call for Protecting Emotive Speech," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 64 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol64/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: FCC v. Fox Television Stations and a Call for Protecting Emotive Speech W. Wat Hopkins* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1 II. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. Fox TELEVISION STATIONS, INC........................................ 7 III. ANTECEDENTS TO Fox TELEVISION STATIONS . .............. 15 A. Cohen and Emotive Speech..............16 B. Pacifica and "Words You Never Say ............... 21 IV. CHAPLINSKY, COHEN AND BEYOND ........................ 23 V. WHEN DOES F*** NOT MEAN F***? . 30 VI. THE F-WORD--THE NEXT ROUND ...................... 37 VII. AN EMOTIVE SPEECH DOCTRINE? . .. .. .. ..39 VIII. BROADCAST MEDIA AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT................42 IX. CONCLUSION ................................ ...... 45 1. INTRODUCTION Almost since the beginning of its First Amendment jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of the United States has had a love-hate relationship with words.
    [Show full text]
  • Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE SPOKEN ON POPULAR MORNING RADIO PROGRAMS By MEGAN FITZGERALD A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Megan Fitzgerald defended on October 31, 2007. Barry Sapolsky Professor Directing Dissertation Colleen Kelley Outside Committee Member Jay Rayburn Committee Member Gary Heald Committee Member Steven McClung Committee Member Approved: Stephen McDowell, Chair, Communication John K. Mayo, Dean, Communication The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Patrick and Kathleen Fitzgerald. Thank you for supporting all that I do—even when I wanted to grow up to be the Pope. By watching you, I learned the power of teaching by example. And, you set the best. Thank you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was completed under the guidance of my major professor, Dr. Barry Sapolsky. Dr. Sapolsky not only served as my major professor, but also as a mentor throughout my entire graduate program. He was a constant source of encouragement, motivation, and, at times, realism. In addition to serving on my committee, he also gave me the opportunity to work in the Communication Research Center.
    [Show full text]
  • A New “Slant” on Pacifica?
    A New “Slant” on Pacifica? BY LEITA WALKER AND MICHAEL GIUDICESSI o paraphrase one observer: in Pacifica,” the Federal Circuit tried to Though its members diverged in their somewhere up there, George explain.6 reasoning, the Supreme Court unani- Carlin is smiling.1 Even so, there’s hope for vulgarity- mously affirmed (Justice Gorsuch took First, in June 2017, in loving true believers (a small but fierce no part in consideration or decision of TMatal v. Tam,2 the Supreme Court contingent, we imagine) that Carlin the case). struck as unconstitutional the Lan- may freely shout his seven dirty words The government raised three ham Act’s prohibition on the from the afterlife with the metaphysi- arguments in defense of the dispar- registration of “disparaging” trade- cal knowledge that, “in this electronic/ agement clause: (1) that trademarks marks, ruling that “[s]peech may Internet age,” Federal Communica- are a form of government speech, not be banned on the ground that it tions Commission (FCC) licensees rendering the First Amendment inap- expresses ideas that offend.” may broadcast them without fear or plicable, (2) that they are a form of Then, in December 2017, the Fed- sanction. government subsidy, and the gov- eral Circuit decided In re Brunetti,3 The hope stems in part from Asso- ernment is not required to subsidize striking a similar prohibition barring ciate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s activities it does not wish to pro- registration of “immoral” or “scandal- public statement that Pacifica “was mote, and (3) that a new test—a ous”
    [Show full text]